Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mjdgreg on May 22, 2012, 11:36:08 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18158226
Thank God labour aren't in power any more. The key phrase from their report is as follows:
"When I look back to 2010 and what could have happened without fiscal consolidation I shiver."
In effect she's saying ' It's a good job Labour weren't in power or they'd have carried on spending and there wouldn't have been any fiscal consolidation. The UK would now be looking as bad as Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc.
Well done Dave and George.
-
Anyone from Donny who votes Tory is a disgrace to the town.
-
Strange that is n`t it? the IMF are advocating more spending and an easing of the fiscal purse strings
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5icxRAEKfqlEsLKZSs7oc4qiGWPuw?docId=N0252621337677329353A
-
Anyone from Donny who votes Tory is a disgrace to the town.
Why is that exactly? I don't like talk like that if I'm honest, differing political views are fine but I find comments like that a bit too far. It's probably why the town still isn't progressing, stuck in the past.
It's all fairly clear to me, the Tories got it right by working on the deficit something Labour didn't want to do, but it had to be done. We're now in a much better position going forward than countries like Greece and the US who still have the pain to come in the future. Although I'm in favour of pushing growth a little more in the coming months and I expect the government to do so, but that doesn't have to mean gross overspending as others believe in.
I don't agree with a VAT cut though, in the current environment it's just not beneficial.
-
Doesn't mean anything tbh, the IMF is just another organisation that exists for the benefit of the big countires, in fact it was an IMF economist that convinced the US congress that a free market and free-er trade (never has there been free trade) was the future and although it looked instable it wouldn't fail.
He said in 2009 that he was wrong. What do the IMF know?
-
Anyone from Donny who votes Tory is a disgrace to the town.
Why is that exactly? I don't like talk like that if I'm honest, differing political views are fine but I find comments like that a bit too far. It's probably why the town still isn't progressing, stuck in the past.
It's all fairly clear to me, the Tories got it right by working on the deficit something Labour didn't want to do, but it had to be done. We're now in a much better position going forward than countries like Greece and the US who still have the pain to come in the future. Although I'm in favour of pushing growth a little more in the coming months and I expect the government to do so, but that doesn't have to mean gross overspending as others believe in.
I don't agree with a VAT cut though, in the current environment it's just not beneficial.
I echo the sentiment BYFP, quite a remarkable comment in all honesty.
Although as someone who was shouting for the Tories to win the General Election in 2010 it made sense to me to vote for the Lib Dems to try and stop Labour winning. Apparently the other 1500 Tory voters didn't think about that...
-
Anyone from Donny who votes Tory is a disgrace to the town.
Yawn.
-
It's good to smoke some of these Tory weasels out. Voting Conservative is an insult to the common working man.
-
It's good to smoke some of these Tory weasels out. Voting Conservative is an insult to the common working man.
What an idiot you're making of yourself.
-
So you would rather ignore what is best for the country (which was Conservative in the 2010 election) over some illusions that the Labour party is still the socialist ideology that defends the working man? C'mon there is no ideology in Politics anymore. Blair killed off the social image of Labour. All 3 parties are Neo-Liberal.
In fact there is more ideology to your absurd idea of totalitarianism than in Westminster.
-
So you would rather ignore what is best for the country (which was Conservative in the 2010 election) over some illusions that the Labour party is still the socialist ideology that defends the working man? C'mon there is no ideology in Politics anymore. Blair killed off the social image of Labour. All 3 parties are Neo-Liberal.
Although I agree Blair brought the Labour Party closer to the middle, it is still more left-wing than the tories ever will be.
I also disagree that the Conservatives were the right choice in 2010. Anyone who knows their history knew that the tories would bring in Austerity measures too fiercely, cut public jobs too radically and basically f*ck over the lower-middle and lower classes in general.
They were the wrong choice in 2010, and they are still the wrong choice. Wasn't it Cameron that said we wouldn't going into double dip recession under the Conservative coalition? Hmmm.....
-
Always the same always will be!!! rich get richer and the working man pays!! its not maggie or camoron their just the head its the big fat right wing machine that warrents attention??
Glad this generation are seeing what their like. Hopfully this will bring labour into check and back into power and the tories can go hide in their private menbers clubs for a decade or hopfully two!
lib dems ?? dead in the water the left will pick up 80% of their vote :) thanks clegg me old cocker!
-
So you would rather ignore what is best for the country (which was Conservative in the 2010 election) over some illusions that the Labour party is still the socialist ideology that defends the working man? C'mon there is no ideology in Politics anymore. Blair killed off the social image of Labour. All 3 parties are Neo-Liberal.
Although I agree Blair brought the Labour Party closer to the middle, it is still more left-wing than the tories ever will be.
I also disagree that the Conservatives were the right choice in 2010. Anyone who knows their history knew that the tories would bring in Austerity measures too fiercely, cut public jobs too radically and basically f*ck over the lower-middle and lower classes in general.
They were the wrong choice in 2010, and they are still the wrong choice. Wasn't it Cameron that said we wouldn't going into double dip recession under the Conservative coalition? Hmmm.....
To be fair my comment about the right choice was a little far fetched. Of all the three mainstream parties the Lib Dem's had a clear cut plan to reduce the deficit by cutting in the right place but still encouraging growth. I still say to this day that when a coalition was announced Vince Cable should have been Chancellor rather than Clegg being Deputy PM. But Labour under Brown had no clear cut plan, it was worsening by the day. I have also said before how out of touch politics is now. Since Ted Heath all Conservative leaders have been public schooled, except Cameron, and I guarantee that every single leader before Cameron (except perhaps Ian Duncan Smith) would have won a landslide in 2010 with how badly Labour had become. The Tories started out okay and it did look a little promising (although I wasn't convinced by Osbourne's 15 year plan) and I agree that they tried to squeeze the state too much.
However your point about anyone who knows history is self contradicting. In the 20th Century about 90% of the voting population on average was of the working class, if the Tories were so mean in all of their governments why did the working class vote for them then any other party? We had 22 years of National Government due to the world wars, and of the other 79 years the Tories governed for 53 years. Only 26 years passed in "working class" Britain when the working class kept them out of Government.
Look at Attlee he created the Welfare State and the National Insurance, giving birth to the NHS, but the people still voted Conservative and kept them in power for 19 years and 3 general elections. They even survived what was the biggest mistake in foreign policy with Eden and the Suez crisis. Harold Wilson and Callaghan ran a regime governed by the unions, and the country eventually said no, even after Thatcher destroyed the lives of thousands of miners whose families depended on for income they still voted in their numbers to win a further 2 general elections.
It was only in the era of Hague and Ian Duncan Smith when the 'nasty Tory' that doesn't represent the working class came about, of course I'm not disputing that under Thatcher the rich got richer and the poorer got poorer, but that is the price you pay for capitalism, inequality will always exist in the fight against poverty. Look at the growing economies of Brazil, India and Japan. Even in the US it is the same. What alternative is there ? Communism?
-
It's good to smoke some of these Tory weasels out. Voting Conservative is an insult to the common working man.
What an idiot you're making of yourself.
A couple of quid in your arse pocket and suddenly you're backing that bunch of criminals. You make me physically sick. I'm alright Jack. b*llocks to the rest.
-
William Hague went to Wath comp
-
A couple of quid in your arse pocket and suddenly you're backing that bunch of criminals. You make me physically sick. I'm alright Jack. b*llocks to the rest.
A law should be brought in banning people like Sheepskin Sue from having the vote. She is so thick she'd vote Labour no matter what.
-
A couple of quid in your arse pocket and suddenly you're backing that bunch of criminals. You make me physically sick. I'm alright Jack. b*llocks to the rest.
A law should be brought in banning people like Sheepskin Sue from having the vote. She is so thick she'd vote Labour no matter what.
Stop it, you're hurting me with your cruel Tory jibes. Has your butler wiped your arse yet? It must be so upsetting coming on here and mingling with the great unwashed. I pity you.
-
The butler's having problems deciding which end is the arse, shit is coming out of both ends!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18158226
Thank God labour aren't in power any more. The key phrase from their report is as follows:
"When I look back to 2010 and what could have happened without fiscal consolidation I shiver."
In effect she's saying ' It's a good job Labour weren't in power or they'd have carried on spending and there wouldn't have been any fiscal consolidation. The UK would now be looking as bad as Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc.
Well done Dave and George.
I guess you forgot the suggestion that a plan B should be prepared if growth fails to materialise (which it won't because ordinary Dave and Inept Gideon are only interested looking after their mates in the city at the expense of the rest of us), and the less than "glowing" analysis of the unemployment in the UK. Talk about being selective.
These two clowns will go down in history as the most hated PM and Chancellor in history when the population of this country opens its f**king eyes and stops reading the Murdoch press and watching the BBC. This is not our f**king crisis. Nor was it Labours. Casino banking got the world into this mess. And they should pay...end of discussion.
-
These two clowns will go down in history as the most hated PM and Chancellor in history
I think you'll find Gordon brown has already managed to bag both those awards. Take those rose tinted glasses of and stop looking through the eyes of a class warrior. I don't care what school Dave and George went to or how much they've got stashed in the bank. They've saved the British economy (for now) from the gross ineptitude of Gordon Brown. For that we should be eternally grateful.
-
Stop it, you're hurting me with your cruel Tory jibes. Has your butler wiped your arse yet? It must be so upsetting coming on here and mingling with the great unwashed. I pity you.
You need to take your head out of your no doubt fat arse. How anyone can be a Labour supporter is beyond me. Especially in Doncaster with the worst council in the country. Sometimes people are a lost cause and unfortunately you fall into that category and should never be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.
You obviously are incapable of making rational judgements when it comes to politics and form your views based on 'have they got more money than me'. Sounds like you are a very well balanced individual with a chip on each shoulder and with an attitude like that most people will have more money than you making you even more bitter and twisted.
-
They've saved the British economy (for now) from the gross ineptitude of Gordon Brown. For that we should be eternally grateful.
From Q3 2010 onwards, the OECD lists GDP data for 7 respective quarters of the UK economy.
Of those 7 quarters, 4 have shown negative growth.
Saved?
-
You have a lovely way with words Mick if you dont mind me saying so.
-
From Q3 2010 onwards, the OECD lists GDP data for 7 respective quarters of the UK economy.
Of those 7 quarters, 4 have shown negative growth.
Saved?
Yes saved. Rome wasn't built in a day but we are on the right path. It's going to take many years to repair the cataclysmic damage Labour did to the economy.
Take the blinkers off and look at what is happening in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. Imagine where we'd be now if that retard Gordon Brown had won the election. It doesn't bear thinking about.
-
You have a lovely way with words mjdgreg if you dont mind me saying so.
I don't mind at all. I'm not so sure Sheepskin Sue feels the same way.
-
Labour crippled this country financially but a large portion of the population round here will persist in voting Labour forever and grumbling "rich tories, working man ignored, Thatcher is scum" etc. etc. etc. until the day they die.
I asked my brother not long back why he votes Labour and he says "cos my dad did" which is pathetic. At least have your own opinion! Sadly a fair few follow this same grand idea.
Sheepskin Stu you are the disgrace for a comment like that, where do you get off telling me or anyone that how they vote is a 'disgrace to this town'. Get real. I suppose you are behind Francois Hollande's great plan to get out of recession by, err, spending more money that his country doesn't have? Tremendous idea Frankie, can't go wrong.
Oh, and how long as Bert Miliband been in charge now? I'm yet to hear a policy from him, all he does is tell us how the Tories evil policies are bad, but never says how he has a better idea instead. The clown.
-
Labour crippled this country financially but a large portion of the population round here will persist in voting Labour forever and grumbling "rich tories, working man ignored, Thatcher is scum" etc. etc. etc. until the day they die.
I asked my brother not long back why he votes Labour and he says "cos my dad did" which is pathetic. At least have your own opinion! Sadly a fair few follow this same grand idea.
Sheepskin Stu you are the disgrace for a comment like that, where do you get off telling me or anyone that how they vote is a 'disgrace to this town'. Get real. I suppose you are behind Francois Hollande's great plan to get out of recession by, err, spending more money that his country doesn't have? Tremendous idea Frankie, can't go wrong.
Oh, and how long as Bert Miliband been in charge now? I'm yet to hear a policy from him, all he does is tell us how the Tories evil policies are bad, but never says how he has a better idea instead. The clown.
At last another well balanced intelligent post saying it as it really is. Totally spot on.
-
Rome wasn't built in a day but we are on the right path.
Take the blinkers off and look at what is happening in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc
Make your mind up Mick.
First you praise Rome, then you bash Italy.
-
Christ up above, here we go again. Mick needing some lessons in how to do basic thinking.
Let's start with the headlines of what Lagarde of the IMF said.
"when I think back myself of May 2010 when the UK deficit was at 11%, and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided. I shiver."
Quite. I don't think you'd find anyone who disagrees with that. You would also find no-one who had the policy of keeping that level of deficit. Labour certainly didn't have that policy. The question was always about just how quickly you cut the deficit and whether cutting too quickly would screw up growth. Labour were planning to halve the deficit over 5 years. Osborne's plan was to eliminate it.
Now. Everyone knows that you cannot eliminate a deficit without growth. Lagarde said the same yesterday. So the question remains: how to balance the obviously necessary deficit reduction with support for growth.
Since late 2010, we have had no growth. None at all. This is a catastrophe for deficit reduction. Osborne has already had to change his deficit reduction plan because of this and is now saying that he wi eliminate the deficit in 7 years, not 5. And THAT will only be achieved if growth hits his targets for the next 5 years. What the IMF said yesterday in the starkest terms was that there is a very big risk that it won't. We will flat line. The deficit will not come down. Just like some of us have been saying since May 10, we'll have a Japan style Lost Decade. We're two years into it already...
The irony is that the IMF's advice yesterday on cutting VAT to boost growth is exactly what Labour's policy has been for the last 18 months, since Osborne put VAT up. And Labour's policy on reducing the deficit more slowly is exactly what we are ending up with anyway. But we're having to go through the flatlining growth to get there. Worst of both bloody worlds.
-
Let's start with the headlines of what Lagarde of the IMF said.
