The Good News Keeps On Coming

[IC1967]

This is actually true,Iwas made redundant last year aged 61.Iwent to jobcentre and was told not to claim unemployment benefit,but to claim pension credit as i was eligible for that.

I think you'll find that it was Labour that brought in that way of fiddling the figures. They also saw a huge increase in other benefits that also were used as a crafty way to stop people claiming unemployment benefit. They also made youngsters stay in education longer to keep them off the figures. Labour and in particular Gordon Brown were masters at presenting figures in the best possible light to suit their chances of re-election.
 
Unfortunately the true picture bore no resemblance to their 'spin'. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

The OBR's predictions in 2010 were nigh on identical to Osborne's. Osborne had said that Austerity would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. Balls told him that this would not happen. So did every Keynesian-leaning economist. We went through all of this when you were Mick v2.0 so there's no point re-hashing the arguments (Paradox of Thrift, Aggregate Demand etc).

The point is that deficit reduction through Govt belt-tightening whilst companies and households were tightening their belts was bound to lead to GDP stagnation which stagnated tax take and kept unemployment (hence benefits) high.

That is what Balls predicted. That is what has happened. We are now not remotely close to eliminating the structural deficit by 2015. Latest predictions are 2018 and even that is likely to slip.

It is a catastrophic policy error. And it is entirely in keeping with your shaky grasp on logic that you call that a success.

[IC1967]

The OBR's predictions in 2010 were nigh on identical to Osborne's. Osborne had said that Austerity would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. Balls told him that this would not happen. So did every Keynesian-leaning economist. We went through all of this when you were Mick v2.0 so there's no point re-hashing the arguments (Paradox of Thrift, Aggregate Demand etc).

The point is that deficit reduction through Govt belt-tightening whilst companies and households were tightening their belts was bound to lead to GDP stagnation which stagnated tax take and kept unemployment (hence benefits) high.

That is what Balls predicted. That is what has happened. We are now not remotely close to eliminating the structural deficit by 2015. Latest predictions are 2018 and even that is likely to slip.

Since when did politicians and the OBR ever get a forecast right? Th e Tories have implemented pretty much the same policy Labour were going to according to their manifesto. So what does Balls do? He conveniently forgets this and forecasts that unless his Plan B is adopted there will be a million more on the dole and there will not be a recovery. Got those two predictions spot on didn't he?

You seem to imply that he is a Keynes follower. Not true. He doesn't believe in putting money away during the good times and then using it in the bad times. He believes in over spending in the good times and then over spending in the bad times. This is the fundamental flaw with the Labour party. They think the solution to everything is to borrow and spend no matter what the consequences. It's called bribing the electorate today leaving the bill to be picked up by future generations.

[IC1967]

More good news. I've been tracking the parties poll ratings since May 2012. Back then Labour were at 44%. By May 2013 just as things started to improve they had dropped to 35%. Thats a 9% drop in 12 months. The way things are going I fully expect another 9% drop by May 2014 which will leave them with no hope of winning the next election.

I'm hoping there will be more good news next September when hopefully the Scots vote for independence. This will mean Labour will lose so many MP's they will never be able to form a government ever again. So come on you Scots, do everyone in England a favour and vote for independence. You know it makes sense.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

1) It's well known that Balls argued strongly against Darling's budget plans for the 2010 Labour Manifesto. Balls wanted us to delay deficit reduction until the recovery was well under way. Darling wanted to proceed with cautious deficit reduction immediately (primarily for political, rather than economic reasons, because Osborne had very skillfully won the debate hands down in terms of convincing the public that quick deficit reduction was required - not because there was the slightest economic case for it). Even so, Darling's plans were to reduce Govt spending far less rapidly than Osborne. Precisely because Darling was enough of an economist to know that rapid deficit reduction would be catastrophic on economic growth.

2) That is precisely what happened. Rapid deficit reduction was catastrophic for economic growth. Both here and in the EZ, it has condemned hundred of millions of people to a harder present and a poorer future. Utter, stark madness, dressed up as economic sense. Balls called this one absolutely 100% correct. Economics is a messy subject, but there has  rarely been a plainer, more clear-cut real-world experiment, with a plainer, more clear-cut outcome. Extremely simple economic theory says that rapid reduction of Govt spending at a time when businesses and consumers are also cutting back is extremely likely to result in economic stagnation. That is precisely what has happened in the UK and across the EZ. Unarguably. Go and look at that graph that I keep posting and tell me that the economic policy since 2010 has been a success.

