Christmas Tree

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it. I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here. To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to. I agree

The solution proposed across the G20 is to cut spending. This could give us a second recession which would further push down tax receipts and increase benefits. The recession didnt cause the defecit only make it worse. It was a well known policy to hope that growth will shrink the defecit but you can not just wait and hope while the oustanding debt continues to increase. You get to a tipping point where the interest payments along are such a huge burden that you can no longer do all the good things that governments should be doing with that money (as is the case now). Labour predicted 3% growth for next year prior to the election however it now looks that those figures where way to optimistic so once again the debt rises. The other problem to this plan is that you hope during the good years when the defecit is good, governments would use that money to reduce the overall debt. But what happens, tax cuts and massive public spending. The recession caused the deficit to affect long term lending rates from the bond market. Which is why its an issue. The recession is the issue which is why i quoted the data in the Independent article from february. A deficit is an indicator of the viability of the governments overall debt. It is not an endpoint in itself, thats the debt. The deficit is a marker for the lenders to understand the price they need to charge to allow governments to raise more capital since it is a marker for risk. My point, which you either didn't get or ignored, is that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that expansionary public spending has a much higher than normal multiplier effect when the real interest rate is near the zero bound. Our only hope is that Clegg's presence will temper the instincts of the tories. Certainly not ignored and I'll not pretend to understand the rest of that sentence either But I may google it. Start here. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/oy-macro/ Thanks for that. Tried, crashed and burned. I do appreciate there are lots of factors at work here and also lots of possible theories on what should be done and what will work. I understand the idea of trying to catch an "upturn wave" that will reduce benefits and increase taxes however that is dependent on good growth and I guess the crux of the debates going on at the moment are based on growth forecasts. On the one hand you seem to have a body of people who think the growth will come and we will be okay, while at the same time there are those who cant see signifigant growth ahead and therefore feel more drastic action is required now. All the indications that I hear about seem to be heading towards poor growth. I really cant see where the next "boom" is coming from, particularly with the banks reluctance to lend.

Honestly thread hoppers who skip through..... Because Renton raced in to either be contrary or to defend Labour / Pfi saying that they were like a mortgage because we would own the buildings at the end of the 25 year period. While there may be some truth in possible ownership, everyone connected with PFI's realise that these will always just be renewed contracts going forward whether for original building, refurbishment and maintenance. Its a bit like the government giving council estates away because they dont want the expense of running them. Rentons glimmer of hope is that at the end of the deal it will have been worth it cause the mortgage is paid off and we own the goods. Its the never never all the way...... (Brought in my Conservatives I might objectively add ) But ........ We were discussing the defecit, something we will here a lot about tomorrow from the PM. All sounds very bleak.

Thought as much.

No its not, its rental / service agreement With the option to take ownership at the end of the contract? So a hire purchase then if you like. (Nearer to a mortgage than rental though in any event). Not saying its a perfect model btw but I think those arguments have been done to death over the past 10 years or so. Spot on Samuel And working for a company who has a great deal of its order book in the PFI sector, I kind of have an inkling as to how it works. CT, I can't see how or why you're trying to argue against this one... Im not sure which point your making Craig. A pfi for a new hospital or school is more akin to a never ending rental agreement than a mortgage. Nobody seriously expects that after a 25 year pfi agreement has ran out, that the government of the day is then going to take on the costs associated with that hospital or school, they are simply going to renew the agreement which will no doubt include a big refurbishment. Then when the next agreement runs out it will be a whole new school again. If you think its different to this then you will have to be more detailed in your response. Depends upon the contract you're talking about. From what you've posted it appears that you're talking about the FM side of things rather than the specific building costs. We've signed lots of PFI contracts to build and facilitate but the two do not have to go hand in hand - the FM contract can be awarded to anyone - not specifically the building contractor. When the FM contracts expire they are simply re-negotiated as with any maintenance contract. The cost of the structure of the construction of the facility is not dependant solely on the FM contract though. We were talking about Matts comments that a lot of the National Debt was due to Labour building new schools and hospitals. Which it isnt because the vast majority of them are pfi projects. Keep up with the thread lad.