"when I think back myself of May 2010 when the UK deficit was at 11%, and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided. I shiver."
Quite. I don't think you'd find anyone who disagrees with that. You would also find no-one who had the policy of keeping that level of deficit. Labour certainly didn't have that policy. The question was always about just how quickly you cut the deficit and whether cutting too quickly would screw up growth. Labour were planning to halve the deficit over 5 years. Osborne's plan was to eliminate it.
As usual you talk a load of b*llocks. Labour obviously disagreed with that and by inference so did you!!! They did have that policy at least until 2011!!! The Alistair Darling plan was not due to come in until 2011 not 2010. I repeat not 2010. His was a 4 year plan not a 5 year plan so you're wrong yet again!!! . Just to make sure you understand let me spell it out - Lagarde was talking about 2010-2011 not 2011-2012.
Listen to the Newsnight presenter last night from 8.30 if you don't believe me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01j5zpj/Newsnight_22_05_2012/
So it's obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by an illogical allegiance to the Labour party that she was saying 'it's a damn good job Labour didn't implement their plan until 2011 or you would be well and truly in the shit'.
At least this time you haven't based all your illogical arguments on GDP debt ratio.
-
I guess you forgot the suggestion that a plan B should be prepared if growth fails to materialise (which it won't because ordinary Dave and Inept Gideon are only interested looking after their mates in the city at the expense of the rest of us), and the less than "glowing" analysis of the unemployment in the UK. Talk about being selective.
Get a grip man. I agree you are being selective. Plan B is already being implemented. Plan A was to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Plan B is to eliminate it in 7. Rest assured that there will be further tweaks along the way.
What effect do you think it would have had on the markets if the Tories hadn't stated that they were going to stick with Plan A? If they had quickly ditched Plan A our interest rates would be much higher now and instead of a flat-lining economy we'd have one in serious decline.
They have skilfully implemented Plan B without people such as yourself even realising it and therefore maintained our current very low rates of interest.
As far as unemployment goes it is heading in the right direction. Losing all those unnecessary unproductive public sector jobs that Labour created to keep the dole queues down and replacing them with proper private sector jobs is going to take time.
I think you'll find it was Gordon Brown who was best mates with the 'city' so once again you are wide of the mark. Just because your mum and dad have always voted Labour doesn't mean that you have to too. Try using your brain for a change and try to weigh up both sides of an argument first before jumping to illogical conclusions.
Once again Dave and George deserve a lot of credit for the way they are going about sorting out Labour's disastrous economic legacy.
-
My position is fairly simple. Have the Tories so far done the right thing? Probably 90 percent yes. However, they still could stimulate growth a little bit better. But that doesn't have to be done through public spending and cutting VAT, which just isn't sustainable, the maths don't add up. Efficiencies must continue and much more should be done to become competitive with other countries. Policies to encourage that should really be encouraged, including the cut to corporation tax which some might not like but will attract business from abroad and lead to a decrease in imports theoretically.
I'd like to see a higher tax on savings in foreign accounts as well to reduce that, as well as a stabilising import tax to encourage British manufacturing.
-
I wish I could use the Tories plans at work.
My boss: "I thought you were going to finish that project by today"
Me: "Well boss, that was my Plan A. However, I'm now switching to Plan B, which is to take another month."
:facepalm:
-
I wish I could use the Tories plans at work.
My boss: "I thought you were going to finish that project by today"
Me: "Well boss, that was my Plan A. However, I'm now switching to Plan B, which is to take another month."
:facepalm:
OK similar analogy. Also go to your boss and say you might make more money if you put a whole load of loan cash towards it, but then you haven't got a cast iron guarantee that will happen. I know what my bosses reaction would be - prove you can do it and I'll consider it, otherwise.....
-
OK similar analogy. Also go to your boss and say you might make more money if you put a whole load of loan cash towards it, but then you haven't got a cast iron guarantee that will happen. I know what my bosses reaction would be - prove you can do it and I'll consider it, otherwise.....
That's blown bobjim out of the water,lol.
-
do you think it makes you big and clever by replying to every post that agrees with you mick?
It actually makes you look like a bit of a massive prat, but you're probably clever enough to work that one out yourself? :whistle:
by now we all know you're "conservative till I die" and you're really good at posting pro-tory articles. You're not humourous in the slightest, and you like to throw personal insults towards anyone who doesn't agree with you, like a child would.
If you really want people to think you're clever, try writing some clever posts. If you don't care what people think and don't want to hear opposing thoughts in an adult way, then maybe internet forums aren't really your thing?
Cue non-witty response looking for backup from posters that probably really don't give a shit what he says...
:suicide:
-
do you think it makes you big and clever by replying to every post that agrees with you mjdgreg?
It actually makes you look like a bit of a massive prat, but you're probably clever enough to work that one out yourself?
by now we all know you're "conservative till I die" and you're really good at posting pro-tory articles. You're not humourous in the slightest, and you like to throw personal insults towards anyone who doesn't agree with you, like a child would.
If you really want people to think you're clever, try writing some clever posts. If you don't care what people think and don't want to hear opposing thoughts in an adult way, then maybe internet forums aren't really your thing?
Cue non-witty response looking for backup from posters that probably really don't give a shit what he says...
Bit touchy aren't we? Look if you can't stand having your arguments torn to shreds then maybe you shouldn't get involved. Just leave it at 'I vote Labour cos my mum and dad did and that's good enough for me.' I dare n't evaluate the issues in a logical manner because I would be selling out my Labour heritage and all my mates would think I was a Tory tosser.'
Leave it to the likes of me to stand up for what is right regardless of class being an issue.
-
Mick.
I'm a convert. You're right and you always have been.
No matter that The Times reported Lagarde's comments as a cry out for a change of course and a Plan B.
No matter that the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said,
In the nature of things, the IMF can’t go to a country not in need of a financing program and say bluntly, “Ur doing it wrong”. Nor can it easily climb down from its original endorsement of the Cameron-Osborne austerity program. But the latest consultation comes about as close as the Fund can to saying that a huge error is underway, in particular mentioning “hysteresis”, the risk that the economy’s austerity-induced weakness will inflict long-run damage.
No matter that the IMF's own chief economist Oliver Blanchard said in January,
if growth is really dismal then you may decide that you're going to go a bit more slowly about the discretionary part of the budget.
(Which is code for "If your policies are f**king up growth, change your policies and cut the deficit less quickly.)
No matter that the economy has utterly flat-lined for the last two years, WAY before the EuroZone second slow-down that Osborne blames our ills on started.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18187354 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18187354)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201)
No matter that a Tory MP quoted in The Times yesterday said,
We've got to stop blaming this on the Euro crisis and start accepting that its an economic mess up of our own making.
All of that is of no concern. A professional gambler and property speculator from Donny has spoken and he must be correct. I will now change my beliefs accordingly.
-
Get a grip man. I agree you are being selective. Plan B is already being implemented. Plan A was to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Plan B is to eliminate it in 7. Rest assured that there will be further tweaks along the way.
That's plan B is it? Sounds like an admission of failure. What will plan C be? Deficit reduction in 10 years, with further destruction of the civilised society we live in? Even fewer hospital beds, fewer beat bobbies and class sizes of 50 in schools?
What effect do you think it would have had on the markets if the Tories hadn't stated that they were going to stick with Plan A? If they had quickly ditched Plan A our interest rates would be much higher now and instead of a flat-lining economy we'd have one in serious decline.
Free market economics have failed...each bust in the boom and bust cycle is bigger than the last one, its time for another plan, one where people come first instead of the 1% But blue blinkered cretins like you would have no clue about that would you?
They have skilfully implemented Plan B without people such as yourself even realising it and therefore maintained our current very low rates of interest.
People such as myself...really, care to elaborate? At least I've been straight up with my assessment of you.
As far as unemployment goes it is heading in the right direction. Losing all those unnecessary unproductive public sector jobs that Labour created to keep the dole queues down and replacing them with proper private sector jobs is going to take time.
Oh, you mean like the old folks wardens, and librarians in Donny, as well as thousands of front line NHS and police? I've met some naive people before but you take the biscuit...
I think you'll find it was Gordon Brown who was best mates with the 'city' so once again you are wide of the mark. Just because your mum and dad have always voted Labour doesn't mean that you have to too. Try using your brain for a change and try to weigh up both sides of an argument first before jumping to illogical conclusions.
Gordon Brown was guilty of not regulating the banks. In fact, he endorsed tighter regulation in a speech at Harvard back in 1998, but got no support from the rest of the world,, so was powerless to implement it. And he was equally as guilty for not nationalising the banks or part of banks that were bailed out, then we might be in a position where they are forced to lend to people and business to inject growth into the economy. All this QE...sorry credit easing as Gideon likes to call it now (because QE was "leap in the dark and necessary only because of the ‘complete failure’ of Labour’s other measures to tackle the recession.") is just refinancing the institutions that screwed us in the first place.
Oh, and for the record, I voted Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in North Doncaster in 2010. As for my parents, I don't know nor do I care who they vote for. All know is once the Tories are finished with their failing experiment, they will be unelectable for a generation, as Sir Mervyn King has predicted. Sounds good to me!
Once again Dave and George deserve a lot of credit for the way they are going about sorting out Labour's disastrous economic legacy.
You really don't get it do you? It is a crisis made of finance institutions being greedy. Brown had no choice but to bail out the banks. The problem is those who caused the crisis are still dragging home their bonuses and funding the Tory party with that same filthy tarnished money, so their interests are protected.
I recently read a book, "Chavs" by Owen Jones. The real killer for people like you in the book is a passage which quotes an unnamed Tory cabinet minister saying the Tory position in British politics has always been to "give just enough in the manifesto to just enough people to get into government". Then looking after their own ideological interests come what may. The cabinet of millionaires should tell you all you need to know.
One day the likes of you and a handful of others on here will wake up to that fact and realise what fools you've been.
-
mjdgreg.
I'm a convert. You're right and you always have been.
No matter that The Times reported Lagarde's comments as a cry out for a change of course and a Plan B.
At last I'm finally starting to get through to you and you are seeing the errors of your ways. You should know by now I only deal in facts and will mercilessly point out the many fallacies in your arguments. I give you credit for coming back for more. You are a brave soul indeed.
-
No matter that The Times reported Lagarde's comments as a cry out for a change of course and a Plan B.
No matter that the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said,
Quote
In the nature of things, the IMF can’t go to a country not in need of a financing program and say bluntly, “Ur doing it wrong”. Nor can it easily climb down from its original endorsement of the Cameron-Osborne austerity program. But the latest consultation comes about as close as the Fund can to saying that a huge error is underway, in particular mentioning “hysteresis”, the risk that the economy’s austerity-induced weakness will inflict long-run damage.
No matter that the IMF's own chief economist Oliver Blanchard said in January,
Quote
if growth is really dismal then you may decide that you're going to go a bit more slowly about the discretionary part of the budget.
(Which is code for "If your policies are f***ing up growth, change your policies and cut the deficit less quickly.)
Right it's time to point out the blindingly obvious that you somehow appear to have missed (even though I've mentioned it in a previous post on this thread).
Plan B is currently being implemented. The deficit is now being cut back in 7 years not 5 as in Plan A.
I wish people would use their brains at least some of the time. Just because the government don't admit there is a Plan B it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is and it is being implemented now.
All this talk of Plan A and Plan B is just political language for the unintelligent masses that make up the bulk of the electorate. The basic strategy was always going to be changed as time went on and events unfolded. That is exactly what is happening.
-
No matter that the economy has utterly flat-lined for the last two years, WAY before the EuroZone second slow-down that Osborne blames our ills on started.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18187354
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201
No matter that a Tory MP quoted in The Times yesterday said,
Quote
We've got to stop blaming this on the Euro crisis and start accepting that its an economic mess up of our own making.
The economy flat-lining for the last 2 years is a great outcome given the cataclysmic situation Labour left behind. George should be shouting from the roof-tops about how well we've done compared to how disastrous things would have been if Labour hadn't been kicked out. Aren't you aware of how bad things are in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal etc?
That Tory MP is right. The Euro crisis is only an exacerbating the situation. We do need to accept that it's an economic mess of Labour's making.
We should be extremely grateful that those clowns haven't still got their hands in the till. We need to harden up and stop living beyond our means. I'm prepared to accept a big cut in my standard of living so future generations don't have to pick up the bill. I suggest you moaning minnies do the same and get on with it.
-
That's plan B is it?
Sounds like an admission of failure. What will plan C be? Deficit reduction in 10 years, with further destruction of the civilised society we live in? Even fewer hospital beds, fewer beat bobbies and class sizes of 50 in schools?
Look, if you can't work out what Plan B was without me spelling it out for you then you are getting involved in a debate that is way over your head. If we want a civilised society then we need to grow the private sector so it can support a public sector. Labour's solution to shrink the private sector and grow the public sector on borrowed money is what's got us into this mess in the first place.
In your simplistic world you think we can have everything we want without paying for it. Your solution is no doubt to keep on borrowing money and keep on increasing the debt burden for future generations. A very selfish attitude if you don't mind me saying.
-
Free market economics have failed...each bust in the boom and bust cycle is bigger than the last one, its time for another plan, one where people come first instead of the 1% But blue blinkered cretins like you would have no clue about that would you?
It must be lovely living in fantasy land like you.
-
People such as myself...really, care to elaborate? At least I've been straight up with my assessment of you.
No need for me to elaborate. You've already painted a very detailed picture of yourself. If I were you I'd come up with another username so you can start afresh.
-
Gordon Brown was guilty of not regulating the banks. In fact, he endorsed tighter regulation in a speech at Harvard back in 1998, but got no support from the rest of the world,, so was powerless to implement it. And he was equally as guilty for not nationalising the banks or part of banks that were bailed out, then we might be in a position where they are forced to lend to people and business to inject growth into the economy. All this QE...sorry credit easing as Gideon likes to call it now (because QE was "leap in the dark and necessary only because of the ‘complete failure’ of Labour’s other measures to tackle the recession.") is just refinancing the institutions that screwed us in the first place.
