the Double Dip is here

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here is an excellent blog pointing out the differences in the previous Labour and Tory government. All you youngsters that can't remember the previous Tory government take note and ignore all the Ed Balls bullshit.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100153640/a-recession-made-in-downing-street/

Mick.

Once again, you ignore facts and prefer to quote opinions that suit your own.

Hannan is a anti-state fundamentalist who believes that Govt spending is inherently wrong. So of course he's going to write a blog like that. Trouble is, in his rush to pour out his bile, he repeats fundamental  and demonstrable mistruths. I don;t expect you to pick up on them. But for the record, anyone else can check for themselves.

For example, Hannan says:
"While other countries were using the good years to build up surpluses, he [Brown] spent more, taxed more and borrowed more."

Not sure which "other countries" he's talking about. But it certainly isn't Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Netherlands etc, as data in the following link shows. The UK ran consistently lower levels of Govt debt than all of these countries throughout the "good times".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361930

And it wasn't the USA or Japan either, or the G7 on average as THIS graph of public debt as a proportion of GDP shows. The UK under Brown demonstrably did NOT run a manic spending splurge. By international standards, our Govt debt was quite low before the collapse in 08. It is only swivel-eyed right-wing ideologues like you and Hannan who think that the Govt spending under Brown was manic and out of control. Look at the graphs and argue otherwise.


In fact, that last graph is very instructive. Look at Japan. Guess what policies THEY tried to follow in the early 1990s to solve a national debt crisis? You've got it. They went for Austerity. They went for drastically cutting back Govt spending. Guess what happened? You got it. The economy tanked. They went into recession for a decade. Their tax intake collapsed and their welfare payments ballooned. And their debt went up. From 50% of GDP to 220% of GDP.

Not opinion Mick. Fact. Demonstrable, checkable, incontovertable fact.

[MrFrost]

Nice to see some things never change!

[Filo]

Nice to see some things never change!

Aye, you can read those Tories like a book!

[RTID75]

The only good thing that will come of all this economy screwing madness that our corrupt posh boys insist on seeing through, even though they can now see the double dip is fact (but anyone else with half a brain could see coming from miles away), is that they're making themselves un-electable for the next general election. All we need now is Ed to grow a pair and start ripping our Tory friends to pieces like they deserve, and they're done for.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I'm not really one who agrees with comparisons of debt to GDP ratios.  What is never remembered is that government spending forms part of the basic GDP calculation, thus meaning that it clearly has some weakness.

I still believe that the start of the new labour era wasn't a bad thing and they did some real positive things in the late 90s.  But the era after that the positive side faded away.  In place of their forward thinking outlook they did fuel GDP by increasing government spending (over half of the growth in GDP came through government spending).  You can see there then that the debt-GDP ratio can become flawed.  If you're boosting your GDP levels with debt then the proportion isn't going to change much.  It's certainly not a very good judge.  I think a lot of people forget that  when these figures are produced, it's very easy to mask your own agenda.

I still firmly believe Brown should have cut back on his spending in the later years, but that would have shown lower levels of GDP growth (given over 60% of the growth was government spending) this would have seen growth at much lower levels.

In the late 90s they did well with how they spent, but in the early 2000s the proportion of GDP related to government spending increased, which was ultimately the big failing of the time.  Add in that public sector growth was debt fuelled and thus artificical as we all now know and it wasn't really that rosey at the time.  We're now going to have to pay for that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Pudding

Forgive me but I don't understand your argument. Just because a component of GDP is generated by Govt activity and spending, it doesn't make it any less "real". There are those on the Right who firmly believe that public sector activity is inherently inefficient, but even they wouldn't claim that the contribution to GDP that public spending makes should be ignored.

The fact remains that, whatever one's political interpretation of how Briwn spent, by 2007, our total Public Debt as a proportion of the size of our economy was very low, both by historical UK standards and by international standards. It is clearly and demonstrably incorrect to claim that Brown was a manic over-spender.

It is perfectly possible to claim that he spent more than YOU think he should have done. But that is a politically-based personal opinion. I happen to believe that a civilised society depends on some decent level of collectively financed public work. My belief is that between 80-97, our collective provision was driven way below the level that was healthy, and that we became a divided, individualistic society as a result. I see what Labour did as a reaction against that, bringing us closer to a sensible balance of the collective and the individual aspects. But that's just my opinion.