The solution proposed across the G20 is to cut spending. This could give us a second recession which would further push down tax receipts and increase benefits. The recession didnt cause the defecit only make it worse. It was a well known policy to hope that growth will shrink the defecit but you can not just wait and hope while the oustanding debt continues to increase. You get to a tipping point where the interest payments along are such a huge burden that you can no longer do all the good things that governments should be doing with that money (as is the case now). Labour predicted 3% growth for next year prior to the election however it now looks that those figures where way to optimistic so once again the debt rises. The other problem to this plan is that you hope during the good years when the defecit is good, governments would use that money to reduce the overall debt. But what happens, tax cuts and massive public spending. The recession caused the deficit to affect long term lending rates from the bond market. Which is why its an issue. The recession is the issue which is why i quoted the data in the Independent article from february. A deficit is an indicator of the viability of the governments overall debt. It is not an endpoint in itself, thats the debt. The deficit is a marker for the lenders to understand the price they need to charge to allow governments to raise more capital since it is a marker for risk. My point, which you either didn't get or ignored, is that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that expansionary public spending has a much higher than normal multiplier effect when the real interest rate is near the zero bound. Our only hope is that Clegg's presence will temper the instincts of the tories. Certainly not ignored and I'll not pretend to understand the rest of that sentence either But I may google it. Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here. Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree. Pot kettle....

Feel free to get involved and back that up...... But somehow feel you wont

Remember me http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403981/ Utter shit

Well its been an eye opener for me They are both very excited by the f365 news..... I also get the impression there are more than a few closet stickerers on here

No its not, its rental / service agreement With the option to take ownership at the end of the contract? So a hire purchase then if you like. (Nearer to a mortgage than rental though in any event). Not saying its a perfect model btw but I think those arguments have been done to death over the past 10 years or so. Spot on Samuel And working for a company who has a great deal of its order book in the PFI sector, I kind of have an inkling as to how it works. CT, I can't see how or why you're trying to argue against this one... Im not sure which point your making Craig. A pfi for a new hospital or school is more akin to a never ending rental agreement than a mortgage. Nobody seriously expects that after a 25 year pfi agreement has ran out, that the government of the day is then going to take on the costs associated with that hospital or school, they are simply going to renew the agreement which will no doubt include a big refurbishment. Then when the next agreement runs out it will be a whole new school again. If you think its different to this then you will have to be more detailed in your response.

The solution proposed across the G20 is to cut spending. This could give us a second recession which would further push down tax receipts and increase benefits. The recession didnt cause the defecit only make it worse. It was a well known policy to hope that growth will shrink the defecit but you can not just wait and hope while the oustanding debt continues to increase. You get to a tipping point where the interest payments along are such a huge burden that you can no longer do all the good things that governments should be doing with that money (as is the case now). Labour predicted 3% growth for next year prior to the election however it now looks that those figures where way to optimistic so once again the debt rises. The other problem to this plan is that you hope during the good years when the defecit is good, governments would use that money to reduce the overall debt. But what happens, tax cuts and massive public spending. The recession caused the deficit to affect long term lending rates from the bond market. Which is why its an issue. The recession is the issue which is why i quoted the data in the Independent article from february. A deficit is an indicator of the viability of the governments overall debt. It is not an endpoint in itself, thats the debt. The deficit is a marker for the lenders to understand the price they need to charge to allow governments to raise more capital since it is a marker for risk. My point, which you either didn't get or ignored, is that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that expansionary public spending has a much higher than normal multiplier effect when the real interest rate is near the zero bound. Our only hope is that Clegg's presence will temper the instincts of the tories. Certainly not ignored and I'll not pretend to understand the rest of that sentence either But I may google it.