Gordon Brown could have still regulated our banks no matter what the rest of the world wanted to do. He was not powerless. The dopey sod thought we'd have a mild recession that would only last for 6 months. What a clown.
He should have just let the bad banks go bust then we could have got out of this mess a lot quicker. Agree that QE is a waste of time. All it does is devalue the currency and create inflation.
-
Oh, you mean like the old folks wardens, and librarians in Donny, as well as thousands of front line NHS and police? I've met some naive people before but you take the biscuit...
Thanks to Labour we can no longer afford all these things. What do you suggest should happen? Don't bother answering cos I know what you will say: 'Let's borrow some more money to keep on paying for things we can't afford'. What a brilliant solution. You really are naive.
-
You really don't get it do you? It is a crisis made of finance institutions being greedy. Brown had no choice but to bail out the banks. The problem is those who caused the crisis are still dragging home their bonuses and funding the Tory party with that same filthy tarnished money, so their interests are protected.
You haven't got a clue what you're on about. Gordon Brown let the banks do as they wanted. They knew they could take massive risks and the government would pick up the bill if it all went horribly wrong. It's like me going to the bookies and backing a load of outsiders hoping one of them would win and I'd make a lot of money, safe in the knowledge that my dad would give me back my money if I lost.
If the banks had known they would not have been bailed out do you seriously think they would have taken the risks they did? That tarnished money you're on about by the way is probably paying you your benefits and keeping police and nurses in jobs.
-
It's like me going to the bookies and backing a load of outsiders hoping one of them would win and I'd make a lot of money, safe in the knowledge that my dad would give me back my money if I lost.
If your dad`s got any sense, he would n`t let you any where near any money!
-
That's plan B is it?
Sounds like an admission of failure. What will plan C be? Deficit reduction in 10 years, with further destruction of the civilised society we live in? Even fewer hospital beds, fewer beat bobbies and class sizes of 50 in schools?
Look, if you can't work out what Plan B was without me spelling it out for you then you are getting involved in a debate that is way over your head. If we want a civilised society then we need to grow the private sector so it can support a public sector. Labour's solution to shrink the private sector and grow the public sector on borrowed money is what's got us into this mess in the first place.
In your simplistic world you think we can have everything we want without paying for it. Your solution is no doubt to keep on borrowing money and keep on increasing the debt burden for future generations. A very selfish attitude if you don't mind me saying.
Erm...generally speaking, I'd say plan B should be something NEW, not the same, just over a bit longer? We need growth...and the Tories have no plan. But there is an ideological reason for this...UNEMPLOYMENT. Unemployment creates more supply in the labour market which drives down wages...simple supply and demand economics. Less wages, more profit. Looking after their own. And now they want to make it easier to SACK you...more unemployment? Economic policy out of beano.
And no, I wouldn't have everything without having to pay for it. The answer is collect the 150 billion either evaded or avoided every f**king year by the rich or corperations. That would pay for a decent civilised society with good state education , NHS free at the point of service, a police service who can do their job properly ect. And that is not some fantasy world I'm living in...its called decency and morality. Something the trust fund child Gideon and 3rd generation son of stockbrokers Ordinary Dave would know f**k all about.
-
Erm...generally speaking, I'd say plan B should be something NEW, not the same, just over a bit longer? We need growth...and the Tories have no plan. But there is an ideological reason for this...UNEMPLOYMENT. Unemployment creates more supply in the labour market which drives down wages...simple supply and demand economics. Less wages, more profit. Looking after their own. And now they want to make it easier to SACK you...more unemployment? Economic policy out of beano.
And no, I wouldn't have everything without having to pay for it. The answer is collect the 150 billion either evaded or avoided every f***ing year by the rich or corperations. That would pay for a decent civilised society with good state education , NHS free at the point of service, a police service who can do their job properly ect. And that is not some fantasy world I'm living in...its called decency and morality. Something the trust fund child Gideon and 3rd generation son of stockbrokers Ordinary Dave would know f*** all about.
You lefties bang on about the cuts being too much too fast and when the Tories drag them out over an extra 2 years in Plan B you still moan. There's no pleasing a leftie.
Yes it would be nice to have some growth, but just be happy we are flat-lining for now. It's going to take at least a decade to get over Labour's incompetence. Flat-lining for a decade will do me. It'll give us time to start to live within our means instead of mortgaging the future for the next generation. Just be happy we aren't Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal etc. That's how we'd have ended up under Labour.
Unemployment started rising under Labour. The Tories have already created 600,000 proper jobs and are getting on with getting rid of those unproductive public sector jobs that Gordon was so fond of creating on borrowed money.
It should be easier to sack people. If you're good at your job your employer will want to keep you. If you're crap at your job you should be sacked. There is still far too much trade union power. They need to be smashed.
You are living in fantasy land if you think your economic solution would work. If it was that simple why didn't Labour do it? I'd rather corporations kept the money to re-invest in their companies rather than giving it to politicians to waste.
-
That's plan B is it?
Sounds like an admission of failure. What will plan C be? Deficit reduction in 10 years, with further destruction of the civilised society we live in? Even fewer hospital beds, fewer beat bobbies and class sizes of 50 in schools?
Look, if you can't work out what Plan B was without me spelling it out for you then you are getting involved in a debate that is way over your head. If we want a civilised society then we need to grow the private sector so it can support a public sector. Labour's solution to shrink the private sector and grow the public sector on borrowed money is what's got us into this mess in the first place.
In your simplistic world you think we can have everything we want without paying for it. Your solution is no doubt to keep on borrowing money and keep on increasing the debt burden for future generations. A very selfish attitude if you don't mind me saying.
Erm...generally speaking, I'd say plan B should be something NEW, not the same, just over a bit longer? We need growth...and the Tories have no plan. But there is an ideological reason for this...UNEMPLOYMENT. Unemployment creates more supply in the labour market which drives down wages...simple supply and demand economics. Less wages, more profit. Looking after their own. And now they want to make it easier to SACK you...more unemployment? Economic policy out of beano.
And no, I wouldn't have everything without having to pay for it. The answer is collect the 150 billion either evaded or avoided every f**king year by the rich or corperations. That would pay for a decent civilised society with good state education , NHS free at the point of service, a police service who can do their job properly ect. And that is not some fantasy world I'm living in...its called decency and morality. Something the trust fund child Gideon and 3rd generation son of stockbrokers Ordinary Dave would know f**k all about.
See the problem is that more money is going out than what is coming in. In fact exactly the same as the Rovers, John Ryan and the Board has been plugging the shortfall but for the Country the shortfall has been filled with borrowed money. The Tories are doing what is happening at the Rovers things are being cut, Labours legacy is to do a Pourtsmouth, cut down untill the crisis is over and then spend spend again. We may be back in Recession but is life really any worse than it was a month back? Under Labour it would have gone down the same path.
But lets look at your fiscal policy for a second, so the £150 Billion is owed for avoided tax, all that does is plug the Defecit, still no money to lend, what happens next year when there isn't a £150B in avoided/evaded debt?
The bottom line is there is no real alternative to capitalism, we could follow the Rhineland model of Germany but no Politician would dare stand before the elections shouting "We are following in Germanies footstep, we will be the next Germany etc because that would be political suicide. Or we could turn to China or the Marxists.
-
I think life is a lot harder than a few months ago for thousands upon thousands who are still out of work. It won't necessarily be harder for everyone, especially those in jobs, but for those who lost jobs at the beginning of the recession it will continue to get harder.
I think it's still quite incredible that people are blaming labour for a world recession that was primarily caused by the collapse of the u.s. housing market.
I also think it's a disgrace that the likes of mick believe all the tory hype that all these public sector jobs that are going are all useless and not needed. Do they forget the public sector jobs include the likes of policemen, nurses, doctors, teachers etc? Are these jobs not needed in society any more? :s
-
I also think it's a disgrace that the likes of mjdgreg believe all the tory hype that all these public sector jobs that are going are all useless and not needed. Do they forget the public sector jobs include the likes of policemen, nurses, doctors, teachers etc? Are these jobs not needed in society any more?
Talk about exaggerating. No-one is saying all these public sector jobs are all useless and not needed. We obviously need some public sector jobs. What you have to realise is that it is the private sector that creates the wealth that politicians then spend on the public sector.
Gordon Brown's philosophy was to hide true unemployment by borrowing money to create so many public sector jobs that the public sector became bigger than the private sector. No economy can survive that kind of madness. All that's happening now is that the public sector is being cut back to a sustainable level and the private sector is being encouraged to grow. There is still a long way to go to achieve this.
We've been living beyond our means and continue to do so. We're just going to have to harden up and make do with a worse public sector than we're used to because the money has run out. In fantasy land it would be great if we could just create as many public sector jobs as we wanted to give everyone a job. Gordon Brown has already tried this and failed abysmally.
Unfortunately we have to live in the real world and cut our cloth accordingly. That's the reality that all you lefties out there don't want to face. You just want to keep on borrowing more money without a thought as to how it is going to have to be paid back. It's criminal that lefties are quite happy for their own children and their children's children to be given the bill so that we don't have to harden up.
-
Aye Mick. I told you I agree with your deeply pondered-upon prognostications.
The widely-respected economist Robert Zemeckis must have been wrong on PM on Radio 4 tonight when he said that he fears that UK is sliding into the Paradox of Thrift.
See Mick, that is when businesses are terrified that the economy won't pick up. So they hoard their profits instead of re-investing them. And so, business slows. And so the recession comes. And so they hoard even more. And do the economy struggles to get out of recession.
What confused me Mick, is that the widely-respected economist Zemeckis was saying that this is the massive threat when Govts rein in their spending before the private sector has recovered. He said that this was what happened to Japan to disastrous effect in their Lost Decade. He said that the sign that this catastrophe was upon us was when companies' retained profits went through the roof. And that, currently, UK companies are sitting on £700bn of retained profits which they are terrified to re-invest, as opposed to £3-350bn in normal times. He said that there was an urgent need for Govt action to get the economy moving and encourage companies to invest this money.
But, see, I'm confused. Because the IMF are asking for fiscal loosening. Paul Krugman is asking for fiscal loosening. Robert Zemeckis is asking for fiscal loosening. But my new guru, the bedsit gambler Mad Mick says that this would be a disaster. Help me out Mick. Tell me why you are correct and all these world-renown economic experts are wrong.
-
You lefties bang on about the cuts being too much too fast and when the Tories drag them out over an extra 2 years in Plan B you still moan. There's no pleasing a leftie.
Sweeping generalisations again...I'm afraid this "leftie" is firmly in the no cuts at all camp. History tells you how unnecessary they are and are based purely on ideology.
Back in 1945, you might remember the end of a significant event in British history...an event that left us with debt of 250% of GDP. Without being bothered to look at the exact current figure today I'd guess it is around 80%, indecently higher than when Ordinary Dave and Inept Osborne took over. Prior to the banking crisis the debt to GDP was around 35% again without bothering to check. So, as any fool can see...apart from people like yourself...out debt is not that significant. Now consider the fact the welfare state was created, millions of council houses built, state education for all, the NHS, all created under a massive public debt. The cuts are not necessary. Get people in work fixing our f**ked road network, rebuild the million council houses Thatcher sold off, stop supporting illegal, pointless wars, invest in sustainable green energy, renationalise the railways (which cost the taxpayer 12 times...not 12%, TWELVE TIMES more in subsidies now in privatisation than when they were nationalised) and I could continue.
The real problem in this country and across the developed world is one of widening inequality, the rich not paying their fair share of tax, and a broken economic system. How can it be right that according to the Sunday Times rich list 2012 the richest in society are now as rich or richer than the financial crash in 2008 whilst you...yes YOU and I and everyone reading this forum are having to pick up the pieces through slashed public services? Its a f**king outrage.
I find it sickening you think unions should be smashed. Unions are leading the alternative argument and are possibly the only ones who will stand between the workers in this country and the shocking Beecroft Report. My union Unite are setting up community membership at 50p a week to try and replace things like the CAB and to give people some hope when there is none. In the first community branch meeting in Sheffield a young mother collapsed through hunger because she had to chose between feeding her kids and herself. This is what these bolly swigging toffs are doing to our communities. And apparently this is by no means an isolated case...1 in 5 mothers are having to do without meals to feed their kids. My local primary school puts on a breakfast club and lose money on it because they know certain kids would have to go without breakfast if they either pulled it or increased the price from 30p a day.
Like I said...in time the most hated pair in politics. But I guess to wipe out the welfare state for their class it will be a price worth paying. Let them rot in hell with Thatcher.
-
Help me out Mick. Tell me why you are correct and all these world-renown economic experts are wrong.
Just hang on while he checks google and finds something to copy and paste!
-
Sweeping generalisations again...I'm afraid this "leftie" is firmly in the no cuts at all camp. History tells you how unnecessary they are and are based purely on ideology.
No cuts at all!!! You are a complete joker. The views you espouse are totally ludicrous. Are you aware that even now we are borrowing £2 per day for every man woman and child in this country just to pay the interest on the debt previously accrued by Labour? Obviously not.
Debt has caused our problems and accruing more debt is not the solution. It will only make things worse and will have to be paid by future generations. I'd be grateful if you could consider them for one second. Why should they pay for our current profligacy?
-
Aye mjdgreg. I told you I agree with your deeply pondered-upon prognostications.
The widely-respected economist Robert Zemeckis must have been wrong on PM on Radio 4 tonight when he said that he fears that UK is sliding into the Paradox of Thrift.
See mjdgreg, that is when businesses are terrified that the economy won't pick up. So they hoard their profits instead of re-investing them. And so, business slows. And so the recession comes. And so they hoard even more. And do the economy struggles to get out of recession.
What confused me mjdgreg, is that the widely-respected economist Zemeckis was saying that this is the massive threat when Govts rein in their spending before the private sector has recovered. He said that this was what happened to Japan to disastrous effect in their Lost Decade. He said that the sign that this catastrophe was upon us was when companies' retained profits went through the roof. And that, currently, UK companies are sitting on £700bn of retained profits which they are terrified to re-invest, as opposed to £3-350bn in normal times. He said that there was an urgent need for Govt action to get the economy moving and encourage companies to invest this money.