[mjdgreg]

I'm not really one who agrees with comparisons of debt to GDP ratios.

I agree. To say that Labour didn't overspend wildly just because you can produce graphs about GDP ratios is very simplistic and a gross distortion of the truth. The fact that they left every household in the country with an extra £50,000 of debt by the time they had been in power up until April 2008 is far more meaningful and paints the true picture.

Of course there was then the global banking crisis on top of that just to rub salt into an already serious wound. This then turned a very serious situation into a total catastrophe for which we are all going to have to pay, for a very long time indeed.

[mjdgreg]

The only good thing that will come of all this economy screwing madness that our corrupt posh boys insist on seeing through, even though they can now see the double dip is fact (but anyone else with half a brain could see coming from miles away), is that they're making themselves un-electable for the next general election. All we need now is Ed to grow a pair and start ripping our Tory friends to pieces like they deserve, and they're done for.

I presume you want us to borrow even more money and to continue to live beyond our means. I hope you tell your children and their children that you would like to carry on with your current standard of living and could they please pick up the bill for you.

The only people that will be done for if Labour get re-elected is the entire population of the UK. You think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet if that shower of shite get their hands back on the purse strings.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm not really one who agrees with comparisons of debt to GDP ratios.

I agree. To say that Labour didn't overspend wildly just because you can produce graphs about GDP ratios is very simplistic and a gross distortion of the truth.

Mick.

You clearly don't have even the most tenuous grasp of basic economics. The ONLY thing that matters is what our debt is as a proportion of our GDP.

I'll give you a simple example. Simple enough for you to follow.

Two blokes. One has a debt of £10,000 and earns £10,000  per year. The other has a debt of £20,000 and earns £100,000 per year. Which one is in the worse debt situation?

Now, in 1997, our total Govt debt was about £350 billion and our GDP was about £800 billion . In 2007, our total Govt debt was about £500billion and our GDP was about £1400bn. Which was the worse debt situation?

Of course, after that, when the global financial crisis exploded, our debt increased severely. Just as it did in Germany, France, USA, Japan, etc, etc, etc.


You also rabbit on about servicing our debt. Once again, you have not the barest grasp of the facts. Our debt interest payments (again, as a proportion of our national income, which is all that matters) were at record lows under most of the Labour time in office.



Even after the great crash and the consequent increase in the overall debt , they are still at historically quite reasonable levels - far, far lower than they were under Thatcher and Major. In fact, lower than the era when we ruled the entire bleeding globe. That is primarily because Brown ensured that the overwhelming majority of our debt was secured on very long-term bonds at historically low interest rates. A fine piece of forward planning, which made the whole comparison of us with Greece utterly absurd. Greece had twice the debt that we had, a less functioning economy, AND, their debt needed renewing, so they were at the mercy of the bond markets as to what interest rate they would pay.

So, it's clear that the overall cost of servicing our debt is perfectly manageable for us as a nation overall. Which then brings us to the question of how that burden is divvied up. Now, since "we are all in it together", there's no way that Gideon and Dave would consider giving millionaires a tax cut while the rest of us have to dig deep to pay off the debt. No way they would even think about doing that...

[RobTheRover]

Mick, seeing as you like the Daily Mail so much, I thought I'd share this with you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126340/Only-trust-George-Osborne-economy-botched-Budget.html

Botched budget, eh?  Who'd have thought Gideon would cock it all up, eh?

[River Don]

I'm not really one who agrees with comparisons of debt to GDP ratios.

I agree. To say that Labour didn't overspend wildly just because you can produce graphs about GDP ratios is very simplistic and a gross distortion of the truth. The fact that they left every household in the country with an extra £50,000 of debt by the time they had been in power up until April 2008 is far more meaningful and paints the true picture.

Of course there was then the global banking crisis on top of that just to rub salt into an already serious wound. This then turned a very serious situation into a total catastrophe for which we are all going to have to pay, for a very long time indeed.

% of UK debt held by financial institutions. For those of you who blame Gordon Brown and not the global financial collapse.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/04/World%20debt%20to%20GDP.jpg

[mjdgreg]

% of UK debt held by financial institutions. For those of you who blame Gordon Brown and not the global financial collapse.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/04/World%20debt%20to%20GDP.jpg

Ooh look. Whose at the top of the debt pile? You've guessed it, the UK. Thanks Gordon.