3) Balls predicted huge increases in unemployment. You are correct. and the fact that unemployment has not risen massively is something that, with hindsight, he was wrong about. What he didn't take into account was the flexibility of the UK's current labour market. Which, in simple terms that people have been prepared to take on lower-paid, less skilled jobs. A bit like serial entreprenuers having to do Bettaware rounds. What has happened in the UK is that people who should be designing bridges and programming computers are working in bars. That has mitigated the worst of the effects of unemployment, but it is hardly a cause for celebration. It is actually terrifying for the economic future of the country. we are allowing skills to stagnate. We are FAR less productive than we were in 2010, never mind 2008. we are producing less than we did in 2008 with a couple of million more people employed. That isn't a success. it's a f**king economic disaster. And it will take another decade at least to catch up, even IF we saw strong growth starting from now (and we haven't yet - we've had tepid growth compared to what you normally get coming out of a recession).

4) You mention polling. As with most subjects Mick, once you start talking numbers, you actually talk b*llocks.

Here's the ACTUAL state of polling since 2010, from the website of the bloke who runs YouGov's political polling (so he'll probably know better than you or I).
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

As ever Mick, you cherry pick a couple of numbers to make an over-inflated case and make yourself look daft in the process. Polling is inexact, there is a margin of error in every poll. So doing what YOU did, which is taking one result, comparing it to another and saying the difference between them is real is a fundamentally flawed way of dealing with polling data.

The best you can do is to take a running average and compare those values at different times. Even that is not precise, but it is better than taking spot values. Labour were NEVER averaging 44% in May 2012 if you take the running average over 10 polls or so. They were never averaging 35% in May 2013.

In May last year, Labour had 12 polls out of 31 where they scored 44-45%. They also had 8 out of 31 where they scored 41-42%.

In May this year, Labour had 6 polls out of 32 where they were as low as 34-35%. They also had 7 polls where they scored between 40-43%.

The average figures were more like 43% in May 2012 and 38% in May 2013.

Now. Look at that graph. Look at the running average. Labour have varied between ~38-43% for the whole of the last 3 years. They go up and down depending on how the parties are sparring against each other. But they haven't slipped out of that range in 36 months. That is unprecedentedly stable polling.

I've already got a bet of £100 with you that Labour will win most seats in 2015. Want to double it up by putting your money where your mouth is on the polling trend? Another £100 says we don't see Labour's poll average drop to 26% between now and May 2014.

[jucyberry]

Just wait until doing the part time job that is all you can find isn't enough and you are sanctioned because of it. Every one of those massaged figures is a person.. Someone with a family or a kid starting out. Thanks to zero hours contracts there is little security any more, when universal credit finally limps into place it will only get worse.

Splitting full time hours between two employees is a double winner.. For the government and it's slight of hand accountancy and the employers happy to lose the obligation of holiday pay and other accoutrements.

The loser is the poor bugger scrabbling for peanuts not being able to live without top ups and being penalised for the fact.

[IC1967]

I haven't got time to respond to all of your diatribe. I'd be here forever. I don't know where you get your polling information from but it is clearly at odds with the poll of polls by the BBC. So as you can see I've not based my argument on one poll that suits me best, I've done the honourable thing and used the BBC's poll of polls to get the most objective view of people's voting intentions. Here's the link which shows what I say is absolutely bang on. Scroll through the data and check May 2012 compared to May 2013 and you will see that as usual I am right and have not made anything up.

What matters is not what a party has polled in the past. The best way to view a party's future performance is how the trend is looking going forwards. For Labour it is not a pretty picture, particularly as the good news just keeps on coming.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18264385

[IC1967]

Just wait until doing the part time job that is all you can find isn't enough and you are sanctioned because of it. Every one of those massaged figures is a person.. Someone with a family or a kid starting out. Thanks to zero hours contracts there is little security any more, when universal credit finally limps into place it will only get worse.

Splitting full time hours between two employees is a double winner.. For the government and it's slight of hand accountancy and the employers happy to lose the obligation of holiday pay and other accoutrements.

The loser is the poor bugger scrabbling for peanuts not being able to live without top ups and being penalised for the fact.