But, see, I'm confused. Because the IMF are asking for fiscal loosening. Paul Krugman is asking for fiscal loosening. Robert Zemeckis is asking for fiscal loosening. But my new guru, the professional gambler mjdgreg says that this would be a disaster. Help me out mjdgreg. Tell me why you are correct and all these world-renown economic experts are wrong.
You're mistaking me for someone that agrees with everything the Tories are doing. I don't. All I know is that they are a far better proposition than Labour.
You're problem is that you think you can solve a debt crisis by getting further into debt. This is where your credibility is seriously lacking along with all your leftie mates.
There is a solution which will eventually have to be implemented. I've written to Dave and George with my advice and hope to see changes in the near future. The sooner it happens the better.
-
You're problem is that you think you can solve a debt crisis by getting further into debt. This is where your credibility is seriously lacking along with all your leftie mates.
Mick. You must be right that it's impossible to get out of a debt crisis by borrowing more. That is very clear, logical and obviously correct.
There's just one problem that I need some help on. See, at the end of WWII, our Public Debt to GDP was almost 250%. Cripplingly high. By 1975, it was less than 40%. Perfectly manageable. Surely, we must have done that by massively reducing public spending and running budget surpluses?
But, Mick, I'm really, really struggling here. Because when you look at the numbers, in fact we only ran budget surpluses for 4 years out of those 30 years. This is getting scary. Because it appears that the Government borrowed more in 26 out of 30 years, and yet our debt burden came down?
And, do you know what Mick? The same thing happened in just about every other major Western country.
That can't be right Mick, can it? Government borrowing more but debt as a proportion of income going down?
Can you help me out and explain what REALLY happened? My best guess is that there was a pinko plot to fiddle the numbers.
-
mjdgreg. You must be right that it's impossible to get out of a debt crisis by borrowing more. That is very clear, logical and obviously correct.
There's just one problem that I need some help on. See, at the end of WWII, our Public Debt to GDP was almost 250%. Cripplingly high. By 1975, it was less than 40%. Perfectly manageable. Surely, we must have done that by massively reducing public spending and running budget surpluses?
But, mjdgreg, I'm really, really struggling here. Because when you look at the numbers, in fact we only ran budget surpluses for 4 years out of those 30 years. This is getting scary. Because it appears that the Government borrowed more in 26 out of 30 years, and yet our debt burden came down?
And, do you know what mjdgreg? The same thing happened in just about every other major Western country.
That can't be right mjdgreg, can it? Government borrowing more but debt as a proportion of income going down?
Can you help me out and explain what REALLY happened? My best guess is that there was a pinko plot to fiddle the numbers.
If you'd just left your post at the first paragraph you would have gone a little way to restoring your battered credibility.
Unfortunately try as you might you can't resist basing all your arguments on Public Debt to GDP and ignoring all the other factors that go into making up our economy and the true level of the nation's debt.
Reading your posts people would be forgiven for thinking 'debt crisis, what debt crisis'? It must be a figment of people's imaginations because Labour did such a marvellous job of running the economy.
Unfortunately for you and your deluded leftie mates we all know what really happened. Labour once again (as they always do when in power) bankrupted the country again. This time though they have really taken the biscuit.
So I'd appreciate it if all you leftie fools out there would just harden up a bit and take the medicine that's coming and stop blaming the coalition and realise this is all Labour's doing.
-
mjdgreg. You must be right that it's impossible to get out of a debt crisis by borrowing more. That is very clear, logical and obviously correct.
There's just one problem that I need some help on. See, at the end of WWII, our Public Debt to GDP was almost 250%. Cripplingly high. By 1975, it was less than 40%. Perfectly manageable. Surely, we must have done that by massively reducing public spending and running budget surpluses?
But, mjdgreg, I'm really, really struggling here. Because when you look at the numbers, in fact we only ran budget surpluses for 4 years out of those 30 years. This is getting scary. Because it appears that the Government borrowed more in 26 out of 30 years, and yet our debt burden came down?
And, do you know what mjdgreg? The same thing happened in just about every other major Western country.
That can't be right mjdgreg, can it? Government borrowing more but debt as a proportion of income going down?
Can you help me out and explain what REALLY happened? My best guess is that there was a pinko plot to fiddle the numbers.
If you'd just left your post at the first paragraph you would have gone a little way to restoring your battered credibility.
Unfortunately try as you might you can't resist basing all your arguments on Public Debt to GDP and ignoring all the other factors that go into making up our economy and the true level of the nation's debt.
Reading your posts people would be forgiven for thinking 'debt crisis, what debt crisis'? It must be a figment of people's imaginations because Labour did such a marvellous job of running the economy.
Unfortunately for you and your deluded leftie mates we all know what really happened. Labour once again (as they always do when in power) bankrupted the country again. This time though they have really taken the biscuit.
So I'd appreciate it if all you leftie fools out there would just harden up a bit and take the medicine that's coming and stop blaming the coalition and realise this is all Labour's doing.
Mick, you`ve responded to that post without explaining anything, could you explain why you think BST is wrong with facts figures that contradict BST`s facts and figures, without finding an article to copy and paste, my guess is you can`t find an article and as such you have n`t an explanation!
-
Dear Mick,
I thought you deal in facts?
Regards,
A mad leftie
-
See it all depends on where you sit, in the past we had economies that could build by developing industry and i think it's fair to say we don't have that quite as much anymore. I think it's also fair that we say all governments were guilty of failing to protect British manufacturing etc.
But what a lot of people seem to think is that we should tax the big businesses. Well let me tell you as an accountant working for a large PLC that won't always work for a number of reasons. But one main one is that the companies will simply move abroad. My company has been doing that in large numbers and we've seen whole teams of people outsourced or moved abroad. That's where the tax big business argument falls down, what people seem to forget is those of us within PLC's pay taxes and contribute probably more than many public sector workers whilst working longer hours with less holidays.
We can't like in 1945 build our way out of debt, it just is not possible as we haven't much to build these days. The way to build the economy right now is to force down labour costs, force down business taxes and attract business back from China and abroad. That is starting to happen but it's not happening enough. We will see manufacturing return as shipping costs increase and whatnot. But in reality the British labour force priced itself out at the lower end and it was inevitable that would cause companies to move abroad. I mean we have staff who want ridiculous amounts of money for the job that they do and then they go running to their union when someone suggests their contract may be terminated - crazy. Some of us have to accept a bit of a cutback, I've had to, 0% percent payrises for us this year (though I was fortunate to earn a move up the ladder, I'm still near the bottom), but sometimes we just have to accept that we don't really need that 24 pack of lager on a weekend.
-
I've more than explained the fallacy of his argument in my post as follows:
'Unfortunately try as you might you can't resist basing all your arguments on Public Debt to GDP and ignoring all the other factors that go into making up our economy and the true level of the nation's debt.'
I'll just say this one more time in the vain hope that it sinks through some of your thick skulls. GDP Debt ratio is only one piece of the jigsaw. It is not the be all and end all
for basing your argument on.
To help you lefties understand a little bit better, I've found a nice simple youtube video which explains the true horror of the Labour years in power. It's short and doesn't use big words so you should be able to follow it and not have an attention span problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAdzE13qMI
-
See Mick. You keep on saying that public debt-to-GDP is unimportant.
In that case, can you please explain, in simple, direct terms, what the Government's deficit reduction plan which you support is all about?
As regards other debt, yes our financial system is up to its eyeballs in debt. That is a massive problem to sort out. But it will categorically NOT be sorted out while ever the economy is going downhill.
Interestingly, our other, non-financial companies are NOT up to their eyeballs in debt. As I said yesterday, British companies are sitting on a collective pot of £700bn which they are terrified to invest. THAT is the key to this problem. Those companies need the re-assurance that they can risk re-investing that to get businesses up and running again.
As I said yesterday, we have slid into a classic Paradox of Thrift disaster. Individual companies see that the economy is flatlining. So they are terrified that their markets will dry up and they will have to live on retained profits. So they retain the profits and do not re-invest them. So the economy stagnates, just as they feared. So they retain even more of the profits. And we spiral downwards.
Just as Japan did 20 years ago.
Just as Keynes explained would happen more than 70 years ago.
There is a way out of this, just as Keynes explained, just as Paul Krugman passionately argues. Neither of them remotely what you call "lefties". Both of them highly respected economists. It requires Governments to kick start the economy. There is no other way out. There never has been in the history of economics.
It will come, eventually. The IMF are all-but screaming for it (albeit in very diplomatic language). The question is, how far into the hole will we be before it does come?
-
See mjdgreg. You keep on saying that public debt-to-GDP is unimportant.
I have categorically never said that. Of course it's important but is only one factor when assessing the problem and not the only thing as you seem to think. I've explained my position in graphic detail before and I'm not about to explain it to you again.
-
Ok Mick
So, can you point me to a single example in economic history whereby a country has reduced its debt without significant GDP growth? Just one will do.
-
Ok mjdgreg
So, can you point me to a single example in economic history whereby a country has reduced its debt without significant GDP growth? Just one will do.
If I do, will you admit you have lost the argument? Be very careful before you answer that one. Just bear in mind how many times I've totally trashed your arguments in the past. You have been warned.
-
Mick.
You find me a single example of a mature, liberal western market democracy that has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced its public debt to GDP ratio (ie knocked it down by more than 25%) without having SIGNIFICANT GDP growth (ie, more than two percent as an annual average over the period of debt reduction) and I'll say not another word on the subject.
And if you can't, I expect you to take the same pledge.
-
mjdgreg
You find me a single example of a mature, liberal western market democracy that has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced its public debt to GDP ratio (ie knocked it down by more than 25%) without having SIGNIFICANT GDP growth (ie, more than two percent as an annual average over the period of debt reduction) and I'll say not another word on the subject.
And if you can't, I expect you to take the same pledge.
You do know how to make me laugh. Talk about moving the goal posts. Instead of just being any country it now has to be, mature, liberal western democracy, reduced its public debt to GDP ratio by more than 25% and had GDP growth of less than 2% over the period of debt reduction.
Just admit I was about to totally embarrass you but thanks to my good nature I gave you the wriggle room to to save a little bit of face. However it is only a little bit and I think impartial (i.e. non-leftie) viewers of this forum will make their own judgements and I fear they will conclude that you have shot yourself in the foot once again.
That said I do admire a fighter. You keep getting knocked down but you come back for more. That is indeed an admirable (if foolish) trait.
-
I think life is a lot harder than a few months ago for thousands upon thousands who are still out of work. It won't necessarily be harder for everyone, especially those in jobs, but for those who lost jobs at the beginning of the recession it will continue to get harder.
I think it's still quite incredible that people are blaming labour for a world recession that was primarily caused by the collapse of the u.s. housing market.
I also think it's a disgrace that the likes of mick believe all the tory hype that all these public sector jobs that are going are all useless and not needed. Do they forget the public sector jobs include the likes of policemen, nurses, doctors, teachers etc? Are these jobs not needed in society any more? :s
I think you mis-understood what I was getting at, if you go back to the day before we slipped back into recession and compare it to today nothing radical has changed because of a result, the recession we are in at the moment (although we are still awaiting the full details) is nothing like the one in 2008.
I supported the Conservative Party in the last General Election, if I could go back in time and change it would I? No. I don't class myself as a 'righty' but I did understand at the time what the Tories planned to do. And yes I do think Gordon Brown helped to cause the world recession, he may not be the sole cause but it was his view that the third way would bring the United Kindgom to the heart of Globalization when he was chancellor, it was because of him that power shifted from Stock Markets to Banks and the UK was always bound to fail because of that, we could have had a Global Recession without the UK being the slowest to recover.
The question for me is would Labour have done any better? No, and that I am sure of, I would continue to offer my piece but this is too ideological for me now, there is no such thing as a Socialist or Tory anymore in the House of Commons, this is an age of neo liberalism and for that reason I will not enter in the left/right debate.
-
Eeh Mick, that's a very verbose way of saying "no I can't".
No wiggling here. I was simply requiring that the reduction in debt be reasonably significant, not just a transient blip, and that it be achieved within a socio-politico-economic system more or less like ours, given that the whole debate is about what WE should do.
But I'll indulge you. Give me ANY example.
-
Mr Croft
" if you go back to the day before we slipped back into recession and compare it to today nothing radical has changed because of a result, the recession we are in at the moment (although we are still awaiting the full details) is nothing like the one in 2008."
Forgive me, but this is a dangerous misunderstanding.
It is true that the depth of the current recession is nothing like as severe as that of 08-09. But that doesn't mean that it's not deeply, deeply damaging.
When you have a severe recession, like 08/09, it is vital that you emerge quickly and strongly. There are three reasons for this.
1) unless you return to growth quickly, there is a very big danger that your business base is permanently shrunk.
2) A long period of low or zero growth after a major recession results in very high unemployment for a long time. Apart from the moral obscenity that this is, it has a frightening economic consequence known as "hysteresis". Usually, in any economy, there is an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. In a nutshell, hysteresis means that the balance shifts and you can end up with the nightmare of high unemployment and high inflation systemically built into the economy, permanently damaging our economic outlook. The IMF's report this week specifically highlighted the risk of hysteresis.
3) Without growth, you CANNOT sort out the very serious debt problem. Period.
It is utterly crucial that we get back to strong growth quickly. But that cannot and will not happen in the current environment without the Government greatly slowing its deficit reduction plans and accepting that, to kick start things, fiscal loosening is required (infrastructure spending like Roosevelt's New Deal, or tax cuts -take your pick). The IMF said that in the very starkest terms this week once you peer beneath the diplomacy.
-
And the problem has just been highlighted by some Tory minister on Radio 4 this morning.
He was asked whether the Government has any plans to boost house building. This is a KEY area where we are crying out for activity. We have too few affordable houses and this has been a major factor in both the 08-09 recession and the 90-91 recession, as house price bubbles were formed by too much money chasing too few houses. And that's before you start on the moral argument of whether we should have decent housing stock. Tory and Labour Govts have been equally at fault for 30 years on this, and the consequence is a shocking situation of too few decent, affordable houses.
The Minister said, "well I don't think this is an area that the Govt should be getting involved. It could distort the construction sector."