[mjdgreg]

Silly Billy must be living in a parallel universe. The way he goes on you would think Labour handed over a 'goldilocks' economy to the Tories. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[bobjimwilly]

Mick,

You know you're making yourself look a bit of a prat don't you? 

You're presented with facts, and all you do is tell people they "look silly" (???) and tell them they're wrong but present no counter-facts or argument? 

[mjdgreg]

You know you're making yourself look a bit of a prat don't you? 

You're presented with facts, and all you do is tell people they "look silly" (???) and tell them they're wrong but present no counter-facts or argument?

I've presented far more facts than silly Billy. You must be living in the same parallel universe. Here's some more:

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

[mjdgreg]

Not sure which "other countries" he's talking about. But it certainly isn't Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Netherlands etc,

In 2007 Germany and the Netherlands were in surplus. Here's some of the 'other countries' he's talking about.  Canada, Switzerland, the Nordic countries and all the Asian surplus economies. Half of the countries that comprise the  OECD were in surplus in 2007. That's 16 countries. Is that enough for you?

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-deficit-by-country.html#axzz1tSN7cTBM

[BillyStubbsTears]

Eeh Mick, you really can't help yourself can you.

That list of countries you present. Only one is remotely close to the UK in size and economic conditions. That's Canada. That's Canada where GDP fell by more than 10% between 08-10. Where unemployment rose by just shy of 50% as the recession hit. And where they STILL have a higher Govt debt than we do. Good choice.

As for the others...Switzerland? Their debt-to-GDP in 2007 was almost TWICE ours, and was rising at a faster rate than ours. So that's one down.

Finland? Yep, they were paying their debt down rapidly before 07. The result? They had an even more torrid time than we did when the crash happened, losing about 10% of GDP. And they are in a dodgy state at the moment too, with their economy flatlining for the last 12 months.

Sweden, very similar. They were also paying off their debt rapidly, although it was STILL higher than ours in 2007. They then had a recession at least as severe as ours and have just tipped back into a nasty-looking recession.

I've lost track now. Who is it that you think are the shining examples that we should be copying? Vietnam and China?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

Once again, you ignore facts and prefer to quote opinions that suit your own.

Hannan is a anti-state fundamentalist who believes that Govt spending is inherently wrong. So of course he's going to write a blog like that. Trouble is, in his rush to pour out his bile, he repeats fundamental  and demonstrable mistruths. I don;t expect you to pick up on them. But for the record, anyone else can check for themselves.

For example, Hannan says:
"While other countries were using the good years to build up surpluses, he [Brown] spent more, taxed more and borrowed more."

Not sure which "other countries" he's talking about. But it certainly isn't Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Netherlands etc,

My previous post conclusively proves that what you said above is total rubbish. You are a one trick pony that bases all his arguments on just one piece of the jigsaw - government debt. If only life were that simple.

The 'good' years were the ones up to 2007. Hannan doesn't say 'other countries the size of the UK' he just says 'other countries'. So of course you then start to talk about the years after 2007 to try and dig yourself out of the very deep hole you've dug for yourself.

Only the years up to 2007 are relevant for the point Hannan is making. If half the OECD and several other countries  having a surplus in 2007 isn't enough for you then I don't know what is.

You slag Switzerland and Sweden off but if you read through the link I've provided you find that by 2013 'In fact, even though a general reduction of the deficit is expected in most OECD countries, only Korea, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland will be in positive territory'.

Are you seriously disputing that your mate Gordon spent more, taxed more and borrowed more? Are you saying he spent less, taxed less and borrowed less? If you seriously believe that then you will lose any of the little credibility you have left.

If only we could all live in fantasy land like you the world would be a much happier place.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

My 5 year olds argue in a similar way to you. You corner them with a logical argument and they flip the discussion onto something else.

YOU posted a link to someone who said that Brown should have paid down the debt "in the good times" to avoid the disaster that we've had. I have simply pointed out several counter-examples of countries who DID pay down their Govt debt and who still have problems. I forgot the most glaring example of all. Spain halved their Govt debt as a proportion of GDP between 200 and 2007. Big f***ing help that is now to the 52% of 16-25 year olds who are on the dole in Spain.

