ChezGiven

What a fuck up by Demichelis. Jonas does fuck all in that position, picks it up and knocks it square at best.

The government gives money for booze to alcoholics? It's medication. Surprised they don't get a voucher for Diamond White. Am genuinely gob-smacked. Its not medication, its fucking retarded.

The government gives money for booze to alcoholics?

I think in a nutshell he's saying those who can, do.....Those who cant .....Teach Bold out the key arguments in that for me will you. You use the phrase nutshell, so nutshell the article in one or two sentences for me. I am struggling to see where he has dealt with the arguments that a stimulus will pay for itself through growth. He says "Unfortunately, a good deal of the argument about fiscal consolidation is about the timing of economic recovery, the appetite for risk in the private sector and the second and third order effects of fiscal tightening. This kind of judgment in my experience has never been the forte of economists." Which does not constitute an argument. Apart from that, it has no substance. My point is that there are plenty out there on both sides of the argument ...Take this article... http://www.businessinsider.com/stimulus-is...d-advice-2010-6 By that token, your posts on here are evidence of the other side of the argument since all you need to do is quote a website where someone appears to disagree without either displaying an understanding of the issues, or a well-argued counter position. Thats why i stick to nobel prize winning economists without political allegiances, rather than 'businessinsider.com'. I mean, what does that first sentence even mean? Governements spend more in recessions, its a fact. Does he mean they 'ought to' spend more? Or what? When the writer cant articulate the sentence / argument coherently, i am a little sceptical of everthing else. I'll nutshell his argument this time - banks dont employ hardcore macro-economists, there must be a reason for that. Fuck me, where to start.

Well without getting to side tracked down this route..Sir Alan Budd, all over the news today, economist appointed by George Osbourne to give economic forecasts. I appreciate economists dont make decisions in government and I dont recall saying they did. Your last point with regard to objective advice is entirely wrong, for The Tories The whole reason the office for budgetary control was set up was to prevent chancellors (such as Brown and Darling) fiddling the growth figures. Or fiddling the deficit figures which are a lot lower than Cameron said they were. Shame for him really, already made to look like a liar.

I think in a nutshell he's saying those who can, do.....Those who cant .....Teach Bold out the key arguments in that for me will you. You use the phrase nutshell, so nutshell the article in one or two sentences for me. I am struggling to see where he has dealt with the arguments that a stimulus will pay for itself through growth. He says "Unfortunately, a good deal of the argument about fiscal consolidation is about the timing of economic recovery, the appetite for risk in the private sector and the second and third order effects of fiscal tightening. This kind of judgment in my experience has never been the forte of economists." Which does not constitute an argument. Apart from that, it has no substance.

So, i'll ask again, which economists are employed by the government? Politicians dont sit around with economists whilst drawing up political strategies or statements to the media. The OECD told them to cut the deficit, they arent 'economic advisors', they are independent paris-based institution. They take advice (of course, we all do) but they dont employ them to sit with them making decisions. Those are political advisors. The point being that objective advice is not what they want, they want advice which pushes their political agenda. If the markets demand austerity, then the politically expedient thing to do is to give it to them. Demanding austerity is not a form of 'advice', its a vested interest.

So basically the majority of the worlds leaders and their highly paid economic advisors are wrong and a few blogging economists are right. Go Figure. Which highly paid economic advisors? Politicians have political advisors, not economic ones. As for 'blogging economists', i tend not to be abusive in these sort of discussion but dont blow your mong-trumpet in my direction without expecting to be shouted down as an idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman Anyway, the point being that yes, they are wrong as is now demonstrated by the US experience in 1937 and the Japanese experience in 1996. we are in a liquidity trap and given interest rates close to zero, the DSGE modelled multiplier is 1.5 not 0.4 as the right-wing ideologues would tell us. The question why they are being advised to do this is a pertinent one. The people doing the advising are the city economists who are funding the debt and are paid to manage the risk of their investments. They lend money to the government (i.e. invest in the government) and want them to improve their risk profile for portfolio diversification purposes. They are all, to a man, Friedman-inspired monetarists and believe people like Krugman are using out-dated ISLM models. They are not and they are wrong. Every single economist worth their salt (i.e. is not a capitalist idelogist) predicts the response of the UK government will prolong the recession. People like Stiglitz have been arguing for years against 'fiscal austerity'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization...Its_Discontents

The lunatics are back in charge of the economy and they want cuts, cuts, cuts Franklin D Roosevelt's mistake wasn't boosting the economy with government spending, it was heeding the advice of the deficit hawks when he sought re-election and tipping the US economy back into recession http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ju...ankin-roosevelt

Only half of the story, the key data being The correct response to the deficit is expansionary fiscal stimulus yet the question still remains, why exactly are the politicians calling for fiscal austerity? What evidence do we have that fiscal austerity of the kind they’re demanding would reassure markets, even if they did lose confidence?

I think we should do away with national anthems before games, serve no purpose whatsoever. None of the players seem comfortable having a camera shoved in their face to dissect their facial muscle movements during a song that is meaningless to them. Why bother?

Also, dont know why everyone is creaming themselves over Germany. Australia were turbo shit, our Championship side was better than them today.

The vuvuzelas are spoiling it for television and lets face it, the world cup is a television event. Wonder what it sounds like in the ground?

Yes it's my first Craig. It's been a long time since I felt this clueless. It is magic though, she is super cute.

Surely the point was though they weren't fucking English. They were also brought in by Richard Coeur de Lion who spoke very little English and spent 3 months of his Life in England. He was however bisexual so must have liked a party. No, the point was they weren't french. If you want to be loose with the definition, then you would have to say the english are really just french. Even if you take that point of view, the OP was talking shit since the regions represented by the lions are intrinsically linked historically and if it doesnt matter what nationality they represent, they represent historically connected regions and peoples. So belong together.

Fair enough Kev, fucking embarrassing from Green. Should have won it, the only thing USA can take from the game psychologically is that they robbed us of 2 points.

Heskey starts. Milner on left.

Consumer confidence low? Wonder why that might be?

Get in there monkey boy! Nice one, all my best wishes to you and your family. I didn't cry (is that wrong?) I was just stunned and speechless. Whilst our lass recovered from c-section, I was with baby by myself for about an hour. First english words she heard were y'areet pet

It's another Charlotte. Pronounced about the same in both languages. Cheers everyone.

I hate Blatter.

Stadium looks amazing.

Cheers mate but its a she! was meant to be a boy at first but the gynae got it wrong. We knew it was a girl before she was born though. She qualifies for British citizenship, been on the phone to the embassy. Will there in the next couple of months to get her registered etc.