6 ms·

What is shady about them? Are they criminals?

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
If you consider tanking the UK economy to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds, then yes, absolutely.
- throwaway48540 2y ago
  How could they possibly do that?
  - grumpy_coder 2y ago
    They are referring to the liz truss budget.
    - throwaway48540 2y ago
      So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Being elected doesn't remove your obligations to follow sane, moral policies.
        throwaway48540 2y ago
        That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
        ninalanyon 2y ago
        Surely you blame both? Being consistently evil and living up (or down?) to ones reputation for evil doesn't make one less evil.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      What happened wasn't primarily due to her budget. It was due to a meltdown in the pension sector triggered by over-leverage, arguably caused by the BoE not doing its regulatory duties correctly. Don't get me wrong, a budget that cuts taxes without cutting spending is no good. But the idea that what happened was a direct consequence of that doesn't make much sense as it had been telegraphed a long way in advance, giving the markets plenty of time to adjust. The central bank changed monetary policy a day before the mini-budget, and changes in that are kept secret until the moment of announcement. Additionally, UK spending has since blown through what the mini-budget would have created without any sudden market turmoil. https://www.ft.com/content/4701b6ac-851e-43fd-a2b2-b38dd07c7b0e https://www.ft.com/content/4701b6ac-851e-43fd-a2b2-b38dd07c7... Regulators failed to anticipate the dangers that borrowing by pension schemes posed to the stability of the UK’s financial system, according to a parliamentary report into the turmoil that hit the gilt markets following Liz Truss’s disastrous “mini” Budget in September last year. Pension schemes suffered multibillion-pound losses after they were forced to sell assets to ensure that complex derivative-linked strategies — known as liability driven investments (LDI) — did not implode when gilt yields jumped as investors rejected the then prime minister’s economic strategy. Also, Truss is basically correct that the UK needs more growth. Disagreeing on her tactics is reasonable, disagreeing on her goals isn't. She was unfortunately attempting to create growth from a position of weakness: in a party that didn't want to do anything hard like cutting spending, and with a fragile/over-leveraged financial sector.
      - nmadden 2y ago
        Pull the other one. Only some of the tax cuts had been telegraphed in advance. Abolishing the top rate of income tax and cutting the basic rate early hadn’t been. They ignored all the warnings they were given and sidelined the OBR. The Truss/Kwarteng budget directly crashed the economy and trying to pretend otherwise is some serious revisionism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63229204 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63229204
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        You're arguing with the conclusions of the official investigation, not me.
rjsw 2y ago
They refuse to say who funds them.
schmidtleonard 2y ago
Their agenda is to frame the self-serving interests of a very narrow group as the economic interests of everyone. That's shady.
- cherrycherry98 2y ago
  Depending on the specifics, that sounds congruent with some of Adam Smith's economic theories so it's not surprising to see such arguments used, especially if some of the authors are from the Adam Smith Institute. His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. It's more likely a sincerely held belief than an attempt at misdirection.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    Adam Smith is probably spinning in his grave. > His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. That theory is predicated on the market being composed of buyers and sellers of broadly similar financial power. This is no longer the case in most markets, certainly not in the UK as far as ordinary people or most small companies are concerned.
    - schmidtleonard 2y ago
      Yes. Markets pursue the interest of wealth-weighted humans, not evenly-weighted humans. Disguising "wealth weighted value" under the concept of "value" (which, colloquially, has a more even weight) is the propaganda coup of the century.
  - moomin 2y ago
    I doubt Adam Smith would agree with anything the Adam Smith Institute says.
GordonAShumway 2y ago
Hats. The fedoras they wear shades their faces from view, m’lady
nmadden 2y ago
As rjsw says, they refuse to disclose who funds them. See https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ for some background.
pch00 2y ago
Led By Donkeys' exposure of the Truss mini-budget and the Adam Smith Institute involvement is enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c

If you consider tanking the UK economy to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds, then yes, absolutely.

throwaway48540 2y ago
How could they possibly do that?
- grumpy_coder 2y ago
  They are referring to the liz truss budget.
  - throwaway48540 2y ago
    So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Being elected doesn't remove your obligations to follow sane, moral policies.
      - throwaway48540 2y ago
        That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
        ninalanyon 2y ago
        Surely you blame both? Being consistently evil and living up (or down?) to ones reputation for evil doesn't make one less evil.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    What happened wasn't primarily due to her budget. It was due to a meltdown in the pension sector triggered by over-leverage, arguably caused by the BoE not doing its regulatory duties correctly. Don't get me wrong, a budget that cuts taxes without cutting spending is no good. But the idea that what happened was a direct consequence of that doesn't make much sense as it had been telegraphed a long way in advance, giving the markets plenty of time to adjust. The central bank changed monetary policy a day before the mini-budget, and changes in that are kept secret until the moment of announcement. Additionally, UK spending has since blown through what the mini-budget would have created without any sudden market turmoil. https://www.ft.com/content/4701b6ac-851e-43fd-a2b2-b38dd07c7b0e https://www.ft.com/content/4701b6ac-851e-43fd-a2b2-b38dd07c7... Regulators failed to anticipate the dangers that borrowing by pension schemes posed to the stability of the UK’s financial system, according to a parliamentary report into the turmoil that hit the gilt markets following Liz Truss’s disastrous “mini” Budget in September last year. Pension schemes suffered multibillion-pound losses after they were forced to sell assets to ensure that complex derivative-linked strategies — known as liability driven investments (LDI) — did not implode when gilt yields jumped as investors rejected the then prime minister’s economic strategy. Also, Truss is basically correct that the UK needs more growth. Disagreeing on her tactics is reasonable, disagreeing on her goals isn't. She was unfortunately attempting to create growth from a position of weakness: in a party that didn't want to do anything hard like cutting spending, and with a fragile/over-leveraged financial sector.
    - nmadden 2y ago
      Pull the other one. Only some of the tax cuts had been telegraphed in advance. Abolishing the top rate of income tax and cutting the basic rate early hadn’t been. They ignored all the warnings they were given and sidelined the OBR. The Truss/Kwarteng budget directly crashed the economy and trying to pretend otherwise is some serious revisionism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63229204 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63229204
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        You're arguing with the conclusions of the official investigation, not me.

rjsw 2y ago

They refuse to say who funds them.

schmidtleonard 2y ago

Their agenda is to frame the self-serving interests of a very narrow group as the economic interests of everyone. That's shady.

cherrycherry98 2y ago
Depending on the specifics, that sounds congruent with some of Adam Smith's economic theories so it's not surprising to see such arguments used, especially if some of the authors are from the Adam Smith Institute. His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. It's more likely a sincerely held belief than an attempt at misdirection.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  Adam Smith is probably spinning in his grave. > His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. That theory is predicated on the market being composed of buyers and sellers of broadly similar financial power. This is no longer the case in most markets, certainly not in the UK as far as ordinary people or most small companies are concerned.
  - schmidtleonard 2y ago
    Yes. Markets pursue the interest of wealth-weighted humans, not evenly-weighted humans. Disguising "wealth weighted value" under the concept of "value" (which, colloquially, has a more even weight) is the propaganda coup of the century.
- moomin 2y ago
  I doubt Adam Smith would agree with anything the Adam Smith Institute says.

GordonAShumway 2y ago

Hats. The fedoras they wear shades their faces from view, m’lady

nmadden 2y ago

As rjsw says, they refuse to disclose who funds them. See https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ for some background.

pch00 2y ago

Led By Donkeys' exposure of the Truss mini-budget and the Adam Smith Institute involvement is enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c