You seem to be unaware that unemployment started rising under Labour before the crash. The Tories to their credit have reversed this trend. There are now more people in work than ever before.

I won't be losing sleep about only being able to find a part time job. I am an entrepreneur and make my own job by starting my own businesses. This is something I would encourage more people to do as unfortunately due to Labour's mismanagement of the economy we can no longer afford the safety net that was once in place.

It's a harsh reality now I'm afraid that the welfare state is going to be cut back for many years to come. If by a miracle Labour form the next government I guarantee you they won't reverse what the Tories have done. The money simply isn't there to be able do it. The only way they could do it is to borrow even more money than they have in the past. Unfortunately for them the public have now got wise to that con trick and they won't dare risk doing it again.

[ravenrover]

" There are now more people in work than ever before."
Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.

[redwine]

Betterware round?

So is Mick peddling shite as well as talking it?

[IC1967]

Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.

 I agree that the unemployment figures bear no resemblance to the true picture (step forward the Labour party for fiddling them during their 13 years in power). However your comments are irrelevant to my point that there are now more people in employment than ever before. We could have 20 million unemployed today and my point still stands.

[IC1967]

Betterware round?

What's wrong with having a Betterware round may I ask?

[IC1967]

More good news. Dave and George are obviously feeling our pain. None of this pie in the sky price freeze nonsense touted by red Ed but action right now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25181676

[ravenrover]

Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.

 I agree that the unemployment figures bear no resemblance to the true picture (step forward the Labour party for fiddling them during their 13 years in power). However your comments are irrelevant to my point that there are now more people in employment than ever before. We could have 20 million unemployed today and my point still stands.

Sadly it would appear that you are being blinded by the propaganda

[wilts rover]

More good news. Dave and George are obviously feeling our pain. None of this pie in the sky price freeze nonsense touted by red Ed but action right now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25181676

Well now there's a surprise, you support the policy of having the government raise your taxes to support lowering other people's fuel bills, seems I have had you wrong all this time. What other socialist policies do you think the tories should bring in?

[IC1967]

Well now there's a surprise, you support the policy of having the government raise your taxes to support lowering other people's fuel bills, seems I have had you wrong all this time. What other socialist policies do you think the tories should bring in?

You seem to be under the impression that I support the Tories. I don't vote and never have done. I don't support any political party. They are all useless.

However credit where credit is due. The Tories got this one right so get my praise. I've yet to find anything to praise Labour over.

[IC1967]

Sadly it would appear that you are being blinded by the propaganda

Not true. If anything you are the one trying to peddle propaganda. You seem very confused. You don't seem to understand that the current rate of unemployment is totally irrelevant to the number of people in work. It doesn't matter how many people are out of work (whether you use the 'true' figures or the fiddled ones. My statement stands regardless. There are now more people in work than ever before. Not exactly what Ed Balls was predicting is it?

[IC1967]

1) It's well known that Balls argued strongly against Darling's budget plans for the 2010 Labour Manifesto. Balls wanted us to delay deficit reduction until the recovery was well under way. Darling wanted to proceed with cautious deficit reduction immediately (primarily for political, rather than economic reasons, because Osborne had very skillfully won the debate hands down in terms of convincing the public that quick deficit reduction was required - not because there was the slightest economic case for it). Even so, Darling's plans were to reduce Govt spending far less rapidly than Osborne. Precisely because Darling was enough of an economist to know that rapid deficit reduction would be catastrophic on economic growth.

2) That is precisely what happened. Rapid deficit reduction was catastrophic for economic growth. Both here and in the EZ, it has condemned hundred of millions of people to a harder present and a poorer future. Utter, stark madness, dressed up as economic sense. Balls called this one absolutely 100% correct. Economics is a messy subject, but there has  rarely been a plainer, more clear-cut real-world experiment, with a plainer, more clear-cut outcome. Extremely simple economic theory says that rapid reduction of Govt spending at a time when businesses and consumers are also cutting back is extremely likely to result in economic stagnation. That is precisely what has happened in the UK and across the EZ. Unarguably. Go and look at that graph that I keep posting and tell me that the economic policy since 2010 has been a success.

