Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "no surpises- it's a crisis! By these crises shall ye be known! Beware of these, Rachel Reeves-" video.

  1. Dear Professor Tim, I think the Labour Party's advisors are leading them astray, as they are ignoring the immediate concerns of the electorate as a whole. I don't think they have a coherent understanding of how different economic factors are interlinked, and how focusing on the cart - growth - rather than the horse pulling it - an anorexic economy, starved of underinvestment - means they will struggle to convince anyone that Rachel Reeves has a firm grip on the reins of the economy. Their perceived conservatism in economic policies gives a perception of the wrong people having the ear of the Chancellor, and a Prime Minister, who as First Lord of The Treasury could order Ms Reeves to get a grip, or put her out to pasture, is more resistant to facing up to the missteps made, that getting things right. It's time Ms Reeves had a serious performance appraisal interview, because the perception she is giving is of being the wrong person for the job.
    2
  2. Rachel Reeves is trying to draw a smiley face on neoliberalism, when it's a busted flush. She might be a good manager of the economy, but she's not a transformative one. And transformation is what the public really wants, but not business or the corporations. She can't afford to court the latter and lose the former.
    1
  3. I suggest you look up Rachel Reeve's CV, and then ask who can give her advice. It's not civil servants she needs, it's a political philosopher is what she needs, because she doesn't understand the political mood of the country. And that's her Achilles Heel. She doesn't understand that, and that may undermine her.
    1
  4. Hilarious. Popularity when the purse is empty, is neither here not there. You can only give what you've got, and the weaponisation of the National Insurance cuts was the trap placed by the Tories which would of course cut finding to the NHS even further. Starmer may be a managerial technocrat, but at least he's not a sociopath like the alternatives. He can change. Not the others.
    1
  5. No; they're not worse. We are. Why? We understand the economy even less because we are too busy expecting a flood out of a dry well, which the Conservatives drained over 14 years.
    1
  6. Governments don't have to borrow to have money. It's a choice, a virtuous one, as the people that own that debt are almost all British. So government debt is our savings. The problem is that those savings are too concentrated in the hands of people and institutions that don't spend the money they make back into the economy, by buying goods or making capital investments. They hoard their wealth instead, and just buy more assets. That's not helping the economy. And because Rachel Reeves is taking advice from the Wealth Hoarders, instead of people who understand that wealth hoarding is a problem that only can be addressed by reducing the incentive to hoard, by either taxing it, or increasing incentives to invest productively in capital projects that create jobs and things people need or want, we're in economic stagnation. That stagnation is being exacerbated by external factors too, such as the artificial hike in energy prices because of Geopolitics, deliberate policies by OPEC with price gouging, plus the long-run consequences of Covid 19 disrupting supply chains, and labour supply, altogether making the global economy flaccid. And let's not forget Brexit. So Reeves doesn't understand how to negotiate all this factors objectively. She doesn't understand how to use the power of the state to restructure the government deficit, and stop feeding the fat cats at the expense of everyone else. And may I remind you that after World War II, the UK's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at approximately 240% in 1947. This was one of the highest levels in British history, reflecting massive wartime borrowing to fund military efforts and post-war rebuilding. We finally repaid that in the 2000s. As of December 2024, the UK's public sector net debt (PSND) was approximately 97.2% of GDP, according to the latest data from the House of Commons Library. This represents a slight increase from 96.9% at the end of December 2023. So we actually are nowhere near as worse off, as we once were. But we did not repay our WW2 debt by undertaxing and oversubsidising the wealthy, as we're doing now. That's why there's no growth.
    1
  7. ​ @louisdisbury9759 Hilarious. You don't eat wheat products, use energy, or cooking oil then? That's the only way you can not be paying for this war.
    1