Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't really understand your point, if you even have one.

 

 

christ man, pipe down! you're making a fool of yourself!

 

the point is Renton, you are deluded. you try and convince yourself that just because someone asked a question to which the questionee didnt know the answer is in some way a 'victory' or a 'meritous occasion' for the party of the questioner.

 

believe me it isnt a big deal or even an unusual occurance at PMQ.

 

:icon_lol:

 

Well no actually. Firstly, I was defending myself from one of your typically unfounded comments, which I see you haven't bothered responded to. Hardly see how that means I am making a fool of myself, I am deluded, or that I need to pipe down.

 

As for the second, part, you have completely missed the point. I'm not saying it is unusual for the PM to duck questions. What I am saying though is that it means that the session did not show Cameron to be exceptional in this particular PMQ, as has been suggested by CT. Would you agree with that?

 

 

Come on Renty stick to the facts ;) I didnt say he was exceptional or a genius or the messiah.....

 

I said I thought it was a damn good performance, which I still think it was, particularly bearing in mind it was his first go and his decision to rely only a few notes.

 

The fact you dont agree with that assessment is fine, but as Craig has pointed out to you, you do seem to come from a very bias viewpoint.

 

Ive had a quick google to see what others made of it. Here are a few comments.

 

 

 

It was a very assured performance by David Cameron at PMQs. He even answered the questions put to him, which was a welcome innovation. It was interesting to see that he didn't have a sheaf of notes in front of him like Gordon Brown used to read from.

 

Facing Harriet Harman, he resembled a lion playing with a mouse. He appeared determined to kill the mouse with kindness, but in the end he resorted to instinct and crushed her beneath his foot in his final answer on the married tax allowance. Conservative MPs were delighted, and so they should have been.

 

We saw a Prime Minister in command of his office, thinking on his feet and doing his best to give an honest answer to a question - even when he didn't know the answer. I wonder how long he will be able to keep that up!

 

 

An assured first performance at PMQs by David Cameron. A good emphasis on the positive things the Government intends doing with a sprinkling of attacks on the failures of the outgoing Labour government.

 

 

Two quick observations on David Cameron's first performance at Prime Minister's Questions.

 

First, he seemed very nervous to start, and I could see his hands very visibly shaking from my vantage position directly above.

 

Second, Cameron has very few notes. Whereas Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had thick ring-binders of notes and possible replies, the new PM has only a thin sheaf of papers, and had nothing at all during his exchanges with Harriet Harman.

 

He seems to rely a lot more on memory and thinking on his feet, with some success against Harman (though I thought she performed better than normal).

 

I think that David Cameron's first PMQ's performance was really good and I am not his biggest fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You implied his perfomance was the start of a new era in politics:

 

Just watched Dave do his first PMQ's and must say it was a damn good performance.

 

We're talking about genuine answers to questions here not referring to ready made answers as became so commonplace under Labour.

 

Its clear as day that we now have the change and fresh start that was needed.

 

That's quite emphatic fanboy stuff, wouldn't you say?

 

I thought he was OK. I think my view is more balanced and better represented by people in the media that matter, not some randoms you have googled on the internet.

 

This is getting so boring now. If you can't see your just as biased in your assessment as I am (except the other way round, obviously), and clearly neither of us are unbiased, then there's nothing left to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website....

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

If not, have a quick peep.

 

Its horrific how much our country has got itself in the shit by spending money we havent got.

 

Just last year the government raised 491 billion through tax, yet decided to spend 671 billion!!! Thats nearly 200 billion that we didnt have taking our "overdraft" upto nearly 1000 billion.

 

This should put in perspective the 6 billion cuts already announced by the Conservatives as chickenfeed compared to what is still to come.

 

The interest on this debt this year is a staggering 45 billion!!!!!

 

Theres no point in playing party politics on this because I think it is a given that we all know Labour governments like to spend, spend, spend. The 80's tories also gave us their fair share of boom and bust.

 

The shocking thing for me is that Governments can get away with fucking things up like this.

 

Why hasnt the media been screaming about this for years?

 

How can MP's sell us down the swanny so easily?

 

How can they ethically or morally do this?

 

This highlights for me that most of us have no idea how deep and savage the cuts will be. We will curse and swear and the current lot but we wre happy to take the new schools, hospitals, Tax credits.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it CT is that up until the credit crunch, the deficit and the total debt were considered perfectly manageable - just like a family who has a mortgage and maybe other loans but has a decent total income so everything's okay.

