The case for deflation

[BillyStubbsTears]

You tell yourself whatever you need to Mick, if it keeps your self-prestige up. But a word of advice. You do look a bit of a bullshiter if you graciously decline to comment every time you are faced down.

I hope for your sake that you don't go all-in on a 3-7 hand in poker, the way you do every week on here.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

The answer is extremely simple for anyone who has spent any time looking into the fundamental economic theory.

Depressed economic output, by definition, is economic output which is lower than that which would be produced if the economy were firing on all cylinders.

Economies fail to fire on all cylinders because there is a lack of demand from private (business and individual) economic agents.

In such a case, a Govt fiscal stimulus basically fills the gap of demand by injecting demand into the economy. If total aggregate demand remains weak, it is because Govt spending is not high enough. That is precisely the case that we have had since 2010. In 08-10, the Labour Govt supplemented aggregate demand by their fiscal stimulus. The result was a very strong rebound in growth. In 2010, this Govt cut the stimulus and growth collapsed. I really don't see how you can argue against that.

Actually, I DO see. It's because you have no comprehension what a fiscal stimulus is. You think Govt borrowing equals fiscal stimulus.

What is happening at the moment is that Govt borrowing is very high because tax receipts are in a long term slump. That is precisely the root of the deficit problem. Whilever private business is depressed and the economy is running below potential, tax receipts will be depressed. So, the only way that Govt borrowing can come down is by huge Govt spending cuts. But huge Govt spending cuts would remove still more demand from the economy (by putting more people on the file and removing more contracts from companies). So the economic slump will go on and tax receipts will go still lower. Round and round and round. A bit like arguing with you Mick.

Now, one of the reasons why this Govt has been particularly economically illiterate is that the cuts they HAVE introduced in the first 2 years have been almost entirely in big infrastructure investments. One of the first things they did was to pull £4bn of school building jobs. Madness. Apart from creating long term problems in the quality of school infrastructure, this also led directly to a crippling collapse in the construction sector, putting more people on the dole and pulling yet more demand out of the economy.

So, the simple answer to your ignorant question Mick, is that what we have at the moment is categorically NOT a fiscal stimulus. The Govt is spending on day-to-day stuff (pensions, NHS, dole money, running schools) but it doesn't have enough tax coming in to pay for it. (Which is why it has to borrow.) A fiscal stimulus would be DISCRETIONARY spending on long-term infrastructure projects over and above this day-to-day stuff, filling in for the things that the private sector is too scared to invest in. Or it would include massive inducements to companies to expand. Things like abolishing NI contributions on new recruitments. Or subsidies for companies to buy new plant and facilities. Govt subsidised encouragement for companies to expand. On a massive scale, with the intention of getting unemployment down by 1.5 million in 18 months. A fiscal stimulus would entail a much bigger increase in Govt spending. Another £50bn or so right now.

Clear enough argument for you mjdgreg.

Look, I'm sure when you were at school your teachers tried to drum it into you to answer the question that is asked and not to answer the question you would have liked to have been asked. My question was about austerity. You don't mention this word once. So I'll ask again. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Jesus wept Mick. Are you back in that frame of mind where you deliberately try to appear thicker than you are?

The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity.

What they have since found is that this doesn't lead to the expected reduction in Govt borrowing. Just like anyone who had every studied basic economics was predicting back in 2010.

I'll explain in simple words for you.

Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy.

We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010. We have had zero growth since 2010. How much simpler does it need to be before you finally get your closed mind round it?

[Glyn_Wigley]

How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?

Just because austerity measures don't have the effect the Government tells everybody they will doesn't make them not austere. Do you really need to have this spelt out to you? Why am I even asking that question, of course you do.

[mjdgreg]

More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?

[wilts rover]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

[Dagenham Rover]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

That doesn't affect Mick he's got his Betterware round and Gold Mine

[Glyn_Wigley]

More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?

Now then Mick, did you not see the word 'intended' in the middle of that definition or do you not understend it's meaning? It has to be one deficiency or the other.

Something can have the intention of doing something and fail. Failure doesn't change its nature. The government austerity programme can have whatever intentions it likes - just because it fails in those intentions doesn't stop it being an austerity programme. It just makes it a failure.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I give up Mick. You are beyond parody.

Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"

What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."

What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?

You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.

What do you get out of this Mick? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?

