« Economics & identity | Main | The trade deal fetish »

August 10, 2019

Comments

Peter

It seems very "brave" in the Yes, Minister sense to write as if the Thatcher government didn't introduce fundamental economic reforms. It sounds like you are conflating laissez faire economics with leaving the economy in exactly the state you found it in when coming to power - even if it's anything but laissez faire.

And also: higher dividend yields hurt equity investors?? You'll have to explain that one to me.

e

Very clear. Perhaps the cabinet recognise, or hope Thatcherite rhetoric still has more clout than reality. Seems mean to single out Stephen Bush.

Blissex

As often our wykehamist blogger takes political propaganda at face value... As if Thatcher's politics did not have the goal of providing the opposite of stability, but vast and growing redistribution, by any means necessary, in favour of "her own". My personal opinion is that she was only in most part a giant hypocrite, and in a minor part she half believed her own propaganda homilies.

As to "The left think it shows we need a more activist state" I find it hard to believe, as an essential part of left policies is for the state to stop being so expensively activist on the side of property and share owners, big business, the finance "industry", and to spend less of public money on supporting and enriching them; and the tories have been very keen to spend large sums on activist policies to protect the english voters from unapproved opinions, and also very activitst to get the yugoslav, iraqi, lybian and syrian governments off the backs of citizens :-).

The very mild centre left policies proposed by the Labour wing of Labour are for the state to refocus from redistributing from poorer to richer, to improve the chances of lower income people for better jobs, wages, pensions, public services, rather than to increase state activism.

Blissex

«don’t merely describe a coherent explicit set of ideas. dispositions, loyalties and hostilities. Like it or not, tribalism matters.»

I guess that "interests" then don't matter, it is either tribalism or ideas that drive politics... :-)

cjcjc

Is 0.55 a terribly strong correlation?
And how statistically significant is that 0.55?
Higher dividend yields today = higher total returns tomorrow.
I'm struggling to see the problem unless you are a forced seller today?

Alex

I think to some extent they have come to see stability as a bad thing, in a bastardization of [NNT/Austrian econ/John Boyd/something or other].

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad