tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post7602944517030448870..comments2024-03-28T12:23:39.665+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: Barnier and the Tantalus gameFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-49928131307813926882017-04-02T22:18:17.697+01:002017-04-02T22:18:17.697+01:00There's another possibility - if the rEU can b...There's another possibility - if the rEU can be reasonably said to have breached one of the Treaties (The Lisbon Treaty and the workings of Article 50 for instance) then the UK might repudiate the Treaty and simply walk away. I'm not saying this would be a good thing but it might be better than a prolonged wait while the rEU use delaying tactics.DiscoveredJoyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05300239909689336895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-91911467678050879282017-04-02T16:59:07.446+01:002017-04-02T16:59:07.446+01:00I have looked at the draft guidelines produced for...I have looked at the draft guidelines produced for the Council of Ministers by Tusk. It seems pretty clear from those that the EU intends to negotiate on behalf of member states to ensure a united front. Given the UK has shown hopes of employing divide and rule tactics this is hardly surprising even where discussion is on UK /Irish border issues. William Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195643389819483677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-82529698574013592672017-04-02T15:23:38.102+01:002017-04-02T15:23:38.102+01:00It could of course be that the Irish asked Barnier...It could of course be that the Irish asked Barnier to raise the matter. Much of what the Commission does is at the request of member states. If the Irish wanted to be awkward they might wish to have the Commission fronting for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-41484174510946498762017-04-02T11:24:23.249+01:002017-04-02T11:24:23.249+01:00I agree with Dipper: what's the Irish border g...I agree with Dipper: what's the Irish border got to do with Barnier? If the UK leaves the EU, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becomes essentially the same as the French / English Channel "border". As long as North and South Ireland abide by EU rules, Barnier has no right to object. Moreover if North and South Ireland, after UK exit from the EU, set up an arrangement a bit different to the English Channel border, and that is within the rules of the EU, the again, that's nothing to do with Barnier. In contrast, if the UK and the Republic flout EU rules, then when that happens and not before, then Barnier and his Brussels cronies can legitimately object.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-22409095085888440562017-04-01T18:00:16.002+01:002017-04-01T18:00:16.002+01:00@Dipper
Not often we agree, but your last para is...@Dipper<br /><br />Not often we agree, but your last para is spot on.<br /><br />You'll never see me (hopefully) describing Brexiteers in the usual stereotypes. That victory was won in the suburbs of Dorking as much as the streets of Stoke. The people who need to realise this are the Labour Right, who have no attachment to the "left behind" and are still fighting the last war.<br /><br />The Tories never waste a good crisis. IMHO the transformation needed to happen after 2007, but the Tories were happy to blame Labour and push austerity. As you know, I don't share your optimism over Brexit. I expect any transformation to be more of the same.gastro georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-84370541695472000992017-04-01T08:57:01.939+01:002017-04-01T08:57:01.939+01:00Liabilities are a balance sheet item. If we are re...Liabilities are a balance sheet item. If we are required to take our fair share of these then by same principle we take our fair share of other balance sheet items like the assets. The EU cannot cherry pick on this as it would set a <br />precedent that you cannot trust it to hold to sound financial principles. The EU is good at finding special cases to support dubious decisions, but abandoning any sense that it respects sound financial practices would justify all others dealing with it in the same bad faith.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204174267833645562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-35235427128306480022017-03-31T22:31:58.588+01:002017-03-31T22:31:58.588+01:00@ gastro - yes, understood.
The proposal to conve...@ gastro - yes, understood.<br /><br />The proposal to convert the UK into a tax haven is a negotiating ploy. There is still lots of discussion floating round - e.g. both John McDonnell and Michael Gove have talked about The Entrepreneurial State. Most leavers are aware of our industrial history and see the Brexit vote as transformational. Had we voted to remain there would have been no incentive to change and nothing to halt our continued decline.<br /><br />The comment referred to British workers as pathetic, lazy, drunken. A feature of much "left" analysis and discussion which the Brexit discussion has amplified is that the Remainer Left always and up victim-blaming. The workers are at the bottom because they are uneducated lazy bigots.<br /><br />Left-thinking people should have as a core belief the notion that Institutions Produce Performance. Great institutions produce great performance. Poor institutions produce poor performance. Lack of institutions produce lack of performance. For anyone on the left the massive under-performance of UK workers should never be down to them and their supposed innate failings, it should always be the lack of appropriate institutions and a lack of political ambition.Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-54983644661985959822017-03-31T21:03:54.706+01:002017-03-31T21:03:54.706+01:00@Anonymous. I am in complete agreement with your t...@Anonymous. I am in complete agreement with your two posts (assuming the same author). Our country has been in continuous economic decline since the end of Empire, but what is actually more disturbing is the more rent declining level of educational ability -- assessed in terms of minimum and average levels by cohort. The attainments even of university graduates are very poor; school leavers much worse. Only the rich kids in public schools are guaranteed a decent education, access to a good uni, and a likely top job. <br /><br />As for British industry: it is a shambles. As gastro george points out, foreign companies that have taken over British ones are doing a much better job. Even Rolls Royce managed to fail -- inexplicably -- and now the Germans own it. The key to all of these problems is the persistence of social class and its explicit relationship with education, privilege, employment and political power. The working class is actually voting consistently for everything against their own interests -- including Brexit -- and refusing to listen to anyone with actual knowledge and expertise. It is, in effect, a form of mass suicide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-55090086707665766352017-03-31T19:39:35.964+01:002017-03-31T19:39:35.964+01:00While @Anonymous is a bit OTT, in principle he/she...While @Anonymous is a bit OTT, in principle he/she is correct. The history of the last 70 years of British capitalism is one of slow and inexorable decline - which has been little influenced by the EU. I'd be optimistic if I could see any sign that the Brexiteers had a plan for a radical reorganisation of the economy. The only radical change that I have seen proposed is to convert the UK into a floating tax haven.<br /><br />This would be entirely in line with the last 70 years, where finance and the City has had too much power and influence. That has starved manufacturing industry of the necessary invest ment, which has led to the inexorable decline.<br /><br />You only need to look at the car industry. Once we had companies that made cars. But, through lack of investment and poor management, they lost market share and went under. There's nothing wrong with the British car worker. Nissan, Honda, etc. show that. With superior management and investment, they still turn a profit that UK companies were unable to do. It's the same through many industries.<br />gastro georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23732983168189363872017-03-31T09:36:07.000+01:002017-03-31T09:36:07.000+01:00@Anonymous
what an unbelievably arrogant and dumb...@Anonymous<br /><br />what an unbelievably arrogant and dumb comment that is. Ask anyone who has worked for a top company - and I've worked for a few - and they will tell you they don't have a "dumbest worker". Good ideas and thoughtful analysis come from everyone. Your characterisation of the British would be clear bigotry and racism if it was said about any ethnic group. Keep this kind of insulting rant up and comment moderation will surely follow.Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-80075067101529774512017-03-31T08:00:30.498+01:002017-03-31T08:00:30.498+01:00The British economy was under-skilled and had medi...The British economy was under-skilled and had mediocre (at best!) productivity long before the EU existed. Trying to blame the EU for Britain's own failures and follies is the behaviour of a child, not an adult. Yes, I do dismiss the "feelings" of the willfully ignorant and deliberately uninformed. No viable company plans on the basis of the feelings of their dumbest worker and a country that attempts to do so has abdicated any claim to success or respect. It might be that Brexit does the British the immense favour of punching home the fact that they are not a special nation and desperately need to recognize their social, educational and economic inadequacy. I wouldn't put money on it, given the endless British capacity for apathetic, drunken self-pity and mental laziness disguised by the endless British bleat of "I'm no good at maths/languages/anything requiring sustained mental effort". The one certainty in this business is that the UK has no cards worth playing. The EU knows this and understands that they have no need to offer Britain anything. They can just wait for the weakness and desperation of Theresa May to produce the inevitable surrender. All the EU has to do is smile, wait calmly and do nothing of substance, and all the while they can snap up the businesses that will move out of Britain to preserve their own market share in Europe. The British will bluster and rant and whine about how unfair it all is, as the rest of the world looks on and wonders just who forced the British to screw up their most important trading relationship because of nationalistic hype and jingoistic delusions of grandeur. That's the reality of Brexit and no amount of vacuous posturing will change it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23684825916810489572017-03-31T07:41:06.504+01:002017-03-31T07:41:06.504+01:00just telling you how some people feel. Lots of tho...just telling you how some people feel. Lots of those people are used to taking risk-based decisions on a regular basis, so dismiss away if you want.<br /><br />And that under-skilled economy with mediocre productivity is a consequence of our being in the EU, and why we are leaving.Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-49524835286301976232017-03-31T06:22:04.236+01:002017-03-31T06:22:04.236+01:00@Dipper
