miscellaneous

What we learned this week

  • In browsing VoteMatch this week, the poll asked if I agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘The EU should only be able to introduce new regulation if it can be demonstrated that it will contribute to economic growth’. Apparently the Conservatives agree.

 

6 comments

  1. The thing William Davies’s article leaves out (though this may be in his book) is the perceived failure of the previous economic model which had less emphasis on competitiveness. It didn’t just come out of nowhere and that is important to remember if the proposed solutions repeat the failures of the past.

    Also why is it any surprised that Conservatives, whose only joined the EEC for economic reasons and want the EU to be a super free trade zone only want new regulations to promote economic growth? That is what Thatcher signed up to the single market in the 1980’s, making sacrifices of sovereignty in exchange for economic openness.

    Again old news that Astra Zeneca is British in name only (Astra being Swiss). If this is what you have learnt this only week you have been quite slow on the uptake.

    1. Yes, to understand competitiveness properly you do need to compare it to the more protectionist policies that came before. But you do also have rapid globalisation through the 90s and 00s that wasn’t there before. The focus on competitiveness is partly a response to failed policies, but as much or more a response to a rapidly changing world.

      Nothing new about Astra Zeneca, I just liked what the Economist had done with the information.

  2. Clarence Swinney of Burlington, NC. Adored Ronald Reagan acting, speaking and personality. He voted twice for him as President. He regretted the 60% tax cut (70-28%) for the richest and his involvement in 5 foreign conflicts. The record is not good in a Comparative Analysis with President Clinton

    1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton. 2.GDP—grew by 57% more under Clinton. 3.DOW—grew by 700% more under Clinton.. 4.MARKET CAP INCREASE—Clinton + 330%–Reagan + 136% 5.NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton. 6.S&P500—grew by 370% under Clinton and 140% under Reagan 7.SPENDING–grew by 28% under Clinton—80% under Reagan. 8.DEBT—grew by 43% under Clinton—187% under Reagan.(995b to2870b) 9. DEFICITS—Clinton got a large surplus–grew by 112% under Reagan. 10.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by 100% more under Clinton. 11.PERSONAL INCOME—grew by 110% more under Clinton. 12.MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME-grew by 75% more under Clinton 13. DEFENSE BUDGETED-Clinton -2311B—Reagan-2062B (current $) 14.UNEMPLOYMENT—AVG—Clinton 5.2%–Reagan 7.6% (I admit averaging averages can be dumb. I dumb.) SOURCES—Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)–Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues) http://www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times) National Archives History on Presidents. http://www.nara.gov LA Times 10-11-00 on Market–www.Find articles.com Federal Budget.Com 2009

    1. Clarence, are you just copying and pasting things into the comments section? I don’t want to just delete your comments, because I’m pretty sure you have responded more specifically before, but this has nothing to do with the topic.

  3. HOORAY! SALUTE PRESIDENT OBAMA He did it. Showed guts. Went to a war zone-Afghanistan.I admire him for it. Help the military morale.Now—If he will veto the tax extenders of 50 Trillion. Pass the Minimum Wage Increase to $10.10. Increase taxes on Estate Wealth and enormous incomes . Stop increasing Medicare costs onto patients..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s