Jesus f**king wept. The construction sector is already distorted. It has been decimated by the ongoing recession. But the Tories put ideology above practical bloody sense.
-
Eeh mjdgreg, that's a very verbose way of saying "no I can't".
No wiggling here. I was simply requiring that the reduction in debt be reasonably significant, not just a transient blip, and that it be achieved within a socio-politico-economic system more or less like ours, given that the whole debate is about what WE should do.
But I'll indulge you. Give me ANY example.
I'll get back to you a bit later on. Today is my busiest gambling day of the week and has to take precedence over your requests.
-
Eeh mjdgreg, that's a very verbose way of saying "no I can't".
No wiggling here. I was simply requiring that the reduction in debt be reasonably significant, not just a transient blip, and that it be achieved within a socio-politico-economic system more or less like ours, given that the whole debate is about what WE should do.
But I'll indulge you. Give me ANY example.
I'll get back to you a bit later on. Today is my busiest gambling day of the week and has to take precedence over your requests.
Right, since BST asked you yesterday, before your busiest gambling day, you`ve so far failed to google any example and now you`re struggling, because you have n`t got anything to copy and paste!
-
Right, since BST asked you yesterday, before your busiest gambling day, you`ve so far failed to google any example and now you`re struggling, because you have n`t got anything to copy and paste!
I'm just breaking off from my gambling for a minute to explain that I only read silly Billy's post this morning so how could I have responded last night? I spent last night boozing at my local club. I want to provide a detailed response which takes a lot longer than your usual 20 second posts. Trust me, it will be well worth waiting for.
-
Right, since BST asked you yesterday, before your busiest gambling day, you`ve so far failed to google any example and now you`re struggling, because you have n`t got anything to copy and paste!
I'm just breaking of from my gambling for a minute to explain that I only read silly Billy's post this morning so how could I have responded last night? I spent last night boozing at my local club. I want to provide a detailed response which takes a lot longer than your usual 20 second posts. Trust me, it will be well worth waiting for.
Buying time while you use google
And you did respond to BST`s post at 1-24am this morning/last night!
I thought the Conservative Club had closed down in Doncaster?
My 20 second post`s are usually to the point and contain minimal bullshit, where as your "reasoned" responses are either copied and pasted or never address the point and contain bulshit in every sentence
-
Buying time while you use google
And you did respond to BST`s post at 1-24am this morning/last night!
I thought the Conservative Club had closed down in Doncaster?
My 20 second post`s are usually to the point and contain minimal information or reasoned argument, where as your "reasoned" responses are never copied and pasted always address the point and contain excellent reasoning in every sentence
Look, responding to you is costing me money (good job that I can afford it). I'm talking about Billy's post this morning. That's the one I need to reply to. Not the one where he moved the goal posts a considerable distance. Surely you want more than a 20 second answer?
I defy you to show one sentence of my prognostications that contains even the slightest smell of bullshit.
-
Ok Mick
So, can you point me to a single example in economic history whereby a country has reduced its debt without significant GDP growth? Just one will do.
If he can't, does it mean that our present course of action is wrong? It's just that the anticipation is killing me......
-
Waiting!
-
I would like to point out that silly Billy is trying to have it both ways. He's trying to portray me as believing that austerity is the only way forward and that growth doesn't matter. I do believe that austerity is part of the way forward but also that due to austerity growth will follow. So it's not an either or situation it's more a case of how do you achieve growth. I fundamentally disagree with silly Billy that throwing more debt at at an already eye watering debt is the way to achieve growth and this is what the real debate is about. Now I've got that off my chest back to the real debate.
There are 2 widely accepted schools of thought as to how to reduce debt. The silly Billy approach relies on the debt shrinking ‘if’ the economy grows faster than interest on the accumulated debt. In our current situation that is one almighty big ‘if’. The other approach relies on cutting debt by spending cuts or tax increases. Contrary to how silly Billy would like to try and portray me, I don’t believe in either of those strategies.
Now for the example that you have all be waiting for with baited breath. Canada. Hopefully that one ticks all of silly Billy’s boxes.
In the 1990s Canada implemented deep cuts to tackle and then eliminate their dangerously high deficit. They managed a huge reduction in debt, from 102% of GDP at its peak in 1996 to 65.0% in 2007. This was the largest fiscal consolidation among the G-7 countries. A group of much smaller countries also reduced their deficits over roughly the same period. These countries were – Finland, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden.
Canada really stands out though for its very heavy reliance on spending cuts to eliminate the deficit and then run budget surpluses. They relied more on spending cuts than most of the smaller countries mentioned above. Canada also didn’t rely at all on tax increases to lower the deficit and debt. In fact once surpluses emerged after 2002, they cut taxes.
To summarise, Canada grew faster than the U.S. and most of Europe during this period despite fiscal restraint.
Game, set and match.
-
Mick
Did you have a look at Canada's GDP growth figures for that period? That was the whole point of the question I asked.
"Has any country ever significantly reduced its debt without undergoing significant GDP growth?"
Canada is the Poster Boy example trotted out by Austerity supporters. It is utterly irrelevant to the current situation. Canada was able to very successfully cut its debt because it's economy was already booming. At the back end of the 90s, it was roaring along at 6-8% GDP growth and it only briefly dropped below 2% in the whole period up to the Great Crash.
If we're going to have a debate, you could at least RTFQ.
So, I'll ask again. Has any country ever significantly reduced its debt without undergoing significant GDP growth?
-
Did you have a look at Canada's GDP growth figures for that period? That was the whole point of the question I asked.
Did you look at my first paragraph in my reply which addresses your question? The debate is austerity versus spending. I am in the austerity camp and you are in the spending camp. Simple.
You try to argue that austerity doesn't work. I argue that it does (I also think other measures need to be taken as well) and have given a very convincing case study to back up my point of view.
According to you austerity doesn't work and any country that implements this strategy will fail. Well Canada did implement spending cuts and went on to succeed rather well thank you very much.
-
Did you have a look at Canada's GDP growth figures for that period? That was the whole point of the question I asked.
Did you look at my first paragraph in my reply which addresses your question? The debate is austerity versus spending. I am in the austerity camp and you are in the spending camp. Simple.
You try to argue that austerity doesn't work. I argue that it does (I also think other measures need to be taken as well) and have given a very convincing case study to back up my point of view.
According to you austerity doesn't work and any country that implements this strategy will fail. Well Canada did implement spending cuts and went on to succeed rather well thank you very much.
he's saying austerity during the "bad times" though, even I (as I know you seem to think I'm a thick Kitson) could see that, and it isn't cos I'm one of his "loonie leftie mates".
-
he's saying austerity during the "bad times" though, even I (as I know you seem to think I'm a thick c***) could see that, and it isn't cos I'm one of his "loonie leftie mates".
I think you'll find that silly Billy doesn't believe in austerity even in the 'good times'. In the good times he'd spend even more money. He doesn't believe in cutting your cloth accordingly or saving for a rainy day. In silly Billy land growth just keeps on magically appearing year after year as long as you can find some mug to lend you the money for you to spend.
Austerity in the good times is the best way forward but if you don't do that (and Labour certainly didn't) then you'll be left with no other option but to implement it in the bad times to make the best of a bad job.
-
The tried and tested Tory ploy eh? If you can’t win the argument, beat the man. I do happen to agree about austerity measures being an effective way of reducing debt. Then again any fool can starve the family to pay the bills. This is the Tory way after all…. high unemployment, low wages, hit the vulnerable and reward the wealthy. …. but hey, as long as figures look good on paper, who cares? The last Tory Government thought leaving the likes of Liverpool, Newcastle, Donny, and Barnsley to rot was a price well worth paying. Cameron and puppet Clegg are no different.
The economy was in a healthy position under Blair and Brown. At least the Tories thought so, having supported the majority of fiscal strategies implemented by Labour. Then of course came the small matter of the global economic meltdown, you know the one…. the one which the Tories hold Labour solely responsible for?
I’m sure, on paper, the economy will eventually look good for the Tories, but at what cost? If I employed the same Tory fiscal approach to my family, I’d be up for neglect.
-
The tried and tested Tory ploy eh? If you can’t win the argument, beat the man. I do happen to agree about austerity measures being an effective way of reducing debt. Then again any fool can starve the family to pay the bills. This is the Tory way after all…. high unemployment, low wages, hit the vulnerable and reward the wealthy. …. but hey, as long as figures look good on paper, who cares? The last Tory Government thought leaving the likes of Liverpool, Newcastle, Donny, and Barnsley to rot was a price well worth paying. Cameron and puppet Clegg are no different.
The economy was in a healthy position under Blair and Brown. At least the Tories thought so, having supported the majority of fiscal strategies implemented by Labour. Then of course came the small matter of the global economic meltdown, you know the one…. the one which the Tories hold Labour solely responsible for?
I’m sure, on paper, the economy will eventually look good for the Tories, but at what cost? If I employed the same Tory fiscal approach to my family, I’d be up for neglect.
Another misguided leftie joins the debate. I agree with you that the man is beaten (silly Billy). I'm glad even though you're a leftie you can see he has lost the argument.
Now to sort out your ramblings. I am not a Tory. I can't remember the last time I voted. I just happen to think that the Labour alternative would totally ruin the country if they were given power for long enough.
Unemployment started rising under Labour despite all the extra public sector jobs that weren't needed. Low wages are a consequence of Labour opening the floodgates and allowing all the immigrants in from Poland etc.
Hit the vulnerable? Pensioners and benefit claimants have done all right under this government and raising the tax threshold has done wonders for the low paid. The wealthy are being hit quite hard. Loss of child benefit etc. It was the unions that ruined all the towns you mention.Labour were all about figures looking good on paper not the Tories.
Now for your most laughable comment, ' The economy was in a healthy position under Blair and Brown.' Anyone who can make that ludicrous statement does not deserve to have the rest of their views taken seriously.
The global meltdown was caused by allowing the banks to do as they pleased and take gigantic risks. Who failed to monitor and regulate them? Yes once again we find Labour are to blame.
If you employed the the same Labour fiscal approach too you'd be up for neglect. You'd need a new credit card every week and eventually you would lose your house and be declared bankrupt.
-
It is utterly crucial that we get back to strong growth quickly. But that cannot and will not happen in the current environment without the Government greatly slowing its deficit reduction plans and accepting that, to kick start things, fiscal loosening is required (infrastructure spending like Roosevelt's New Deal, or tax cuts -take your pick). The IMF said that in the very starkest terms this week once you peer beneath the diplomacy.
Did I miss something? I thought the IMF called for an even looser monetary policy than we already have- lower interest rates (than 0.5%- FFS!) and more QE (i.e. printing money so the banks can hoard it and continue pay their staff big bonuses.) These are the policies that have failed to lift us out of recession and will continue to fail.
I agree there needs to be a growth strategy though- based on a combination of fiscal easing (a 12 month holiday on Employers' NI would be a start) and supply side reforms. Problem is, the Government can't agree on anything other than deficit reduction as cutting business taxes is anathema to most of the Lib Dems.
So, I expect we'll have a period of minimal growth (even if the Eurozone manages to avoid imploding) followed by a Labour Government who will increase public spending, leading to higher debt and high interest rates.
-
Did I miss something? I thought the IMF called for an even looser monetary policy than we already have- lower interest rates (than 0.5%- FFS!) and more QE (i.e. printing money so the banks can hoard it and continue pay their staff big bonuses.) These are the policies that have failed to lift us out of recession and will continue to fail.
I agree there needs to be a growth strategy though- based on a combination of fiscal easing (a 12 month holiday on Employers' NI would be a start) and supply side reforms. Problem is, the Government can't agree on anything other than deficit reduction as cutting business taxes is anathema to most of the Lib Dems.
So, I expect we'll have a period of minimal growth (even if the Eurozone manages to avoid imploding) followed by a Labour Government who will increase public spending, leading to higher debt and high interest rates.
I agree with your comments on QE. It also leads to a devaluation of sterling and inflation. This increases the price of imports and reduces peoples standards of living. It's a big part of why petrol costs so much these days. There is a sly strategy going on of trying to inflate away the debt problem (or at least some of it). I feel sorry for savers who are having to watch their savings being devalued by inflation just to keep the wolf from debtor's doors.
I fully expect the Eurozone to implode and the current flat-lining will seem like a picnic in the park compared to what's ahead of us. Rather than pay freezes there will be large pay cuts and much more unemployment. Take my advice and get rid of as much debt as possible before the worst happens because when it does there will be blood on the streets.
-
Mick
Having spent the whole day in A&E seeing my 5 year old going through agony, I'm not in a mood to suffer gobshite Internet warriors to be honest. I'll say my final piece on this. You will ignore it and to be honest, I don't give a f***.
The question that I posed was NOT "spending" vs "Austerity" it was about whether any country ever had managed to sort out a major debt problem through Austerity during a period of economic slump, which is what we are currently doing now. I challenged you to find ONE example. You didn't, because you can't. No examples exist. So, as usual, you change the theme of the discussion. I don't know who you are used to debating with, but in my professional milieu, you get eaten up and spat out if you try pulling shit like that.
We've kicked around the examples of Japan and Canada. They are absolutely crucial to the debate. Japan shows that when you try to drastically cut back Govt spending in a slump, the result is catastrophic. Negative growth, deflation and increased debt. Canada took a different path in the 90s. They kept up Govt spending when the economy was struggling. The economy got back on track, albeit at a cost of a higher deficit. By 96, the private sector was back on its feet and they could engage on a program of reining in Govt spending and debt reduction. Classic approach.
That is what the debate was about in 2010. Those on the Right wanted to cut hard and fast. The result has been Japan-like. My take was that it was essential to keep spending going until the private sector emerged strongly, THEN cut. Like Canada. I always believed that Govt cuts would have to come, but only when the private sector was strong enough. ( Read that again. That is what I ACTUALLY believe. Don't flatter yourself that you have the intellectual capacity to second guess what you THINK I believe, you arrogant t**t.)
I'll leave it to others to make up their own minds about the rights and wrongs of this debate. I'm more interested in looking after my kid now than dealing with your pointless witterings any more.