"There is a real sense of optimism in...@Dipper<br />"There is a real sense of optimism in some quarters that once free of the deathly deflationary over-regulated grip of the EU we will get a boom that increases our prosperity and influence."<br /><br />And the Charge of the Light Brigade was a triumph disguised as a slaughter. The facts are that the UK is throwing away its major export market and exposing an under-skilled economy with mediocre productivity and third-rate leadership to a predatory world that has no reason to wish it well whatsoever. Vapid optimism from the ignorant and deluded is no substitute for a coherent strategic appreciation of reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-74661886112869617602017-03-30T20:07:45.088+01:002017-03-30T20:07:45.088+01:00«once free of the deathly deflationary over-regula...«once free of the deathly deflationary over-regulated grip of the EU we will get a boom that increases our prosperity and influence»<br /><br />From my point of that is purely hallucinatory, probably a consequence of falling victim of establishment propagandists like Simon Wren-Lewis: the UK economy for the past 35 year has been through a monstrous inflationary credit based boom thanks to fanatical deregulation of finance, regardless of EU membvership, as the almost as monstrous credit booms in Spain and Eire and Latvia and Australia demonstrated; and the government of Eire is right now booming up credit once again.<br /><br />That the UK <em>in the aggregate</em> has been enjoying a long run of extremely loose aggregate policy is easily demonstrated by the fantastic asset price inflation (that occasionally even spills in wider inflation), the huge (if shrinking) government deficit, surging immigration, the enormous trade deficit, all indicators of wild boom.<br /><br />While this has happened in the aggregate, the economy of selected segments of the population, and of selected areas of the UK, has been quite deliberately smashed, with what could be called a highly selective "austerity" policy targeted at Labour voters and trade union areas, this has had nothing to do with the EU; if anything the EU has done something positive by directing regional development funds at those areas that the UK national government would not dream of wasting money on. Also while EU policy does not constrain the taxing and spending policies of member states, the average position of EU governments is not as far to the right as that of the Conservatives or New Labour, and EU influence has so far moderated UK policy.<br /><br />Anyhow, an aggregate policy like in the UK of wild overall expansion couple with some targeted austerity is not a «deathly deflationary over-regulated grip» or "austerity", from either the UK government or the EU, it is just a highly upward-redistributive policy.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-33942972048913312892017-03-30T19:49:40.676+01:002017-03-30T19:49:40.676+01:00«Obviously the "Leave" campaign leadersh...«<i>Obviously the "Leave" campaign leadership, with a few confused exceptions, are all "whig" supporters of the USA protectorate arrangement,</i>»<br /><br />For a brief time, with the St. Malo Declaration, it seemed as if the "tory" wing had grown in influence, and the UK was choosing to be a senior and leading partner in the EU rather than a follower and a protectorate in any "whatever" coalition-of-the-willing of USA client states, in part because of the obvious cost of going along with "whatever" the dangerous extremists often in control in Washington decide to do, but clearly the 2016 referendum has ended that. The protectorate policy is clearly top right now, even if the USA suzerain elites with Trump think that "protection" has so far been given for too cheap.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-32628353002025641672017-03-30T19:42:14.722+01:002017-03-30T19:42:14.722+01:00«the UK is so politically and militarily weak that...«<i>the UK is so politically and militarily weak that the US secretary of defense or USA national security adviser can sack the the UK foreign secretary, compare:</i>»<br /><br />I'll add to this a wider discussion that most "Leavers" *and* "Remainers" don't get about the geopolitics of being either an USA protectorate or a member among equals of the EU.<br /><br />Post WW2 (and WW1 was already a source of worry) the overriding concern of the english upper classes has been how to keep safe their wealth from the grasping hands of the (Labour-voting) mob (once the even more grasping hands of the nazis and tojos had been defeated), mob which could be mowed down by the army in the past if they became uppity, but could no longer be mowed down if they were the ones piloting the tanks and the bombers as in WW2.