What bothers me in the light of the obvious fact that the £6bn is a drop in the ocean is that it seems to be pandering to the markets and ensuring they feel as if the right thing is being done rather than actually thinking about the best strategy. One thing that was suggested in the run up to the election by Labour was to shift the balance of the economy back to manufacturing and away from finance and though realising that would be a tough task, it would have the benefit of having more of an ability to stick two fingers up to a sector which has too much power. Honestly, if that was possible it would have done already. It simply is basic economics that we cant make stuff as cheap as third world countries. My view is that "The Markets" are simply looking back to the 80's and remembering the Tories took the hard decisions and got the public finances back under control. They know they are prepared to do it again. There will be very few winners, only losers unfortunately. I think they took the easy way out in "allowing" the finance sector to boom while not giving a shit about manufacturing (That's Labour as well as Tories) but I don't agree with a defeatist "China will build it all" mentality - I think there is a place for stuff like renewable energy technology and even "local" goods to be made here if it makes economic sense. By the latter I mean in terms of the related benefits of the jobs on the whole economy as I mentioned in relation to mining before. As for the Markets they act on very short term bases and I'm sure they don't really understand what the cuts will mean - they just look back on a shallow level and think "Hmm Thatcher sorted it so it then so it's bound to work now" without any idea about how the world has changed. As I said before theres not that much left in places like the NE that they can cut any more. I think the finance boom was the last big hurrah and kept the economy going longer until the crash. I struggle to see what will come next. Sure renewables might be a talking post in the north but as the job market goes it will be a tiny spec. I can only see the benefit bill rising and taxes reducing. Not sure what this will lead to other than declining public services and an inevitable privatising of things like the NHS.

Suppose football stickers arnt so bad after all......SHUDDERS

CT...you've basically just posted something that demonstrates you didnt have a clue about the previous answer you gave. And you've basically stopped as soon as you got to that bit rather than reading the full article. In theory the government could take them back, however everyone knows that future governments will not want that financial burden and will instead keep paying the minimum payment. £333 to change a light switch ffs You're being massively selective now. I cropped the article because I was drawing attention to the fact that you didnt appear to know the fundemental difference between a rental agreement and a mortgage, despite happily contradicting Renton without a moments thought. I wasn't holding PFI up as some sort of panacea as you well know. And Im sure you also know that a PFI is nothing like a mortgage which is what Renton posted.

CT...you've basically just posted something that demonstrates you didnt have a clue about the previous answer you gave. And you've basically stopped as soon as you got to that bit rather than reading the full article. In theory the government could take them back, however everyone knows that future governments will not want that financial burden and will instead keep paying the minimum payment. £333 to change a light switch ffs

Two of my daughters have boyfriends aged 21 and 22. They have both started collecting and swapping world cup football stickers. Apparently all their friends are doing this as well? Now to me this is a pass time for pre-puberty.... Any comments?

Heres a nice read on PFI from the Chanel four news economist correspondant, Liam Halligan

No its not, its rental / service agreement

They used to have a counter just like that in Times square New York at the tail end of the Reagan years. Iirc under Clinton, the enormous US deficit was completely wiped out following several years of unprecedented growth. So surely, the key to the problem is to hold our nerve and get the economy to grow again, rather than risk another recession? It is scarey though, but then I don't really understand macroeconomics, so it's a question of who you trust really. I could be wrong but when you write that I get the impression your mistaking debt for defecit. (understandable btw because it is all very complex) The debt is the total amount of money owed by the country, the defecit is just the difference in any particular year between what a government spends and what it has raised in that year. (income) Yes, I know the difference between debt and deficit CT thanks very much. To be fair that is probably the extent of my understanding though as it is yours. I'm leaving this for the economists in our ranks to chew over (Chez and Matt). Yes but Matts post could have been in chinese for all I understood of it......Basel 111 wtf!

The Basel III regulations have the potential to well and truly derail the attempts to pump-prime the economy via additional bank lending. No-one should be surprised that most of the additional liquidity in the system was simply used to increase capital ratios (and I'm staggered that anyone thought it would play out differently). Basel III is going to apply another layer of capital requirements on banks, forcing them to reduce lending and increase retained capital. Vince can say what he likes, if the BIS have their way it will hit businesses hard (especially as a bank will have to reserve the same capital whether a loan is drawn or not). Then you have the spectre of the Volker rules making everyone- banks and businesses-collateralise their derivative positions- that would be an economic disaster and leave huge amounts of cash sitting doing nothing- further prevent stimulus funds from actually doing their job. As for Cameron's plans, taxing expenditure is true to form. Will there be a corresponding review of ratable items to ensure that this is not simply going to make life more expensive for the less well-off? Unlikely. I fundamentally disagree with Cameron's overdraft analogy, this is a deliberate attempt to frame the nation's debt position. Long-term government debt is a permanent piece of our national capital structure. It may be high, but it's certainly not all on demand. And yes, the interest on that debt could be used on schools, but a lot of the debt raised WAS used on schools, whereas we all know the Tories would simply cut taxes and tell parents to fuck off and set one up themselves. This is simply not true. Most of the schools and hospitals have been built using private money (pfi's) and they account in total for about 5 billion of the national debt (according to that website). The truth is we have moved from owning schools and hospitals to now renting them from very rich men. wonder which way they vote? Well as its labour whose made them rich what do you think? As its labour whose reduced gapital gains tax, what do you think?