TRB: the headlines about the IMF report were all about monetary issues (interest rates and QE, both of which are vitally necessary as the temporary and entirely external inflationary pressures ease and the terrifying prospect of deflation emerges again). But they also made a strong case for fiscal easing to be considered, specifically a VAT cut or major infrastructure investment. THAT is how serious the situation is. I have never in 30 years heard the IMF ask for fiscal loosening.
-
Once again it is fascinating that Mick has somehow reproduced a pre-existing article almost verbatim. Having denied copying and pasting previously it is amazing how this lexical coincidence just keeps on happening.
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/beware_the_canadian_austerity_model_01989.html
What's even more incredible is the article in question is headlined "Beware the Canadian Austerity Model".
-
Once again it is fascinating that mjdgreg has somehow reproduced a pre-existing article almost verbatim. Having denied copying and pasting previously it is amazing how this lexical coincidence just keeps on happening.
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/beware_the_canadian_austerity_model_01989.html
What's even more incredible is the article in question is headlined "Beware the Canadian Austerity Model".
Do you seriously believe I would go anywhere near a socialist website? If you believe that then you will also believe that greater debt is the solution to a debt problem. That said there is an incredible irony in the headline of the article lol.
-
More evidence that cutting spending is the best way to achieve growth:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2012/05/spending-deliver-stronger-economic-growth.html
-
The lessons of history, and the empirical evidence, clearly support the claim that lower spending and lower taxes will tend to mean higher economic growth.
Who's taxes have been lowered? Mine bloody haven't! :mad:
-
Who's taxes have been lowered? Mine bloody haven't!
Maybe your boss has given you a secret pay cut based on performance. The coalition have raised the amount year on year since coming to power that people can earn before paying tax. So although not a tax cut it in effect does the same thing so there is more money in everyone's pay packet. A fine example of the coalition looking after the working man and the lower paid in particular.
Don't forget they've also stopped councils increasing the Council Tax which always used to go up by more than the rate of inflation under Labour. Remember 'we're all in it together'.
-
Don't forget they've also stopped councils increasing the Council Tax which always used to go up by more than the rate of inflation under Labour. Remember 'we're all in it together'.
Have they?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9114468/Four-in-10-households-to-see-council-tax-bills-rise.html
-
Have they?
Yes they have. It's the police and fire authorities and parish councils that are responsible for the very slight increase some tax payers are facing. Thought you'd have been able to work that one out for yourself.
-
Your words were "they've also stopped councils increasing Council Tax..."
This is untrue. They have incentivised Councils to refrain from increasing tax with a nationwide fund, however they have not "stopped" Council's raising tax. Councils are free to raise Council Tax by up to 3.5% before they trigger a local referendum,
This year has seen 35 Councils increase Council Tax.
Thought you'd have been able to work that one out for yourself.
-
Your words were "they've also stopped councils increasing Council Tax..."
This is untrue. They have incentivised Councils to refrain from increasing tax with a nationwide fund, however they have not "stopped" Council's raising tax. Councils are free to raise Council Tax by up to 3.5% before they trigger a local referendum,
This year has seen 35 Councils increase Council Tax.
Thought you'd have been able to work that one out for yourself.
Without Google, copy n paste he`s nothing!
-
Your words were "they've also stopped councils increasing Council Tax..."
This is untrue. They have incentivised Councils to refrain from increasing tax with a nationwide fund, however they have not "stopped" Council's raising tax. Councils are free to raise Council Tax by up to 3.5% before they trigger a local referendum,
This year has seen 35 Councils increase Council Tax.
Thought you'd have been able to work that one out for yourself.
If all you can contribute to the debate is pedantry then I suggest you don't bother.
-
Without Google, copy n paste he`s nothing!
That eloquent incisive post must have taken all of 5 seconds so down on your usual 20 seconds efforts. Thank you for your contribution to the debate. It has been most enlightening (not).
-
Your words were "they've also stopped councils increasing Council Tax..."
This is untrue. They have incentivised Councils to refrain from increasing tax with a nationwide fund, however they have not "stopped" Council's raising tax. Councils are free to raise Council Tax by up to 3.5% before they trigger a local referendum,
This year has seen 35 Councils increase Council Tax.
Thought you'd have been able to work that one out for yourself.
If all you can contribute to the debate is pedantry then I suggest you don't bother.
You do know how to make me laugh. Talk about moving the goal posts.
-
Without Google, copy n paste he`s nothing!
That eloquent incisive post must have taken all of 5 seconds so down on your usual 20 seconds efforts. Thank you for your contribution to the debate. It has been most enlightening (not).
5 seconds to highlight what a knob you are, that`s all it takes!
another 5 second post that gets straight to the point and has no bullshit!
-
You do know how to make me laugh. Talk about moving the goal posts.
That's a much better effort. Well done. You are finally starting to display signs of a sense of humour. I bet you didn't know you had it in you. The next stage is to try and make up some of your own jokes. I suggest you go and have a lie down in a darkened room for a while to recover from the shock.
-
5 seconds to highlight what a masterful debater you are, that`s all it takes!
another 5 second post that gets straight to the point and has no bullshit!
You do know you can get help with your attention span problem but a lot of damage can't be undone. I suspect your mother put you straight on the Cow and Gate and this has led to irreversible brain damage. You have my sympathy.
-
5 seconds to highlight what a masterful debater you are, that`s all it takes!
another 5 second post that gets straight to the point and has no bullshit!
You do know you can get help with your attention span problem but a lot of damage can't be undone. I suspect your mother put you straight on the Cow and Gate and this has led to irreversible brain damage. You have my sympathy.
On the contrary Mr Bluenose, I like a good tit, but in your case the milks gone sour!
-
I suspect your mother put you straight on the Cow and Gate and this has led to irreversible brain damage. You have my sympathy.
Fowarded this to http://www.cowandgate.co.uk/our-careline/ask-an-expert to ask them to comment on this idiots claim, seems to be pretty certain of his facts....or maybe he should be a little more careful than naming certain brands and then claiming they cause brain damage.
Ive took a screen print as well in case and cheeky editing goes on.
-
On the contrary Mr Bluenose, I like a good tit, but in your case the milks gone sour!
That's better. You too seem to be getting a sense of humour. Now go and lie down with LJMonk for a rest to recover.
-
Pmsl at skinnywhiteduke's post. He needs to take a leaf out of Fido and LJMonks book and lighten up a bit and work on his sense of humour. Unfortunately if you've had a charisma bypass operation this will prove very difficult to do.
-
Another thread that had potential for a serious debate descended into personal insults and small digs at one another...
:facepalm:
-
I don't think we're doing to badly at the moment given what the Governor of the Bank of England said recently:
"We have been through a big global financial crisis; the biggest downturn in world output since the 1930s; the biggest banking crisis in this country's history; the biggest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history – and our biggest trading partner, the euro area, is tearing itself apart.
"The idea that we could reasonably hope to sail serenely through this with growth close to the long-run average and inflation at 2 per cent strikes me as wholly unrealistic."
-
Well Mick, at least you are quoting your sources now, rather than just plagiarising them and passing them off as your own.
Mind, you still fail the first test of research, which is to look dispassionately for ALL relevant information, then make your informed conclusion. What YOU persist in doing is forming a conclusion then searching for data to back it up.
So, why stick to just gathering information from the TaxPayers's Alliance, or from Mervyn King (who doesn't say anything of substance in that quote anyway)? Why not consider the views of eminently respected, world-renown, Nobel Prize winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz? This is his view on Governments who implement Austerity as a means if reducing debt, without a plan for growth:
"The answer, even though they see over and over again that austerity leads to collapse of the economy, the answer over and over [from politicians] is more austerity.It reminds me of medieval medicine. It is like blood-letting, where you took blood out of a patient because the theory was that there were bad humours. And very often, when you took the blood out, the patient got sicker. The response then was more blood-letting until the patient very nearly died. What is happening in Europe is a mutual suicide pact. There will not be a restoration of confidence as long as economies keep falling, and that will continue until [politicians] change economic course."
-
I'll have you know that I've got a degree in Marketing and know all about research. I've researched the subject extensively and now consider myself to be an expert. I've looked at both sides of the argument dispassionately and have concluded that spending more money will only make matters worse.
Your argument falls down on many levels this being just one of them:
Say we borrowed more money than we currently are doing and the markets lost confidence in the government's strategy because of this. What would happen to interest rates? There's a very good chance that they would go up meaning that the money we were borrowing would cost more therefore negating any benefit in borrowing it. Mortgage rates would go up and we would very quickly spiral out of control into a very deep recession and end up like Greece, Spain etc.
Your logic in borrowing more money may have some merit if we hadn't already maxed out that option under Gordon Brown. What was it that Mervyn King said, 'the biggest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history'. Thanks Gordon.
We are in unchartered territory and the old rules of economics no longer apply.
-
This is his view on Governments who implement Austerity as a means if reducing debt, without a plan for growth:
But the government does have a plan for growth. They are cutting the public sector and reducing taxes to help the private sector grow (and implementing other measures). Austerity with a growth plan is happening as we speak.
-
It reminds me of medieval medicine. It is like blood-letting, where you took blood out of a patient because the theory was that there were bad humours. And very often, when you took the blood out, the patient got sicker. The response then was more blood-letting until the patient very nearly died.
That is a very bad analogy. Here is my own much better one.
Spending more and more money is like taking in more and more calories than the body can handle. First you become a bit overweight then eventually you become morbidly obese. You reach the point where you are so overweight that drastic action has to be taken.
You go to doctor Stiglitz and he says it's OK to keep on consuming far too many calories (more spending) as everything will be all right if you just do a bit of jogging (growth plan). You think great I didn't realise it would be so easy to sort my problem out and on the way home you go to Mcdonalds and have a triple burger with fries and lashings of Coca Cola. Of course your your son pays the bill having been unable to afford a burger himself (mortgaging the future to future generations).
Then you remember his advice about jogging so you get your oversized sports gear on and step outside to do your workout. Unfortunately you go no more than a few yards when your knees give out and you fall into a crumpled heap and suffer a major heart attack that nearly kills you (depression). So much for Doctor Stiglitz's advice.
You are rushed into hospital where you are met by the charming Doctor mjdgreg. He gives it to you straight and tells you that you need to lose some weight and need to stop consuming so many calories. He gives you a diet (austerity plan) that needs to be strictly adhered to and when you've lost some weight (debt reduction) then you can start doing some jogging (growth plan) to get fit. If you don't follow this plan you're going to end up dead pretty soon (Greece, Spain etc).
You follow his advice and gradually you get back to full fitness (budget surplus). Eventually you are that fit you can take on more calories to increase your fitness (limited borrowing to improve infrastructure) and end up winning a gold medal at the Olympics (world's most successful economy). You rue the day that you followed Doctor Stiglitz's (crank) advice but thank your lucky stars that the charming Doctor mjdgreg (world's foremost economic expert) sorted you out before it was too late.
-
Eeh mjdgreg, that's a very verbose way of saying "no I can't".
No wiggling here. I was simply requiring that the reduction in debt be reasonably significant, not just a transient blip, and that it be achieved within a socio-politico-economic system more or less like ours, given that the whole debate is about what WE should do.
But I'll indulge you. Give me ANY example.
More ammunition to destroy your argument. New Zealand are a current example. They've been implementing an austerity plan with great success. They're even projecting a budget surplus in 2014-2015. It relies on economic growth, picking up from the current 1.4% annual rate to 2% later this year. Time for you to finally admit you have totally and comprehensively lost the debate.
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/budget-2012-john-key-confident-over-economic-plan-4898777
-
Eeh mjdgreg, that's a very verbose way of saying "no I can't".
No wiggling here. I was simply requiring that the reduction in debt be reasonably significant, not just a transient blip, and that it be achieved within a socio-politico-economic system more or less like ours, given that the whole debate is about what WE should do.
But I'll indulge you. Give me ANY example.
More ammunition to destroy your argument. New Zealand are a current example. They've been implementing an austerity plan with great success. They're even projecting a budget surplus in 2014-2015. It relies on economic growth, picking up from the current 1.4% annual rate to 2% later this year. Time for you to finally admit you have totally and comprehensively lost the debate.
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/budget-2012-john-key-confident-over-economic-plan-4898777
I don`t know what you`re reading into that Mick, it`s just the finance Minister championing his own budget, just like Gideon does over here, but a couple of months down the line he realises he`s dropped a bollock and does a u turn on certain aspects of his budget
-
I don`t know what you`re reading into that mjdgreg, it`s just the finance Minister championing his own budget, just like Gideon does over here, but a couple of months down the line he realises he`s dropped a bollock and does a u turn on certain aspects of his budget
John Key is the Prime Minister not Finance Minister. This policy has been implemented for years and is proving to be successful. The voters have endorsed the policy by re-electing the government. This budget is just the latest stage of the plan. Read the link properly and you will see that it mirrors what's happening in the UK.
Here's more evidence.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/
-
I don`t know what you`re reading into that mjdgreg, it`s just the finance Minister championing his own budget, just like Gideon does over here, but a couple of months down the line he realises he`s dropped a bollock and does a u turn on certain aspects of his budget
John Key is the Prime Minister not Finance Minister. This policy has been implemented for years and is proving to be successful. The voters have endorsed the policy by re-electing the government. This budget is just the latest stage of the plan. Read the link properly and you will see that it mirrors what's happening in the UK.
Here's more evidence.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/
This sentence sums that article up
Like David Cameron, he bases his appeal on competence rather than ideology
competence and Cameron in the same sentence!
How competent was it of Dave to claim he`d recently bought a sausage roll from a shop on Leeds Station that had closed a number of years earlier? Thats not competence, it`s down right lying
-
Here's more evidence.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/
A personal blog by a Tory MPs is not evidence. And no, I didn't read his whole blog, so if he mentioned any facts or figures, why not quote those specifically, instead of trying to waste everyone's time reading Tory propaganda. :facepalm:
-
Oh Mick, this is becoming so tiresome.
Look, I'll agree with you if it makes you feel better, that you are a better economist than Joseph Stiglitz. OK? That out of the way now?