<br /><br />The "whig", trading, wing of the english elites made a simple choice: to move all their financial wealth to the USA, as they were pretty sure that the USA elites would always win a confrontation with the grasping mob, and they submitted to "protection" by the USA government, surrendering the whole english empire to USA, as a guarantor of their ultimate safety as elites; just like the elites of Qatar, for example, have surrendered control of their military and foreign policies to the USA for the same reasons. The "whig" elites were led in this by W Churchill, who had a "whatever" policy wrt to the USA just like T Blair decades later. Their fortune is already in the USA, and if despite USA "protection" the mob rises, they just take their private planes and move to the mansions and ranches they already own in the USA.<br /><br />The more "tory", landed, wing of the elites is made of people like A Clark who are more rooted in the UK, and would hate exile and the loss of the properties they have had for generations, even if of course they too have all their financial wealth in the USA. For a number of years after WW2 they still believed they did not need USA "protection", but a strong relationship with friendly european powers, and this led them to Suez in 1956 and inglorious defeat.<br /><br />After Suez the split was even deeper, and the "whig" wing was in clear control with their "protection" from the USA policy. But the "tory" wing have continued being resentful of the loss of empire and control over military and foreign policy to the USA, and continued to push for an european alternative, making the best of the loss of empire and aiming to return to a pre-empire role as an european nation of influence and importance in continental affairs, and integrated in them. After all the "tory" wing has been intermarried with the continental elites for a thousand years, and intra-european wars have always had the flavour of civil wars, especially when dynastic. The "tory" also largely overlaps with the "one nation" tories, per the paternalistic tradition of a part of the landed elites.<br /><br />Note: things are of course more complicated, and for example the New Labour elites are clearly "whig" supporters of the USA protectorate, with "whateverist-in-chief" T Blair and P Mandelson as their leaders.<br /><br />Obviously the "Leave" campaign leadership, with a few confused exceptions, are all "whig" supporters of the USA protectorate arrangement, people like J Redwood who apparently wants the UK to be a NAFTA member, B Johnson who wants London to be the offshore "dirty deals" haven for New York (even more than it already is), Gove, Farage, ...<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-2653227870792984372017-03-30T18:58:41.712+01:002017-03-30T18:58:41.712+01:00@Anonymous
Influence of the UK only has significa...@Anonymous<br /><br />Influence of the UK only has significance for UK citizens if they feel that in some way that trickles down to influence they have over their own lives and the futures they could have, so the influence that a UK has because of its status in the EU but over which citizens have little choice or control is not really influence at all for many citizens.<br /><br />One such illustration is the aversion to giving up our currency. Although this was never put to the vote I think it is generally accepted that the UK population were against it despite the fact that according to all the economists and many politicians not going the euro was going to leave us "an isolated, increasingly impoverished middle-ranking state on the fringes of Europe" and we all know how accurate those predictions turned out to be,<br /><br />And finally I don't accept that is the fate that awaits the UK now. There is a real sense of optimism in some quarters that once free of the deathly deflationary over-regulated grip of the EU we will get a boom that increases our prosperity and influence.Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-13035847030861760062017-03-30T18:55:53.418+01:002017-03-30T18:55:53.418+01:00I agree but for different reasons, I have no objec...I agree but for different reasons, I have no objection to horse meat and I have two VW diesels which I am very happy with, My reasoning is that the the only argument the leavers are going to be influenced by will be a hard Brexit which will bring this farce to a rapid conclusionDavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-53612278982099248742017-03-30T18:55:09.117+01:002017-03-30T18:55:09.117+01:00«@Dipper
"If we have tried to leave and faile...«@Dipper<br />"If we have tried to leave and failed we will have absolutely no influence over anything again."<br />After we have left and revealed just how weak and palsied the British economy really is»<br /><br />That is a fairly optimistic argument, the UK is so politically and militarily weak that the US secretary of defense or USA national security adviser can sack the the UK foreign secretary, compare:<br /><br />Andrew Marr: “<i>In 1942, as Rommel’s tanks drew nearer, and Churchill was fulminating about Cairo being a nest of ‘Hun spies’, the British ambassador told Egypt’s King Farouk that his prime minister was not considered sufficiently anti-German and would have to be replaced. The King summoned his limited reserves of pride and refused. It was, he insisted, a step too far, a breach of the 1937 treaty.<br />Britain’s ambassador simply called up armoured cars, a couple of tanks and some soldiers and surrounded King Farouk in his palace. The ambassador walked in and ordered the monarch to sign a grovelling letter of abdication, renouncing and abandoning ‘for ourselves and the heirs of our body the throne of Egypt’. At this royal determination crumbled. The king asked pathetically if, perhaps, he could have one last chance? He was graciously granted it and sacked his prime minister. Life went on, the war went on.</i>”<br /><br />Jacob Rees-Mogg: “<i>When Jack Straw was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent -- experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.<br />I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw's statement that it would be "nuts" to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon. ... The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw's dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice's visit to his constituency.<br />It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn. At any rate, Irwin Stelzer's account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.</i>”<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-16844088161041246702017-03-30T13:52:03.014+01:002017-03-30T13:52:03.014+01:00@Dipper