[wilts rover]

Unfortunately Glyn it isn't failing, it is doing exactly what the government want it to - lower the standard of living for the majority of working people so they will accept worse working conditions and wages. A small percentage of people are getting very wealthy because of it too. Its only when the people in the middle (like Mick) realise that they are more likely to end up in the former - than the latter, will they recognise which clothes the emperor is wearing...

[BobG]

Don't I count then Billy?

This is my first port of call every single night. Not only do I learn things from you but I also marvel, positively goggle in fact, at the wrigglings, evasions and untruths of our esteemed colleague. It's an object lesson in political chicanery. Repeat rubbish long enough misquote statistics loud enough and some poor sap will end up believing it. Indeed, I've got a half baked theory that our entertaining friend is either an aspiring Tory politician practising how not to answer questions before he goes public, or, a wannabe journalist working just how little fact he can get away with.

Two simple questions Mick:

1) what was it that got the whole world out of the economic depression of the 1930's? You know, that time when there was the Jarrow marches, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the dustbowls and mass unemployment right across the whole world? (There's a hint here: I mentioned the answer a few weeks back as a possible tongue in cheek solution today)

2) What economic policy had been followed by the entire western based world through those years? (With the honourable exception in the later years of a physical cripple)

The answers to those two questions give you the truth of where we are today, and, what the answer to todays' problems is.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?

Now then Mick, did you not see the word 'intended' in the middle of that definition or do you not understend it's meaning? It has to be one deficiency or the other.

Something can have the intention of doing something and fail. Failure doesn't change its nature. The government austerity programme can have whatever intentions it likes - just because it fails in those intentions doesn't stop it being an austerity programme. It just makes it a failure.

Glyn

Amen. Govt spending has been reduced significantly from the trajectory it would have been on under Labour. The result has been a collapsed growth and anaemic tax receipts. The result of THAT is that the deficit has reduced more slowly than every independent forecaster said it would do under Labour's spending plans.

Jonathan Portes, one of the country's leading macro-economists, ex-Treasury chief economist, one-time economics adviser to the 1992 Tory Govt (one that gave a textbook example of how to reflate out of a recession) and current head of an independent economics research institute summed it up perfectly in a recent article:

"The direct implication is that the policies pursued by EU countries over the recent past have had perverse and damaging effects.  Our simulations suggest that coordinated fiscal consolidation has not only had substantially larger negative impacts on growth than expected, but has actually had the effect of raising rather than lowering debt-GDP ratios, precisely as some critics have argued.  Not only would growth have been higher if such policies had not been pursued, but debt-GDP ratios would have been lower."

[mjdgreg]

I give up mjdgreg. You are beyond parody.

Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"

What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."

What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?

At least you seem to agree with my definition of 'austerity'. We might be getting somewhere at last.

You also posted:

'The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity'.

You also posted:

'Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'.

How many definitions are there? Which definition do you believe in? Where is the link (evidence) that shows one of your definitions is correct?  Do you change your definition to back up the current load of waffle you are spouting?

You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.

I'd be grateful if you could point out my most recent 'lie'. I am nothing but honest and am sure you will struggle. Same goes for non-facts. Which is my most recent one? Show me where I am wrong. Again, I am confident you won't be able to.

What do you get out of this mjdgreg? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?

All I'm doing is putting the common-sense view across and exposing the spend, spend, spend, leftie ideology for the idiocy that it is.

Now, back to my question. So far no-one has answered it properly and I've given up hope that anyone ever will. So I'll give you the answer.

Due to the government spending more during this parliament than any previous government ever has, then we are not enduring 'austerity'. Public spending is continuing to rise in case you hadn't all noticed. For us to be enduring austerity it would have to be falling.

How simple was that to work out?  I gave you the clue in the question (the National Debt is going to double in 5 years). So why on earth anyone thinks we are enduring 'austerity' is totally beyond me. Another one of Billy's myths exposed.

[mjdgreg]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.

Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?

The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.

[Filo]

I give up mjdgreg. You are beyond parody.

Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"

What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."

What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?

At least you seem to agree with my definition of 'austerity'. We might be getting somewhere at last.

You also posted:

'The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity'.

You also posted:

'Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'.

How many definitions are there? Which definition do you believe in? Where is the link (evidence) that shows one of your definitions is correct?  Do you change your definition to back up the current load of waffle you are spouting?

You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.