And, to be honest, I've been looking at the numbers and I'm coming round to your thinking that Canada actually did have a good approach to dealing with debt after the last recession. The following two graphs did it for me.
i) Comparison between Canada and Japan's Growth rate from late 80s to mid 2000s
(http://i47.tinypic.com/10nc9kk.png)
ii) Comparison between Canada and Japan's Govt debt to GDP ratio from late 80s to mid 2000s
(http://i50.tinypic.com/v78gm1.png)
Clearly, unarguably, Canada handled things better than Japan. They both had better GDP growth AND got their debt under control. I take my hat off to you for spotting how smart the Canadians were.
-
Hopefully all the other leftie viewers of this thread will now realise that my point of view is the correct one and will now decide to harden up a bit and stop praying for a return to power of Labour. Well done Billy for admitting I was right. It must have been very difficult given how badly brainwashed you were about Labour. I was beginning to think you would never see the light but I have been proved wrong which hardly ever happens.
-
No problem Mick. Looking at those Canadian figures finally convinced me. Thanks for the debate. It's been educational.
-
c
ompetence and Cameron in the same sentence!
Fido, you're barking up the wrong tree there. Dave has reversed the pasty tax today. If that doesn't show competence and an ability to relate to the common man I don't know what does.
-
No problem mjdgreg. Looking at those Canadian figures finally convinced me. Thanks for the debate. It's been educational.
No problem. You learn something new every day (especially if you read my posts). You'll be pleased to know that I intend to carry on educating the masses on a wide variety of subjects in the future. It wouldn't be right for me to keep all my vast knowledge to myself.
-
A personal blog by a Tory MPs is not evidence. And no, I didn't read his whole blog, so if he mentioned any facts or figures, why not quote those specifically, instead of trying to waste everyone's time reading Tory propaganda.
You really should read his blog. It would be very educational for you. He could well be Prime Minister one day and is the most sensible politician of his generation.
-
competence and Cameron in the same sentence!
Fido, you're barking up the wrong tree there. Dave has reversed the pasty tax today. If that doesn't show competence and an ability to relate to the common man I don't know what does.
Clearly competence is not your strong point, a devout follower of copy and paste can`t even copy a quote from me correctly, tut tut Mick
-
No problem Mick. Looking at those Canadian figures finally convinced me. Thanks for the debate. It's been educational.
I wondered when you`d give up Mick as a lost cause, as they say, you can`t educate pork!
-
No Filo. He's opened my eyes. I hadn't realised what a lesson Canada was for how to climb out of a debt problem, but you learn something every day. I'm genuinely in Mick's debt (no pun intended).
-
Trolling of the highest order from the Tory wine stain.
-
Trolling of the highest order from the Tory wine stain.
Look if you're going to do abuse I would have expected something much better from someone like you.
-
I wondered when you`d give up mjdgreg as a lost cause, as they say, you can`t educate pork!
We all know why Fido uses meat metaphors.
-
Mick.
It's been a real pleasure sparring with you. And that wit of yours makes this place a pleasure to come back to.
I've got an apology to make though. I forgot the final graph earlier on. Looks a bit odd to me, but I'm sure that you can explain it.
(http://i46.tinypic.com/206y8wl.png)
See, what I don't understand is that Canada actually kept running a whopping great deficit throughout the early 1990s. When they went into recession in 1990, they ran a bloody great deficit, and the Govt kept on spending at a high rate right up until 1995. By that time, their growth had come back strongly. And it was only after that that they started to cut back Govt spending. The growth remained strong and the debt then started to come back down.
I'm kind of struggling here, because this approach of keeping Govt spending going until the economy is back on a stable footing and THEN cutting back is kind of what I thought we should have done before you so skilfully put me right.
And then there's Japan. In 1991, their economy fell off a cliff. They'd had 6-10%growth for decades, but it all came shuddering to a halt. So what did they do? They followed your approach Mick, of course, being the wily old inscrutables that they are. They kept running a surplus, sure that growth would come back. But, see, this is where I really am struggling. Because their growth didn't come back. They kept Govt spending low, just like you should. But growth stayed low. And by the time they realised what the damage was, deflation and low growth had set in. And they then HAD to borrow more as a Govt because their tax take had collapsed. And their growth flatlined for 15 years as they couldn't get out of the liquidity trap of everyone saving for the future because of being scared of losing jobs and markets. And as a result, their debt ballooned out of control.
I know what Nobel Prize winners like Krugman and Stiglitz would say. They'd say that Japan and Canada are textbook examples of how to incorrectly and correctly face a recession with Keynesian counter-cyclical Govt spending.
But I agree that they are both chumps.
But Mick. Help me out as your new disciple. Tell me where the problem really is.
-
But mjdgreg. Help me out as your new disciple. Tell me where the problem really is.
The problem is that you are a disloyal disciple. One minute you're against me and when I batter you into submission you are for me. 5 minutes later you are against me again. I reckon you too must have been put straight on the Cow and Gate.
Please bear in mind that the following is not necessarily what I support. It is just what is happening at the moment and punches big holes in your logic.
You make out that the government is implementing an austerity plan and doing nothing else. You bemoan the fact that they aren't spending to stimulate growth and are cutting back savagely. In that case can you please explain why there is still a large budget deficit every month. Also why is the national debt going to double over the lifetime of this parliament?
I'll tell you the answer. It's because they are still borrowing lots of money and spending it. So you should be happy because they are doing what you seem to want. But you're not happy because you want them to borrow and spend even more!
A report done by the Office for National Statistics in 2010 showed that the true level of debt was almost £4 trillion. For this generation to pay that back would mean a 30% rise in taxes. So what do the politicians do? They pass that bill on to future generations so we can keep on living beyond our means. Before the coalition started cutting back on spending this bill was going to be an extra £200,000 for the next generation of tax payers. Now it's projected to be only £150,000. Only £150,000 ffs.
So lets just harden up a bit and take responsibility for our debt and lets not do the dirty on future generations and pass them the bill. To argue for even more spending to add to their bill is morally reprehensible and does you no credit. I always find with socialists they always think someone else should pick up the bill for their cosy lifestyles. Well it's time it stopped or our children and their children are going to have a very tough time of it indeed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britainrsquos-debt-the-untold-story-2025979.html
-
Mick.
It's perfectly simple. It's about the TIMING of the cuts in public spending. Get the timing wrong by relatively small amounts and the results can be catastrophic.
The graphs I posted earlier show this starkly.
Japan 's leaders, it is now commonly accepted, failed to anticipate the danger of a collapse in confidence and a liquidity trap. They assumed that keeping Govt spending down to a minimum was the necessary and sufficient condition for a return to growth. They were wrong. Badly wrong. The result has been a catastrophe for Japan. It will take them the thick end of half a century to get back on the course that they should have been on.
I'm being deadly serious here. I understand the danger of a runaway debt. It is devastating. But cutting Govt spending is NOT guaranteed to prevent that from happening, as the example of Japan shows only too well. The Japan example scares the living daylights out of me because we are not as strong as they were going into the Lost Decade; if we do not get back to growth quickly, we are in deep, deep shit.
I was saying back at the time of the General Election that we were running the risk of ending up with a loss of confidence due to Govt spending being reined in too quickly. I'm not happy to see these predictions coming true. But it's not just my opinion by the way. The Bank of England's Japan expert Adam Posen said in 2010:
"since the global shock of 2008, UK non-financial corporate have had their own surplus rise towards 8% of GDP. The good news is that this rules out a balance sheet recession here as well. The bad news is if this indicates some form of self-insurance by companies against lack of future access to credit.
"The worst news would be if this sitting on funds was not temporary but lasting. In that case, it would represent a lack of faith in future UK economic prospects. That would be a structural slump, with all the prospects for slower growth that portends. I do not believe this to be the case."
So, Posen explained two years ago what the nightmare scenario was. He said that he didn't expect this fiscal retrenchment by companies to occur. But it HAS occurred. We are in the middle of the start of this nightmare scenario right now. UK non-financial companies are sitting on mountains of cash which they are terrified to re-invest because they are concerned that we are not going to get out of the slump. So the slump happens. And they invest even less. And the slump gets worse. Just like in Japan in 1990 onwards
The truly depressing thing is that we know how to avoid this.
Posen himself said:
"we should think of Japan’s Great Recession as largely demonstrating the validity of much textbook, even old fashioned Keynesian, macroeconomics – and thus amenable both to comprehension and, within limits, avoidance, or at least amelioration."
In other words: Governments can take steps to avoid long-term liquidity traps. The tools for doing this have been known since Keynes's time. The tragedy of the last two years is that they have been ignored and we are stumbling headlong into the same problem.
It means that you don't cut back Govt spending when the economy is on its knees, or the economy will end up face down in the f**king dirt. we've known that for 80 years. And in a mad, ideological frenzy, we have ignored it, by insisting that the ONLY thing that matters is balancing the books as quickly as f**king possible.
He's fine by the way. Thanks for asking.
-
Mick.
It's perfectly simple. It's about the TIMING of the cuts in public spending. Get the timing wrong by relatively small amounts and the results can be catastrophic.
The graphs I posted earlier show this starkly.
Japan 's leaders, it is now commonly accepted, failed to anticipate the danger of a collapse in confidence and a liquidity trap. They assumed that keeping Govt spending down to a minimum was the necessary and sufficient condition for a return to growth. They were wrong. Badly wrong. The result has been a catastrophe for Japan. It will take them the thick end of half a century to get back on the course that they should have been on.
I'm being deadly serious here. I understand the danger of a runaway debt. It is devastating. But cutting Govt spending is NOT guaranteed to prevent that from happening, as the example of Japan shows only too well. The Japan example scares the living daylights out of me because we are not as strong as they were going into the Lost Decade; if we do not get back to growth quickly, we are in deep, deep shit.
I was saying back at the time of the General Election that we were running the risk of ending up with a loss of confidence due to Govt spending being reined in too quickly. I'm not happy to see these predictions coming true. But it's not just my opinion by the way. The Bank of England's Japan expert Adam Posen said in 2010:
"since the global shock of 2008, UK non-financial corporate have had their own surplus rise towards 8% of GDP. The good news is that this rules out a balance sheet recession here as well. The bad news is if this indicates some form of self-insurance by companies against lack of future access to credit.
"The worst news would be if this sitting on funds was not temporary but lasting. In that case, it would represent a lack of faith in future UK economic prospects. That would be a structural slump, with all the prospects for slower growth that portends. I do not believe this to be the case."
So, Posen explained two years ago what the nightmare scenario was. He said that he didn't expect this fiscal retrenchment by companies to occur. But it HAS occurred. We are in the middle of the start of this nightmare scenario right now. UK non-financial companies are sitting on mountains of cash which they are terrified to re-invest because they are concerned that we are not going to get out of the slump. So the slump happens. And they invest even less. And the slump gets worse. Just like in Japan in 1990 onwards
The truly depressing thing is that we know how to avoid this.
Posen himself said:
"we should think of Japan’s Great Recession as largely demonstrating the validity of much textbook, even old fashioned Keynesian, macroeconomics – and thus amenable both to comprehension and, within limits, avoidance, or at least amelioration."
In other words: Governments can take steps to avoid long-term liquidity traps. The tools for doing this have been known since Keynes's time. The tragedy of the last two years is that they have been ignored and we are stumbling headlong into the same problem.
It means that you don't cut back Govt spending when the economy is on its knees, or the economy will end up face down in the f***ing dirt. we've known that for 80 years. And in a mad, ideological frenzy, we have ignored it, by insisting that the ONLY thing that matters is balancing the books as quickly as f***ing possible.
He's fine by the way. Thanks for asking.
-
The solution is to cut taxes not increase spending. When I say cut taxes I mean cut them substantially. None of this 2.5% off VAT malarkey. That kind of thing will only scratch the surface. It's time for people to have more control over their finances and to stop giving so much money to governments who are notorious for wasting most of it.
This solution is likely to prove academic anyway as the Eurozone crisis escalates leading in my opinion to the break-up of the EU. Then of course there is China that doesn't appear to be on many people's radar. That country's economy is heading for the rocks and this will cause a bigger crisis than what's happening in Europe.
So all in all we're doomed no matter what the government does. Take my advice. Do as I've done. Get rid of any debt (including mortgages). Get a substantial amount of money put by for a rainy day. Invest in gold not the stock market. Assume you are going to see your wages cut in real terms for many years to come and start to adjust your standard of living accordingly. Start your own businesses to make sure you come through on the other side. Invest in buy to let. There are going to be many people needing a roof over their heads when they lose their homes. It's the socially responsible thing to do.
You have been warned.
-
Right Mick.
So you're saying that we need massive tax cuts?
Now we're getting there. That means that you agree that a huge fiscal stimulus is required, because that is what tax cuts are. So that's the end of Austerity and cutting the debt as the key aim.
We're getting somewhere.
Now. Why will huge tax cuts actually exacerbate the situation? For all the liquidity trap reasons that I've pointed out previously, and which you, in your folksy way back up in your latest post. Give tax cuts to people and businesses now and they will say, "Ta very much" and use that to pay off their debt. That is a very sensible decision for each individual. But when everyone does it, the result is a catastrophe. No-one spends, so people providing goods and services have no market so they lay off workers so no one spends. It's the Paradox of Thrift that is in the basic economics textbooks (I'm sure you're aware of it). It's what screwed Japan. It's something we're already in the initial stages of.
The answer is also in the economic textbooks. It requires Govt spending to kick start growth. It always has done and always will do. That's been the core of this discussion. Sooner or later, Austerity-obsessed Governments will finally cotton on to the way that we got out of the last Depression. It was by Governments massively increasing demand in the economy. Unfortunately, that was in the form of the Second World War. Let's hope that our leaders can push the demand by a different route this time.
As for your other doom predictions, if you believe them and stay huddled up under your bed, then there'll be a benefit for all of us. But they won't come to pass. The Euro zone will not break up. Germany is playing poker, but they daren't push it to the edge. The results would be too devastating for Germany. It'll be messy and there will be some heart stopping moments, but the Euro will pull through once Germany finally accepts (under enormous pressure from America and China) that it has to accept Eurobonds, higher inflation and a federal Europe. All those things will come to pass over the next decade.