The main flaw in your argument is that you think consumer spending is the solution to our problems. Wrong. Consumers needed to tighten their belts because they were drowning in so much debt (encouraged by Labour). Government was drowning in debt (Labour again). So what's your's and Ed Balls solution? Government should borrow even more money and encourage debt ridden consumers to take on more debt. Haven't you heard of Mr Ponzi? Obviously not.

Rapid deficit reduction? Don't make me laugh. The Tories have barely scratched the surface on that one. They should have gone much deeper and faster and we'd have recovered much more quickly.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh Mick you are such a bore as well as a boor. You read nothing that other people write. You assume that you know what they think and then base your argument on that. You insist on peddling the same stale garbage month after month despite the logic of your arguments being as dodgy as Brian Stock's back.

But let's have another go at educating you.

1) I do NOT believe that consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. That should be reversed, but the last thing we want is a bubble led by consumer spending on the back of rising house prices. But that seems to be the plan between now and the General Election.

2) As you well know Mick, because we've discussed this before, what I believe the Govt SHOULD have been doing over the last 3 years is investing in capital infrastructure. Roads, fibre optics, houses, schools. All could have been built at historically low costs financed by long-term borrowing at interest rates below inflation. Instead, the first thing this Govt did was to slash capital investment and leave half a million building workers on the dole rather than being involved in updating our infrastructure for the future. Osborne seems to have finally woken up to that one 3 years on.

3) You spout the same bullshit about how deeper cuts would have led to a more rapid recovery. By what mechanism? What would be the process whereby slashing Govt spending still further, at a time when private business was massively tightening its belt would have produced growth?

Last year you trawled the right wing blogs on the Internet and found a couple of swivelled eyed loons who were screaming that Latvia and Estonia had cut Govt spending savagely in 2008, and had economies that were bouncing back strongly. So we should all do the same.

You swallowed that line then. Have you heard many people pushing that line now? Eh?

No you haven't, because over the last 12 months, both countries have stagnated at levels of economic activity way below what they were before they went into their madcap right-wing Govt cutting exercise.

Take Latvia.  In 2008 they decided to go balls out on Austerity. Just like you say we should have done.

Result?
GDP collapsed by 20% IN ONE YEAR! (That would be the equivalent of us losing £300bn of economic output in one year.)
Unemployment went up from 5% to 20% IN ONE YEAR! (That would be the equivalent of us losing about 4 million jobs in one year.)

You say that this is acceptable because we would bounce back quickly. So what has happened to Latvia?

GDP improved slightly from the calamity of 2010. But it has flatlined for 2 years at a level 15% lower than 2008 and they are currently sliding back into recession.

Over the last 3 year, their unemployment rate has come down to 12%. That would be the equivalent of us having a top line official unemployment total of about 4.5M. Good eh? But where has this drop come from? The number of EMPLOYED people in Latvia is actually lower now than it was at the depth of the crisis. The reason that unemoyment has come down is that 10% of the population has emigrated - mainly fit, young, qualified, hard working people.

And THAT Mick, is the approach you wanted us to take.

Or if it isn't, tell us what would have been different in Mickonomics. Tell us what magic insight you have to explain the mechanism whereby deeper cuts would lead to stronger growth.

And you might want to go and tell the Govt of Latvia while you're at it. They'd be delighted to know how to solve the nightmare that they have plunged their people into.

[IC1967]

1) I do NOT believe that consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. That should be reversed.

You DO believe consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. In your next sentence after your denial you state 'I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. There you have it, a massive contradiction. Consumers needed to stop borrowing and spending and getting into massive debt. You wanted them to keep spending and get into even more debt. Crazy. A VAT rise encouraged people to be more fiscally prudent and increased the tax take to start to plug the deficit. A win win situation.

[IC1967]

2) As you well know Mick, because we've discussed this before, what I believe the Govt SHOULD have been doing over the last 3 years is investing in capital infrastructure. Roads, fibre optics, houses, schools. All could have been built at historically low costs financed by long-term borrowing at interest rates below inflation. Instead, the first thing this Govt did was to slash capital investment and leave half a million building workers on the dole rather than being involved in updating our infrastructure for the future. Osborne seems to have finally woken up to that one 3 years on.

Investing in capital infrastructure takes many years to have an impact. This was not the solution. It would also have added massively to our national debt. You seem to have a huge problem with living within our means. If we can't currently afford to update our infrastructure then we have to make do with what we've got. Once we've cut back the state and stopped borrowing money and are actually living within our means and actually lending money to other countries, then we can start updating our infrastructure.