I'd be grateful if you could point out my most recent 'lie'. I am nothing but honest and am sure you will struggle. Same goes for non-facts. Which is my most recent one? Show me where I am wrong. Again, I am confident you won't be able to.

What do you get out of this mjdgreg? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?

All I'm doing is putting the common-sense view across and exposing the spend, spend, spend, leftie ideology for the idiocy that it is.

Now, back to my question. So far no-one has answered it properly and I've given up hope that anyone ever will. So I'll give you the answer.

Due to the government spending more during this parliament than any previous government ever has, then we are not enduring 'austerity'. Public spending is continuing to rise in case you hadn't all noticed. For us to be enduring austerity it would have to be falling.

How simple was that to work out?  I gave you the clue in the question (the National Debt is going to double in 5 years). So why on earth anyone thinks we are enduring 'austerity' is totally beyond me. Another one of Billy's myths exposed.

What a complete and utter fool, you`ve told us in the same post that we are suffering austerity and we are n`t!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

1) I realise that I'm pushing on a string trying to get you to understand concepts beyond your intellectual ability. But those three definitions are formally identical. They all state that the current trajectory of Govt spending (SPENDING Mick, keep that it your thoughts) is lower than that planned by the previous administration, which itself was a level intended to fill the gap in Aggregate Demand. The "reduction" is a reduction from the previous, AD-gap filling levels.

There's no contradiction in any of my definitions. It's not so difficult if you think for a moment Mick. Unless you are fundamentally incapable of forming cogent thoughts.

2) Despite numerous clear postings on here, you STILL simply refuse to acknowledge what Austerity is, or what the consequences of it are. Austerity is NOT about the absolute level of Govt spending. It is about the level relative to what it would be if you believe that Govt spending can fill the Aggregate Demand gap. This Govt believes that Govt spending cannot do that. So they cut Govt spending on discretionary items, like long term infrastructure investment spending.

We've now had 4 years since the crisis broke. In 2009, a big Givt stimulus was put in place. The economy bounced back from 6% contraction in 09 to 2.5% growth in 2010. That was a quite phenomenal turn round in performance in performance. It was one that Osborne said wasn't possible (after Darling's 2009 Budget predicted 1.75% growth in 2010, Osborne called him a fantasist). Then Osborne tightened Govt spending cut back the stimulus, cut back Govt spending from the level required to fill the AD gap (three identical definitions Mick - got it through your skull yet?). And since then, we have had precisely zero growth in 2 years. And tax receipts have dropped. So the deficit has come down more slowly than it would have done if the Govt was spending more but the economy was growing. Very, very simple. Simple enough even for you to understand.

3) Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.

[mjdgreg]

What a complete and utter fool, you`ve told us in the same post that we are suffering austerity and we are n`t!

No I haven't. I agree I've said we aren't suffering austerity. All I've offered up is the Wikipedia definition of austerity. I agree with the definition but nowhere have I said that we are suffering austerity, in fact I've argued the complete opposite.

I'm afraid you're the complete and utter fool. I challenge you to show where I have said what you say I have. I think you're getting me mixed up with Billy. He'd like everyone to believe that we are, when demonstrably we're not.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.

Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?

The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.

Mick.

You're doing it again.

You see an intellectually coherent argument. You refuse to engage with the argument. You instead say "Nope. That can't work."

No explanation why it doesn't work. No critique. Just a statement of faith.

It's like arguing with a Catholic about whether Mary really gave birth while still a virgin. Or arguing with a Southern Baptist about evolution. You set out the facts and the theoretical argument. You explain patiently the logic. And the religious zealot says, "Nope. I don't believe it. I won't argue with you. I'll just state that what I believe is true, even though I can offer no rational argument why that should be."

There's a theory in psychology that people most criticise what they most despise about themselves. I understand why you hate the religious so much Mick. Because you're one of them yourself.

[mjdgreg]

Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.

That was easy. Here's what you said about the evidence I  provided about the 900% 'lie'. Next 'lie' please.

http://smashabanana.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/socialism-is-destroying-nation-states.html

'And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way - is considered highly questionable by most economists. They make some very sweeping and unjustified assumptions'.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg.

You're doing it again.

You see an intellectually coherent argument. You refuse to engage with the argument. You instead say "Nope. That can't work."

No explanation why it doesn't work. No critique. Just a statement of faith.