-
I've never said I only believe in austerity. It is you that has made that assumption. I don't believe in giving the government more money to spend and waste. You do. That's the real difference between us. I have faith in the ordinary man in the street that he will use the money he's not giving to government far more wisely than any government ever would. Unless of course if I was the Prime Minister.
Substantial tax cuts are needed along with cutting back government spending. There's no point cutting taxes if all the government is going to do is borrow and waste more money to make up the shortfall.
Why don't people do what I do? Pay off your debts then save money and when you can afford it buy goods. Unfortunately 'saving' is a dirty word in our economy. For example when I go into a car showroom and discuss buying my latest new cars the salesman looks at me in horror when I ask 'what's your best deal for cash?' He's just so used to people paying on finance at crippling interest rates.
Companies that are holding onto their profits instead of investing it are far more likely to invest if tax rates are lower. There are plenty of companies out there without a debt problem. Many more new businesses would also get off the ground. Very quickly we would have growth and more taxes coming in and everyone would be better off.
Unfortunately I'm not Prime Minister and it isn't going to happen. So take my advice in my previous post. It's every man for himself. Get your own personal finances in order as best as you can. You will then be far better placed to weather the incredibly turbulent times that are just around the corner.
Europe is going to fall apart, banks are going to go bust and China is heading for the rocks. That's enough to cause havoc without all the other problems the world is facing.
-
Why don't people do what I do? Pay off your debts then save money and when you can afford it buy goods.
They did. In Japan throughout the 1990s. The results were catastrophic.
The way in which entire economies work is not the same as the way in which personal finances work. if everyone puts away money for a rainy day and stops spending, the economy collapses. No ifs, no buts. It's basic economics.
Remember the Tory Party conference in 2010? Remember Cameron's gaffe in encouraging people to stop spending? Remember the furore as business leaders, economists and the Bank of England screamed, "Christ up above man, are you TRYING to force a paradox of thrift-type recession on us"? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8808294/David-Cameron-rewrites-conference-speech-after-credit-card-gaffe.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8808294/David-Cameron-rewrites-conference-speech-after-credit-card-gaffe.html)
That is what I'm talking about.
The problem is that we have tipped into precisely this sort of problem over the last couple of years. Business confidence has fallen rapidly across the UK and Europe over the last 12 months, as the consequences of Austerity on growth prospects have emerged.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/business-confidence (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/business-confidence)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/business-confidence (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/business-confidence)
Consumer confidence across the UK and Europe is always pessimistic, but it has also fallen recently. Having started to emerge from the depths of the 08-09 recession in response to the co-ordinated fiscal stimulus in 09-10, it has now collapsed again in the face of Austerity.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/consumer-confidence (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/consumer-confidence)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/consumer-confidence (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/consumer-confidence)
So we are currently in a phase where a great many people and businesses throughout the UK and Europe are doing precisely the single thing most likely to deepen and prolong a recession. They are (rightly) worried about the future, so they (sensibly) stop spending and start saving.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/retail-sales-annual (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/retail-sales-annual)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/retail-sales-annual (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/retail-sales-annual)
And it is this collective action that is the biggest economic danger at the moment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of a serious recession. The lack of spending by individuals and companies reduces demand for goods. So the market shrinks. So companies get into trouble. So they lay off staff. So people get even MORE worried about the future. So they cut-back spending even more. It is a classic crisis of capitalist economies. It has happened time and time again throughout history.
Fortunately, JM Keynes explained 80 years ago how to get out of this situation. The ONLY solution to this danger is for Government spending to boost Aggregate Demand and THEN cut back spending once the economy has got back to growth. Just like Canada did in the early 1990s The alternative is a decade-long Depression. Just like Japan in the 1990s.
Unfortunately, the UK and Germany are currently run by politicians who were brought up hating the concept of Keynes's approaches, for ideological reasons. They hate it because it requires an acceptance that there is a role for Governments in stimulating the economy. They refuse to accept that on ideologocal grounds, despite the fact that there was 30 years of clear evidence that it worked between 1940 and 1970. Despite the fact the Roosevelt's Government spending in the depths of the 1930s Depression kick-started America's recovery. They insist that the only solution is for Government to butt out and leave it to businesses and individuals to make sensible rational decisions. Even though there is a wealth of evidence that they DON'T make the right decisions in crises like this, as we saw throughout the world in the 1930s. As we saw in Japan in the 1990s.
That is why we are stumbling into a deeper crisis. Because Cameron and Merkel both refuse to believe that Keynes's approach can work. The solution is there waiting to be dusted down and put into practice if only they would put aside their ideological prejudices and get on with it.
-
competence and Cameron in the same sentence!
Fido, you're barking up the wrong tree there. Dave has reversed the pasty tax today. If that doesn't show competence and an ability to relate to the common man I don't know what does.
Just a technicality he hasn't reversed the pasty tax, What is actually happening is vat is being applied to pastys etc that are kept hot i.e. in a heated cabinet and pastys put on the shelf and allowed to cool naturally are not subject to vat another brainwave that is ill thought out and difficult to police
-
The government is up to its eyeballs in debt. The consumer is up to his eyeballs in debt. Future unborn generations are up to their eyeballs in debt. I on the other hand am up to my eyeballs in savings and investments which I regularly use to buy goods to keep the economy afloat.
The last thing we need is more debt. Have a look at this link and if you still think people should be spending even more money to get into even more debt then I'm afraid I can't help you anymore:
http://www.creditaction.org.uk/assets/PDF/statistics/2012/february-2012-summary.pdf
-
mjdgreg,
It's obvious you either don't read or fully understand the rational arguments being put your way, but in reply to your last post, please enlighten us: what would you have those people who have no savings or investments and have no spare cash at the end of the month do?
By the way, no-one is keeping the economy afloat at the minute my friend - we have gone back into recession! :suicide:
-
but in reply to your last post, please enlighten us: what would you have those people who have no savings or investments and have no spare cash at the end of the month do?
Harden up. Cut back on the fags, booze, drugs, holidays, designer clothes, season tickets (especially now we we've got that clown Saunders in charge), meals out, cars, Sky etc. Use the comparison websites to get the best deals on gas , electric, phone, insurance, mortgage etc. Start your own part time businesses to supplement your income. Get a better job. Get a promotion. I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.
Too many people spend every penny they get every month without a seconds thought as to how to budget. Then they complain they haven't got any money. Well for the most part I've got no sympathy for them. They're usually just to lazy to sort out their finances and aren't prepared to go without.
Anyone who just carries on spending every penny they've got is going to be in deep trouble very soon if they don't take my advice. Please don't come back at me and say you already do all these things because I am the only person I know that does.
I guarantee if I sat down with someone for an hour I could save them a lot of money just by doing some of the above and using common sense. I could even get them up and running with their own tax free business in less than 1 hour with money coming in within 48 hours (as long as they've got a computer and internet connection). This business would then generate them an income for the rest of their lives and could be done at any time to suit other commitments.
-
I could even get them up and running with their own tax free business in less than 1 hour with money coming in within 48 hours (as long as they've got a computer and internet connection). This business would then generate them an income for the rest of their lives and could be done at any time to suit other commitments.
Come on then, i'm game for that. Which webcam site will i have to signup to?
-
but in reply to your last post, please enlighten us: what would you have those people who have no savings or investments and have no spare cash at the end of the month do?
Harden up. Cut back on the fags, booze, drugs, holidays, designer clothes, season tickets (especially now we we've got that clown Saunders in charge), meals out, cars, Sky etc. Use the comparison websites to get the best deals on gas , electric, phone, insurance, mortgage etc. Start your own part time businesses to supplement your income. Get a better job. Get a promotion. I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.
Too many people spend every penny they get every month without a seconds thought as to how to budget. Then they complain they haven't got any money. Well for the most part I've got no sympathy for them. They're usually just to lazy to sort out their finances and aren't prepared to go without.
Anyone who just carries on spending every penny they've got is going to be in deep trouble very soon if they don't take my advice. Please don't come back at me and say you already do all these things because I am the only person I know that does.
I guarantee if I sat down with someone for an hour I could save them a lot of money just by doing some of the above and using common sense. I could even get them up and running with their own tax free business in less than 1 hour with money coming in within 48 hours (as long as they've got a computer and internet connection). This business would then generate them an income for the rest of their lives and could be done at any time to suit other commitments.
You, madmick, are full of bullshit my friend. That is, in the words of some others posters on here, "FACT"
-
The government is up to its eyeballs in debt. The consumer is up to his eyeballs in debt. Future unborn generations are up to their eyeballs in debt. I on the other hand am up to my eyeballs in savings and investments which I regularly use to buy goods to keep the economy afloat.
The last thing we need is more debt. Have a look at this link and if you still think people should be spending even more money to get into even more debt then I'm afraid I can't help you anymore:
http://www.creditaction.org.uk/assets/PDF/statistics/2012/february-2012-summary.pdf
Mick.
End of debate I think. I have explained to you what the perils are of everyone simultaneously tightening their belts and Govt cutting back its spending at the same time. You simply respond with a diatribe about your own habits and a homely sermon about the dangers of debt.
I think we've both posted more than enough and anyone reading can clearly see where we are coming from and can make up their own minds. I've done now.
And he really is absolutely fine, so don't worry. So kind of you to enquire.
-
You, mjdgreg, are full of excellent advice my friend. That is, in the words of some others posters on here, "FACT"
Thank you for your kind words.
-
End of debate I think. I have explained to you what the perils are of everyone simultaneously tightening their belts and Govt cutting back its spending at the same time.
Do you really think that everyone in the UK would simultaneously tighten their belts given their addiction to debt? No way that would happen. There aren't many folk out there with the iron willpower that I possess that would be capable of such a feat.
Also the government are still continuing to borrow many billions. The national debt is going to double over this parliament. They're already doing what you want them to do. Labour did the same on a more profligate level and that didn't work either. In your own words it isn't working. End of debate.
-
Come on then, i'm game for that. Which webcam site will i have to signup to?
I did say it was a business you could run for the rest of your life. I suspect you've only got about 10 years left where anybody would be remotely interested in what you got up to with your webcam. That's if you haven't let yourself go already.
Just in case you are reasonably intelligent and have a bit of get up and go in you I will post a link which explains all about this marvellous opportunity. No tax to pay, no Tax Return to fill in. Can be done any time of the day or night from the comfort of your own home. You could comfortably average an extra £200 per month income (I regularly make over £2,000 per month but then again I am the exception to the rule).
WARNING: YOU MUST HAVE IRON WILLPOWER LIKE WHAT I'VE GOT. THIS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY IS NOT RISK FREE. HOWEVER IT VIRTUALLY IS, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE. EVEN IF YOU DO, PROVIDING YOU HARDLY MAKE ANY MISTAKES YOU WILL MAKE FAR MORE THAN YOU LOSE.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41
-
Come on then, i'm game for that. Which webcam site will i have to signup to?
I did say it was a business you could run for the rest of your life. I suspect you've only got about 10 years left where anybody would be remotely interested in what you got up to with your webcam. That's if you haven't let yourself go already.
Just in case you are reasonably intelligent and have a bit of get up and go in you I will post a link which explains all about this marvellous opportunity. No tax to pay, no Tax Return to fill in. Can be done any time of the day or night from the comfort of your own home. You could comfortably average an extra £200 per month income (I regularly make over £2,000 per month but then again I am the exception to the rule).
WARNING: YOU MUST HAVE IRON WILLPOWER LIKE WHAT I'VE GOT. THIS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY IS NOT RISK FREE. HOWEVER IT VIRTUALLY IS, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE. EVEN IF YOU DO, PROVIDING YOU HARDLY MAKE ANY MISTAKES YOU WILL MAKE FAR MORE THAN YOU LOSE.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41
You said all i would need is a computer and an internet connection... Now you're saying i need 'iron willpower' too. You and your lover David Cameron have some striking similarities judging by that.
-
Ok Mick, what happens if.......
you have never smoked,
don't drink,
don't go on holiday,
don't have meals out or take aways,
last bought ONE item of clothing three year ago,
have no insurance ,
no credit cards,
no savings,
never learned to drive,
no sky...
When your only 'extravigance' is the cheapest internet you can find..
It would be pretty darned hard to tighten that belt any more than it already is..Yes I spend every penny I get in, I'm such a little profligate I tend to throw every penny I have left after paying my bills at Mr. Sainsbury...
On a different note, how does the sexy little flirtation Dave seems to be having with that naughty boy Tony leave you feeling?
-
Ok Mick, what happens if.......
you have never smoked,
don't drink,
don't go on holiday,
don't have meals out or take aways,
last bought ONE item of clothing three year ago,
have no insurance ,
no credit cards,
no savings,
never learned to drive,
no sky...
When your only 'extravigance' is the cheapest internet you can find..
It would be pretty darned hard to tighten that belt any more than it already is..Yes I spend every penny I get in, I'm such a little profligate I tend to throw every penny I have left after paying my bills at Mr. Sainsbury...
On a different note, how does the sexy little flirtation Dave seems to be having with that naughty boy Tony leave you feeling?
You are excused from hardening up as you are already well hard. Some advice though that you may find useful. I used to do all my shopping at Sainsburys but now do as much of it at Lidl as possible. Saves me about £10 a week. Like you I am also well hard.
It may also pay to try and find a nice man with lots of money. Before you ask, I am already taken.
As far as Tony goes I can take it. When you love yourself as much as I love me then it's no problem. We all know that secretly Tony is a Tory.
-
I checkmate you with, no car, nearest aldi's 13 miles from me, Sturdy little pony I might be, but weight lifter I'm not .. I couldn't carry it home, plus it would cost me nearly £7 for the return bus fare.....Sainsburys deliver for £3.75 on orders over £40 or if you shop tues, wed or thurs it's free delivery on orders over £100..
Plus I get nectar points which I'm saving for xmas... :thumbsup:
And as I've said before i don't impulse shop that way either..
If I had a rich man I still wouldn't drink, smoke have credit cards (I don't believe in them).. clothes are purely functunal, shoes the same... I don't think I could be extravigant if i tried tbh.