[IC1967]

3) You spout the same bullshit about how deeper cuts would have led to a more rapid recovery. By what mechanism? What would be the process whereby slashing Govt spending still further, at a time when private business was massively tightening its belt would have produced growth?

Deeper cuts would have got us living within our means a lot quicker. I don't believe the current 'recovery', is a proper recovery. It is once again being fuelled by consumer borrowing and spending. It will all end in tears yet again.

I am a long term strategic thinker. For decades we've been living beyond our means with short term political advantage being prioritised above the long term good of the country. By having faster deeper cuts we would have got our economy back to living within its means a lot quicker and then we could have had a proper recovery based on fiscal prudence. I am for the long term. You are a short term merchant always wanting immediate growth fuelled by debt. This is not sustainable as we all found out in the crash.

Why shouldn't private business tighten its belt? What is the point of private business carrying on as though nothing has happened? If consumers have finally got the message that debt is bad and saving is good then of course this is going to mean private business won't be able to sell as much. Pretty obvious I would have thought.

[IC1967]

Last year you trawled the right wing blogs on the Internet and found a couple of swivelled eyed loons who were screaming that Latvia and Estonia had cut Govt spending savagely in 2008, and had economies that were bouncing back strongly. So we should all do the same.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. How you can compare us to Latvia and Estonia is baffling.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ Mick, you're like a sex starved terrier constantly humping somebody's leg no matter how many times you get kicked off.

1) I said I do not believe that consumer spending is the way OUT of the crisis. However, crippling it undoubtedly did tip us further INTO the crisis. Clear enough for you. Or are you going to go to Word Hippo again the give us an alternative definition of "out " ad "into"?

2) Estonia. You little tinker Mick. This is what you said 15 months ago. http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233536.msg257738#msg257738

3) Private business can do what it wants regarding belt tightening. If it wants to tighten its belt, it can do so. If you actually read anything I wrote before exploding once again, you'd not find anything, anywhere where I have said that private business should not be tightening its belt. The point is that for Government to do so at the same time takes you down the path of Estonia and Latvia. The countries that you and the other swivel-eyed loons were offering as examples of the wonders of Austerity. As with so many other postures of yours Mick, once the facts prove that you were talking b*llocks, you eschew everything you previously said, change your personality and come back for another go.

4) I asked you for the mechanism by which extreme Austerity would lead to economic growth. You said, "By having faster deeper cuts we would have got our economy back to living within its means a lot quicker and then we could have had a proper recovery based on fiscal prudence." Which is the equivalent of saying that growth would come because you believe it will come. So I'll ask again. What is the MECHANISM by which growth will come. If you impose enormous Govt spending cuts whilst consumers and private industry is also cutting, you get 20-odd percent unemployment. We know that because it's been tried and that is the outcome. It happened here and in America and Germany in the 1930s. It happened in Estonia and Latvia, Greece and Spain after the 2008 crash.

So, I'll ask again. Once you've got into that total collapse of your economy, what is the MECHANISM by which you get growth back. And I'll give you a clue. You saying, "Growth will come" is not an acceptable answer. I want to know HOW growth will come. Because if you just say, "Growth will come", I'll say to you, "Then why has it not come in Estonia, Latvia, Greece and Spain, which have followed the medicine that you want for us."

At your leisure Mick. Take your time. You'll be a while Googling for it, because no-one else out there has explained what the mechanism is yet.

[IC1967]

1) I said I do not believe that consumer spending is the way OUT of the crisis. However, crippling it undoubtedly did tip us further INTO the crisis. Clear enough for you. Or are you going to go to Word Hippo again the give us an alternative definition of "out " ad "into"?

 

You do believe consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. You think that big infrastructure spending will fill the pockets of construction workers who will then spend this money which will then get us into recovery mode.

You don't think debt laden consumers should  save and get their houses in order. You are quite happy for them to take on even more debt. This is very irresponsible, because when interest rates rise, which they will, we'll just have another bust. This time it will be even bigger than before. What a great solution you have come up with.

[wilts rover]

Imust agree with you Mick in that in pure numerical terms there are more people in work than ever before - because there are more people in the country than ever before. Percentage wise there are not more people in work.