And while we're talking about dole figures, here is the most important graph of the lot. THIS is what Brown's approach to Govt spending meant in terms of lives chucked away on the Dole. Look at what happened the last twice that we had recessions. Look what happened to the dole figures in 80-84 and 90-93 when policies that were hell-bent on reining in Govt spending in the way that YOU want were implemented. And, bearing in mind that the 07-09 global catastrophe was FAR deeper than either the 80s or the 90s recessions, look at how the last Govt's spending nipped that in the bud and stopped unemployment steepling to 12-15% or more. That's real people's lives being changed there Mick.



THAT is what happens when you cut back Govt spending in the teeth of a recession. You end up with millions, MILLIONS more on the dole. You end up with kids like the ones I left school with, not finding a job for 6 years. We are in shit now, but for several million people who have managed to hang on to jobs, the shit would have been deeper and shittier if we'd gone the Tory route in 08.

[Mr1Croft]

The first recession was down to Gordon Brown, probably not solely but it was him who wanted to make Britain at the forefront of Globalisation, and to be fair he truly believed this would make Britain richer for it. He was encouraged by the Third Way that began in America and he wanted to replicate it here, Unfortunately the third way came crashing down in the states before its full implementation here. The problem here is that it is the MNC's and TNC's that rule the world, granted they are probably governed in the order of this table by Hirst and Thomspon (1999)

Group of 3 (European Union, North America, Japan)


International Regulatory Authorities (WTO, IMF, World Bank etc.)


Regional-level Governance (EU, APEC etc.)


National-level Governance


Sub-national level Governance

But how do you stop this in a Capitalist Society? There are so many problems with the world economy and capitalism has to take the blame for the problems in the world, and yet we continue to live in the capitalist world, why? Probably because of Marx, who happens to be the most cited author but least read. Yes Marx was an advocate for 'Communism' and because it posed a real theat to Capitalism people started taking it too serious and now it has died, but what Marx did say is that you cannot just escape and replace Capitalism, you must go through capitalism in it's stages  to come out of the other side to change. The real problem at present however is that there is no alternative, and all of the anti-capitalist groups don't even know what they are protesting...

Why am I going on about this? No I am not changing the subject here but I think it is important to understand who really controls the money. So let me ask you this; yes the Tories have failed in the economy (and I was a true believer in this Government) but what could they have possibly done to improve employment? At a time where the TNC's and MNC's listen to the Government but don't really say anything back the Government cannot and could not stop this, it could have slowed it down and dragged it out, but if the market is dictating this to happen, then it will.

I don't think anyone truly believed the tories would get us out of this mess for one reason: In any election since 1945, if any Labour Government had undergone the misery Gordon Brown had prior to the Election they would have lost by a landslide to the Tories, why then did we have a hung Parliament? The Country had doubts from the off and they have been proved right.


The problem? What is the alternative? Ed Miliband? I don't think so, he is a poor leader and more to the point Labour don't stab their poor leaders in the back, the Lib Dems do (if need be) and the tories definatley do, they even stabbed poor old Mrs T in the back after her most successful premiership. Labour will need to lose 50 seats in the next election for Miliband to go, and for that reason we are stuck with George Osbourne as chancellor who is always going to play the "we need the trust of the international bond markets" card.

[mjdgreg]

YOU posted a link to someone who said that Brown should have paid down the debt "in the good times" to avoid the disaster that we've had.

You misrepresent what he said (what a surprise). This is what he said 'While other countries were using the good years to build up surpluses, he spent more, taxed more and borrowed more. When the credit crunch hit, Britain had no stores on which to draw. By the time Labour left office, one of every four pounds spent by the government was being borrowed, and our annual deficit was as high as Greece's'.

He hasn't claimed that we would have avoided the disaster that we've had.

He merely stated that Brown should not have spent, borrowed and taxed so much. If Brown hadn't done this our debt burden would have been less and we'd have been been better placed to lessen the impact (not avoid) the consequences of the global crisis. The countries that did behave responsibly may be having problems now but they would have been far worse had they not done this.

This link is an accurate and devastating critique of your friend Mr Brown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

 

[mjdgreg]

I forgot the most glaring example of all. Spain halved their Govt debt as a proportion of GDP between 200 and 2007. Big f***ing help that is now to the 52% of 16-25 year olds who are on the dole in Spain.

As usual you bang on about government debt as a proportion of GDP. However the problems of Spain lies not in its sovereign debt but in its bank debt, built up on a massive property bubble, which is still in the process of bursting.