It's like arguing with a Catholic about whether Mary really gave birth while still a virgin. Or arguing with a Southern Baptist about evolution. You set out the facts and the theoretical argument. You explain patiently the logic. And the religious zealot says, "Nope. I don't believe it. I won't argue with you. I'll just state that what I believe is true, even though I can offer no rational argument why that should be."

There's a theory in psychology that people most criticise what they most despise about themselves. I understand why you hate the religious so much mjdgreg. Because you're one of them yourself.

I'll have you know I'm a devout atheist. What is it that you don't understand about human nature? Why do you need an explanation and loads of evidence that when people are drowning in debt the last thing they are inclined to do is get into more debt just because a few new schools are being built?

Sometimes common-sense and logic is enough.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.

That was easy. Here's what you said about the evidence I  provided about the 900% 'lie'. Next 'lie' please.

'And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way - is considered highly questionable by most economists. They make some very sweeping and unjustified assumptions'.

Mick

Go back and check. I challenged you to find the original source. Go on. Go and have a look. That challenge still stands by the way, and like a dozen other cases when I've challenged you to substantiate claims, you've tried to bluff it. If only you weren't so shit at bluffing Mick, folk might actually believe you.

But of course you won't go and check will you. You'll be too busy. Your piss will be too hot. Or you'll come up with some other reason to dissemble.

Just once Mick. Just once you might actually prove us wrong and take a challenge head on instead if ducking it like a bairn faced down for being naughty.

Good job you didn't live 200 years ago. I'd have slapped you round the face with a leather glove and challenged you to a duel and your response would have been, "No, I haven't got time. I will save you from embarrassing yourself. And anyway, you spell it 'dual'."

[wilts rover]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.

Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?

The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

Go back and check. I challenged you to find the original source. That challenge still stands.

Good job you didn't live 200 years ago. I'd have slapped you round the face with a leather glove and challenged you to a duel and your response would have been, "No, I haven't got time. I will save you from embarrassing yourself. And anyway, you spell it 'dual'."

I can't believe I'm reading this. Are you still saying that I lied about the 900% claim? This despite what your response was to the link with the 'evidence'. You yourself stated that the data was provided by Morgan Stanley. If you look a little more closely at the graph on the link at the bottom it states: 'Source: Haver Analytics, Morgan Stanley Research'. So I've given you a link to the evidence. You've referred to Morgan Stanley. The bottom of the graph gives you the source. What more do you want?

You have made yourself look a complete and utter fool. I can't believe you are so stupid. Your followers will be holding their heads in their hands and wondering how on earth you could have made yourself look so daft.

Look, I'm a magnanimous soul and will accept an abject apology. Hopefully your followers will have a short memory and over a period of time you might be able to build up a little bit of credibillyty again. Just expect it to be a very slow process.

Next lie please.

[mjdgreg]

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?

I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?

Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.

[wilts rover]

This is your answer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144

These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.

Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?

The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.

It would appear your hero disagrees with you (and agrees with Billy)

He (George Osbourne) is expected to announce an increase in capital infrastructure spending, including roads and housing, as well as a package of help for further education.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/02/osborne-climbdown-failing-fiscal-goals

[wilts rover]

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?

I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?

Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.

Then please correct it for us thickos.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.

Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.

So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.

Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.

I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?

Prove it to us. Show us where the original data  or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.

[BillyStubbsTears]

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?

I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?

Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.

Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f**king idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?

[wilts rover]

Source for the 900% total debt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

this is the best I could find - although to my eyes it says 390% not 900% - so looking forward to Mick showing us where he got his data from and therebye proving he is not a liar.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg.

I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.

Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.

So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.

Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.

I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?

Prove it to us. Show us where the original data  or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.

You have a very suspicious mind. To all intents and purposes you are calling me a liar. You do it regularly. You try to make out that I'm making it up as I go along.

That graph was published late last year. I first heard about it from a very respected source. One that requires a subscription so I can't post a link. It was another poster on this thread that came up with the right wing nutter website that had the graph so I used the same link for your benefit to show you the graph and the source.

To say I'm lying because you can't find the original source on the internet is laughable. Don't you believe anything you are given second-hand? Is your life so sad that you have to always go back to the original source or you won't believe it? Do you believe everything you can't find the original source for is a lie? How ridiculous.

My life isn't so sad as to want to waste my time checking original sources all the time. Like I said earlier, sometimes all that's needed is a bit of common-sense. Something you clearly don't possess.

Next lie please.