The time when we had the most people in work was the 1950's, coincidently when we had the last major debt 'crisis'. What did we do to tackleit then, what major steps did the government take to rebuild Britain after WWII. Why they borrowed extensively, took on huge amounts of debt, followed a policy of full employment, and infrastructure building and look what happened to the debt.....

[IC1967]

Imust agree with you in that in pure numerical terms there are more people in work than ever before - because there are more people in the country than ever before. Percentage wise there are not more people in work.

The time when we had the most people in work was the 1950's, coincidently when we had the last major debt 'crisis'. What did we do to tackleit then, what major steps did the government take to rebuild Britain after WWII. Why they borrowed extensively, took on huge amounts of debt, followed a policy of full employment, and infrastructure building and look what happened to the debt.....

The main point is that there are more jobs available now than ever before. Forget the 1950's or percentages. Totally irrelevant. What I am saying is that the Tories, despite austerity, have created conditions where we now have more jobs than we've ever had.

Why are there more people in the country than ever before? Because Labour let in one million Poles among other factors. If we'd had a sensible immigration policy and not joined the EU we'd have a lot less unemployment.

It is far too simplistic and naive to say that the solution to a debt crisis is more debt. We would have recovered anyway without having to take on more debt for future generations to pay for. Economics of the madhouse.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mechanism Mick.

Happy Googling.

By the way, your comment on infrastructure spending equating to getting us out of stganation by consumer spending is too laughable for words. By that measure EVERY move that increases employment results in consumer spending increases.

Think about it like this. Government spends money on building a new house. The result is:

a) A new house exists, which is a benefit to the country as a whole
b) The house builders have to buy bricks. So the brick manufacturers can keep people in work, or take on new employees.
c) The new employees or people who have kept their job earn money that they wouldn't otherwise have earned.
d) That money may well be used by these people to pay off their debts. This would be a good thing as it reduces their indebtedness.
e) Some may also be used to pay for other things. Like improvements to their own house for example. Which would provide employment for other people. Which is a good thing as that would put money into their pockets too. Virtuous circle is established, economic performance improves for the country as a whole AND we have a better infrastructure than we had previously.

Alternative. Government DOESN'T spend that money on a new house.

Result.
a) Government borrows less. In itself in isolation, a good thing.
b) The country has one fewer house. Bad thing.
c) The construction workers stay on the dole, and are paid benefits by the Government (using borrowed money...)
d) The brick manufacturers have fewer customers, so they lay off workers or don't hire new ones. So their (potential) employees have less money and therefore spend less or don't pay down their own debts.

Result: Negative spiral AND the country doesn't get the extra house. The Government doesn't borrow as much, but the country as a whole is poorer.

Your approach requires there to be a private sector that is raring to explode into growth if only the Government would get out of the way and pay down its debt. Trouble is, in every case in history in which Governments have tightened their belts at the same time that the private sector has been doing the same, the economy has stagnated for years. That's what has happened to us for three years, and fools like you then crow success when we finally get some tepid growth after three years of stagnation. Fools like you say that this means that we should have cut even faster and harder. They did in Estonia and Latvia. We did in the 1930s. Look at what the results were.

[IC1967]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I believe austerity will lead to rapid growth. I don't. In fact the complete opposite will happen (initially anyway). You believe extra government spending is always the solution to debt problems (completely ignoring the fact that it is precisely this that has got us into the current mess). I don't.

I believe that we have been living beyond our means for decades as politicians sought to curry favour and get re-elected by borrowing and spending to buy votes. You want them to carry on doing this. I don't. Its time to cut back the spending and borrowing and for us all to accept a lower standard of living because that is all we can afford. Rapid deep cuts would get us into a position where we will no longer be borrowing to continue our extravagant unsustainable standard of living. This will mean a deep recession for a while but then we will be able to move forward without incurring anymore debt and grow properly. Growth fuelled by government borrowing and consumer spending and indebtedness is not a long term solution. It is not proper growth. In fact it is just the opposite as witnessed in the crash.

Like I say, you are a short term boom and bust merchant where I am a strategic thinker.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Before you open your mouth again have a look at that graph that Wilts posted. (You'll recognise it. I posted something very similar several times when you were Mick v2.0.)

Then consider your comment "I believe that we have been living beyond our means for decades as politicians sought to curry favour and get re-elected by borrowing and spending to buy votes. "