What bothers me in the light of the obvious fact that the £6bn is a drop in the ocean is that it seems to be pandering to the markets and ensuring they feel as if the right thing is being done rather than actually thinking about the best strategy. One thing that was suggested in the run up to the election by Labour was to shift the balance of the economy back to manufacturing and away from finance and though realising that would be a tough task, it would have the benefit of having more of an ability to stick two fingers up to a sector which has too much power. Honestly, if that was possible it would have done already. It simply is basic economics that we cant make stuff as cheap as third world countries. My view is that "The Markets" are simply looking back to the 80's and remembering the Tories took the hard decisions and got the public finances back under control. They know they are prepared to do it again. There will be very few winners, only losers unfortunately.

The Basel III regulations have the potential to well and truly derail the attempts to pump-prime the economy via additional bank lending. No-one should be surprised that most of the additional liquidity in the system was simply used to increase capital ratios (and I'm staggered that anyone thought it would play out differently). Basel III is going to apply another layer of capital requirements on banks, forcing them to reduce lending and increase retained capital. Vince can say what he likes, if the BIS have their way it will hit businesses hard (especially as a bank will have to reserve the same capital whether a loan is drawn or not). Then you have the spectre of the Volker rules making everyone- banks and businesses-collateralise their derivative positions- that would be an economic disaster and leave huge amounts of cash sitting doing nothing- further prevent stimulus funds from actually doing their job. As for Cameron's plans, taxing expenditure is true to form. Will there be a corresponding review of ratable items to ensure that this is not simply going to make life more expensive for the less well-off? Unlikely. I fundamentally disagree with Cameron's overdraft analogy, this is a deliberate attempt to frame the nation's debt position. Long-term government debt is a permanent piece of our national capital structure. It may be high, but it's certainly not all on demand. And yes, the interest on that debt could be used on schools, but a lot of the debt raised WAS used on schools, whereas we all know the Tories would simply cut taxes and tell parents to fuck off and set one up themselves. This is simply not true. Most of the schools and hospitals have been built using private money (pfi's) and they account in total for about 5 billion of the national debt (according to that website). The truth is we have moved from owning schools and hospitals to now renting them from very rich men.

They used to have a counter just like that in Times square New York at the tail end of the Reagan years. Iirc under Clinton, the enormous US deficit was completely wiped out following several years of unprecedented growth. So surely, the key to the problem is to hold our nerve and get the economy to grow again, rather than risk another recession? It is scarey though, but then I don't really understand macroeconomics, so it's a question of who you trust really. I could be wrong but when you write that I get the impression your mistaking debt for defecit. (understandable btw because it is all very complex) The debt is the total amount of money owed by the country, the defecit is just the difference in any particular year between what a government spends and what it has raised in that year. (income)

So objectively you will acknowledge that your lot are cunts for reducing it to 18% 2 years ago. Joking aside I think Cameron is more towards Labour as Blair was towards Tory. It will be interesting to see how far he gets before his own lot reel him in.

The solution proposed across the G20 is to cut spending. This could give us a second recession which would further push down tax receipts and increase benefits. The recession didnt cause the defecit only make it worse. It was a well known policy to hope that growth will shrink the defecit but you can not just wait and hope while the oustanding debt continues to increase. You get to a tipping point where the interest payments along are such a huge burden that you can no longer do all the good things that governments should be doing with that money (as is the case now). Labour predicted 3% growth for next year prior to the election however it now looks that those figures where way to optimistic so once again the debt rises. The other problem to this plan is that you hope during the good years when the defecit is good, governments would use that money to reduce the overall debt. But what happens, tax cuts and massive public spending.