The UK Triple Dip Recession

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - ok., I'll bite,

I wasn't fishing.

Well, o.k. then.

The problem with your comment is that you (a) aren't suggesting what economic theory has been shown to work for the vast number of people any better than neoliberal economics, and (b) your basic premise that the UK has been a good example of neoliberal economics in action is a false one. So, your conclusion doesn't follow -- well, it follows, but only from an erroneous premise. And, conclusions based on erroneous premises are useless.

[Clinton Huxley]

0.3%! In the back of the net. That's like me getting 5mm taller. In Huxley units.

[PsychoSerenity]

Well, o.k. then.

The problem with your comment is that you (a) aren't suggesting what economic theory has been shown to work for the vast number of people any better than neoliberal economics, and (b) your basic premise that the UK has been a good example of neoliberal economics in action is a false one. So, your conclusion doesn't follow -- well, it follows, but only from an erroneous premise. And, conclusions based on erroneous premises are useless.

Thirty fucking years of privatisation and deregulation, leaving us with ever increasing wealth disparity and crumbling public services - how the fuck is that not neoliberal economics in action? Yet you declare it to be false based on no evidence whatsoever and therefore my conclusion is coming from an erroneous premise? Fuck off.

And you say I'm not suggesting anything? Does "long term infrastructure investments" not sound like a suggestion to you? If you want a specific example of economies that have been working better than ours, the Nordic model is clearly a step in the right direction.

And there are plenty of other economic theories - something making use of Rawls' Difference Principle would be good. Why the fuck do I need to suggest an alternative that has been shown to work? The fact that what we've got has been shown not to work is enough reason to try something else - even something untested as long as there's decent theory behind it - otherwise you'd always just be maintaining the status quo like a good little conservative because you're not currently getting hurt and you're too scared of that changing to risk helping those that are suffering. If everyone limits themselves to what has been shown to work, nothing would ever change.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, o.k. then.

The problem with your comment is that you (a) aren't suggesting what economic theory has been shown to work for the vast number of people any better than neoliberal economics, and (b) your basic premise that the UK has been a good example of neoliberal economics in action is a false one. So, your conclusion doesn't follow -- well, it follows, but only from an erroneous premise. And, conclusions based on erroneous premises are useless.

Thirty fucking years of privatisation and deregulation, leaving us with ever increasing wealth disparity and crumbling public services - how the fuck is that not neoliberal economics in action? Yet you declare it to be false based on no evidence whatsoever and therefore my conclusion is coming from an erroneous premise? Fuck off.

Some privatization does not equal neoliberal economics. Neoliberal economics would not include a National Health Service. Britain has been following the mainstream prescriptions of Keynesianism as much or more than any other developed nation. It has cut interest rates, pumped up government spending, printed money like crazy, and nationalized almost half the banking industry. British stimulation of the economy was a Keynesian prescription.

And you say I'm not suggesting anything? Does "long term infrastructure investments" not sound like a suggestion to you?

No, I said you did not suggest an alternative economic theory that has been shown to have worked for the majority of the population. You said neoliberalism has been shown to have failed for the majority of the people -- well, what theory works? Keynesian economics? What?

If you want a specific example of economies that have been working better than ours, the Nordic model is clearly a step in the right direction.

Very much free market economies - regulated free markets.

And there are plenty of other economic theories - something making use of Rawls' Difference Principle would be good.

That's been proven to have worked for the majority of a population? The Rawls' difference principle is not an economic theory, anyway. It's just one of his basic principles -- and states in some general terms that inequalities should only be permitted to the extent they benefit the most disadvantaged group. It's not an economic theory like neoliberal classical economics, Keynesian economics or the like.

Why the fuck do I need to suggest an alternative that has been shown to work?

You don't have to do anything. But, if all you can do is falsely claim that Britain has been some crucible of neoliberal economics, proving such economics to be bogus, and not offer another alternative that we can look at, then you're really just farting in the wind.

The fact that what we've got has been shown not to work is enough reason to try something else

Sure, so we should abandon Keynesian economics, since that's primarily been the bulwark of British economic policy.

- even something untested as long as there's decent theory behind it - otherwise you'd always just be maintaining the status quo like a good little conservative because you're not currently getting hurt and you're too scared of that changing to risk helping those that are suffering. If everyone limits themselves to what has been shown to work, nothing would ever change.

I'm all for abandoning the status quote. So, let's stop with the stimulus, privatize the banking industry, stop printing money, etc. Let's not squash interest rates and such. That sort of Keynesianism obviously not working.

[PsychoSerenity]

Coito your habit of picking apart and replying to a post sentence by sentence while each time ignoring those that were around it as if each sentence was supposed to stand on it's own against an often poor argument you subsequently attack it with, makes it utterly ridiculous trying to converse with you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito your habit of picking apart and replying to a post sentence by sentence while each time ignoring those that were around it as if each sentence was supposed to stand on it's own against an often poor argument you subsequently attack it with, makes it utterly ridiculous trying to converse with you.

That's total bullshit. I addressed your post in its entirety. I addressed the discrete points in your post discretely.

I didn't ignore sentences that were around other sentences. Nothing of yours was taken out of context. Your response here is tripe.

Look - you claimed the UK was a neoliberal economic system which proved that neoliberal economics doesn't work. Nothing could be further from the truth. To call the UK "neoliberal" is to ignore it's largely Keynesian policy set.