Yes indeed. They fit together famously well. Not suitable for people who can only cope with verifiable theorems, hard facts, clear-cut answers, and black-and-white prescriptions.
In my lifetime, the UK economy was at its rosiest consistently from 1997-2007, i.e. in the Tony Blair era. Virtually every indicator looked good for 10 years in succession. We came to take it for granted we would win the jackpot every year. We have never seen such a favourable period before, and I doubt if we will again. But I agree with you - it's something to aim for.
And spend all the money gathered over the previous 10 years and spend all the future income too Ponsy scheme..
My father was a dyed in the wool leftie who defended Tony Blair by saying he could have gone into business and made millions but he chose politics instead. If only he was alive today.
"If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong." Sir Humphrey Applebey
OK people, hold on. Economics may not be an exact science, but would you prefer people running the economy (because someone has to) to just flip a coin for their decisions? Marketing isn't an exact science either but it is untrue to say that there are no talented marketeers. Human nature is not an exact science. Both marketing and economics have to deal with the outcomes of human behaviour.
Has anyone actually looked into how many laws about what you and i could do prior to the Blair /Brun years compared to the laws by the end of their reign ??