[mjdgreg]

And, bearing in mind that the 07-09 global catastrophe was FAR deeper than either the 80s or the 90s recessions, look at how the last Govt's spending nipped that in the bud and stopped unemployment steepling to 12-15% or more. That's real people's lives being changed there mjdgreg.

All his excessive spending has done is delay the inevitable and made things worse. There is no point in borrowing money to create non jobs that are only going to be lost in the future and leave us with even greater debts than if we'd just bitten the bullet in the first place.

It really makes my piss boil that socialists think the solution to any economic downturn is just to borrow money that they can't afford just to buy votes. Why can't we just harden up and accept that we've been living beyond our means and accept that it's payback time and take the consequences. Continuing in denial is not the solution.

People should not expect the government to create non jobs for them. If there aren't as many jobs out there then they should stop moaning and do something about it themselves. Anyone who really wants to work can either find a job or make one for themselves if they're prepared to take a bit of responsibility instead of relying on government borrowing to bail them out.

[bobjimwilly]

Anyone who really wants to work can either find a job or make one for themselves if they're prepared to take a bit of responsibility instead of relying on government borrowing to bail them out.

Everyone should go out and make a job for themselves? I'll presume by the tenuous, throwaway comment you mean everyone out of work should go into self-employment? Does that include the low-skilled workers who have just been made redundant, or youngsters fresh out of education, both with no start-up capital or experience, who the majority of lenders would steer well clear of? You're deluded.

What is it you do for a living Mick?

[RedJ]

Anyone who really wants to work can either find a job or make one for themselves if they're prepared to take a bit of responsibility instead of relying on government borrowing to bail them out.

Everyone should go out and make a job for themselves? I'll presume by the tenuous, throwaway comment you mean everyone out of work should go into self-employment? Does that include the low-skilled workers who have just been made redundant, or youngsters fresh out of education, both with no start-up capital or experience, who the majority of lenders would steer well clear of? You're deluded.

What is it you do for a living Mick?

he's an economist obviously

[Sprotyrover]

here's some facts I know about Balls up and Co! My mate was engaged by bradford city Council to review their set up and try to identify areas where they could cut back, what they found was every time the labour Government gave em some money they hired more managers eg they ended up with 17 Neighbourhood Managers on £64k plus and each bloody one had a P.a. on £16k!!!.

WTF does a Neighbourhood Manager do?

I think we had 6 in Donny and an overall manager who was on about 130k and who has just recieved a massive redundancy payment. I do recall that one year she got a 24k bonus for reducing crime!!!!

The Town centre one couldnt even sort out the open Sewer between Hallgate and Wood street!

Sorry but The Police played the major part in that and also factors such as the decline in the population under 30 years of age.


Now if you multiply that across the country that's a lot of 'Drones' in the Hive.

Oh and just have a look at some of the PCT Managerial wiring Diagrams you can download they are absolutley astounding!

By the way If I do vote tomorrow it will be for UKIP the 3  main parties are useless.

[mjdgreg]

Everyone should go out and make a job for themselves? I'll presume by the tenuous, throwaway comment you mean everyone out of work should go into self-employment? Does that include the low-skilled workers who have just been made redundant, or youngsters fresh out of education, both with no start-up capital or experience, who the majority of lenders would steer well clear of? You're deluded.

What is it you do for a living mjdgreg?

You sound like the sort of person that wants the government to do everything for them. Everyone out of work and I mean everyone capable of working should be able to find a job. There are jobs out there if people are prepared to take them.

If you don't like the sound of that then why not start your own business? If you can't get start up capital why not work for someone else in a job you may not like to save the capital yourself. It makes my piss boil that socialists expect everyone else to look after them and can't be bothered to get off their arses to do something about it themselves.

I got off my arse, saved some money whilst working for someone else and started  4 of my own businesses. I'm a property developer, landlord, music teacher and professional gambler. So you see I do know what I am talking about.

All you losers out there need to harden up and try standing on your own 2 feet for a change. I'm fed up of my taxes going to support you because you think I owe you a living.

[mjdgreg]

he's an economist obviously

You're a socialist obviously.

[mjdgreg]

Glad you've seen the light Spotyrover. You've given a fine example of how the Labour government created expensive non jobs on borrowed money.

[Sprotyrover]

Yes you are right, unfortunately I don't think those stuck up t**ts in the Tory party have got the wherewithal to dig us out of the mess we are in either.!!! (Just look at them Brian,They arent OUR People!!!) theyre Southern t**ts!.