"If we have tried to leave and failed...@Dipper<br />"If we have tried to leave and failed we will have absolutely no influence over anything again."<br />After we have left and revealed just how weak and palsied the British economy really is after decades of under-investment and short-termism, just how much influence do you think an isolated, increasingly impoverished middle-ranking state on the fringes of Europe will have then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-58283229995138488282017-03-30T13:16:16.195+01:002017-03-30T13:16:16.195+01:00«hard-brexiters would have any chance in court of ...«<i>hard-brexiters would have any chance in court of stopping a process that had been through parliament and accepted there. On what basis?</i>»<br /><br />ON the basis that as long as the UK was member the EU treaties were the law in the UK too and the agreements were done in violation of those treaties.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-8735751507172682652017-03-30T11:14:05.383+01:002017-03-30T11:14:05.383+01:00One of the attractions of a fast hard exit is that...One of the attractions of a fast hard exit is that it stops all this nonsense. It gets us into a place where we can start to trade with other countries even if only under WTO.<br /><br />There is lots of discussion in places about how hard WTO will be with customs and inspections blah blah blah but the WTO exists to facilitate world trade not to stop it, and all those EU regulations and customs rules still give us beef that was actually horse meat and fraudulent diesel tests meaning our cities have been pumped full of deadly particulates, so the bar on customs and regulations on leaving is not very high. Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-43383406529587674562017-03-30T11:08:44.278+01:002017-03-30T11:08:44.278+01:00I don't see that hard-brexiters would have any...I don't see that hard-brexiters would have any chance in court of stopping a process that had been through parliament and accepted there. On what basis? On the basis of the referendum which famously did not go any further than leaving the EU and legally speaking was only advisory?<br /><br />The difficulty of exiting the EU and negotiating a trade deal is one of those issues that clarifies the difference between the two camps. Remainers regard this as evidence that the world is highly complex and risky and it is madness to move out of the protective umbrella of the EU. Leavers regard this as the suffocating stifling nature of the EU and that we need to get completely out ASAP.Dippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-10593292175050536312017-03-30T09:28:03.575+01:002017-03-30T09:28:03.575+01:00«agree a leaving settlement - an EU priority - and...«agree a leaving settlement - an EU priority - and a framework for future relations with the EU.»<br /><br />It does not empower <i>making</i> an agreement on a "framework for future relations", the letter of the article is «<i>taking into account the framework</i>», and obviously "taking into account the framework" does not mean "making a new framework".<br />The "framework" to be taken into account is whatever the status will be on day 1 of exit, that is third party status plus whatever other non-EU treaties will still exist, like the WTO agreements.<br />Only TFEU art 207 and 218 empower the EU institutions to make new agreements, and only with third party countries.<br />I used to be of the opinion that the EU27 governments could take a very imaginative reading of the narrow wording «<i>taking into account</i>», but that was until I read FlipChartFairyTales arguing that any exit agreement and trade deal will be likely challenged in court if not minimal, and reports that M Barnier's confirmed that no trade agreement will be done before exit.<br />For the EU27 pushing the boundaries with an imaginative reinterpretation of «<i>taking into account</i>» is simply too risky, for too little gain.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-15790777409654936212017-03-30T09:15:04.059+01:002017-03-30T09:15:04.059+01:00«UK government is more than prepared to hand out t...«<i>UK government is more than prepared to hand out the 'Greece treatment' to its own citizens. Osborne austerity</i>»<br /><br />That is the usual fantasy pushed by establishment Economists like Simon Wren-Lewis: the G Osborne government handed out the "Santa Claus" treatment to its own citizens, with extremely credit and monetary policy to make property prices boom and even with huge handouts like 4% "pensioner bonds". G Osborne has had a policy very far from mythical "austerity", one of simple redistribution: less for Labour voters, more, much more, for Conservative voters.and affluent swing voters. Similarly to the USA, where an ex-FOMC member wrote:<br /><br />globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/former-dallas-fed-governor-richard.html<br />«<i>What the Fed did, and I was part of that group, we frontloaded a tremendous market rally starting in march of 2009. It was sort of a reverse Wimpy factor. Give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow. We had a tremendous rally and I think there's a great digestive period that's likely to take place now. And it may continue. Once again, we frontloaded, at the federal reserve, an enormous rally in order to accomplish a wealth effect.</i>»<br /><br />When some authors "mistakenly" describe a redistributive policy as an austerity policy the goal seems to me to prepare the ground for a further round of monetary policy loosening, because it is pretty obvious that their apparent advocacy of looser fiscal policy is never going to happen without a pretty large change of politics, which they studiously never advocate, perhaps "because non-partisan" :-).Blissexnoreply@blogger.com