 

The mistake that was made which I think most people accept is that it was assumed the golden age of financial services was unassailable - not many people were predicting such a shitstorm even if in hindsight is seems obvious.

 

 

I still don't think that going all out to pay off all the debts as soon as possible is the right strategy as I think it will do a lot more harm. I'd rather see a measured approach which says it will be paid off as and when we can afford it. Of course obvious wins like cancelling Trident should be part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand it CT is that up until the credit crunch, the deficit and the total debt were considered perfectly manageable - just like a family who has a mortgage and maybe other loans but has a decent total income so everything's okay.

 

The mistake that was made which I think most people accept is that it was assumed the golden age of financial services was unassailable - not many people were predicting such a shitstorm even if in hindsight is seems obvious.

 

 

I still don't think that going all out to pay off all the debts as soon as possible is the right strategy as I think it will do a lot more harm. I'd rather see a measured approach which says it will be paid off as and when we can afford it. Of course obvious wins like cancelling Trident should be part of that.

 

The financial meltdown has certainly made matters worse, but when you look at the data, this has been out of control for a long, long time. You do have to wonder how these supposedly very clever, very moral people at the top could justify spending these vast sums that we didnt have, whilst knowing there was little chance of getting to grip with it in their lifetime.

 

With regard to your second point, I dont think anyone is going "all out to pay off the debts".

 

Consider the 1000 billion of debt outstanding

an interest only payment this year of 43 billion on that debt

And spending plans already left in place by Labour that commit us to borrowing another 250 billion for next year.....

 

You then see that these 6 billion cuts so far are nowt.

 

Even if the emergency budget reduced Labours spending plans so we didnt have to borrow 250 billion next year, that still hasnt eaten one pound into the oustanding debt of 1000 billion.

 

Can you imagine what they would have to cut to save that 250 billion?

 

Health budget 104 billion

Education budget 69 billion

Defence budget 37 billion

 

It really is frightening because there is no way they can cut 250 billion so the debt next year will be 1250 billion approx.

 

Im looking at this from the debt view and not the party political view and am just mystified how they got it so wrong and where its all heading.... cue Parky :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron "Years of pain ahead"

 

Sunday Times

 

 

DAVID CAMERON has warned that the economy is in a far worse state than previously thought and signalled that Britain faces years of “pain” as the spending axe falls.

 

The prime minister indicated a sharp downgrade in official growth forecasts and revealed that welfare and public sector pay would bear the brunt of budget cuts.

 

It is understood that tough measures being considered to help control the £156 billion budget deficit include benefit freezes and cuts in child tax credits. There are also likely to be below-inflation pay rises for state employees on top of next year’s planned freeze.

 

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Cameron said: “Proper statesmanship is taking the right action, explaining to people the purpose behind the pain.”

 

The prime minister said there would be no “trampoline recovery” of the economy. He warned there was a “serious problem” with forecasts inherited from Labour of robust 3% growth next year.

 

“There is a huge amount of debt that has got to be dealt with. Crossing our fingers, waiting for growth and hoping it will go away is simply not an answer,” he said.

 

“The country has got an overdraft. The interest on that overdraft is swallowing up things that the nation should otherwise be spending money on. We have got to take people with us on this difficult journey.”

 

Cameron gave a clear hint of the priorities for the emergency budget in two weeks’ time.

 

“You have to address the massive welfare bills,” he said. “You have to address public sector pay bills. You have to address the size of the bureaucracy that has built up over the past decade.

 

“Otherwise you will have to make reductions across the board which you don’t want to do. We need to address the areas where we have been living beyond our means.”

 

With the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions set to face cuts of up to 20% over the next five years, ministers are hoping for large savings from schemes to force claimants off incapacity benefit and into work.

 

More draconian measures are also on the table. Freezing all benefits for 12 months next year would raise £4.1 billion. Executing a Liberal Democrat pledge to axe child credits for couples on a joint income of more than £26,000 could save more than £1 billion a year. It is understood that ministers have ruled out means-testing child benefits and winter fuel payments.

 

All public sector workers earning more than £18,000 a year already face a pay freeze next year, but it is understood that curbs in wage rises beyond 2011 are likely to be unveiled in the budget on June 22.

 

Cameron said he had not seen the report being prepared by Sir Alan Budd, the head of the government’s new budget watchdog. MPs expect that Budd will scale down the current growth forecasts to somewhere nearer the average predictions of independent economists, who believe next year’s growth will be a sluggish 2%.

 

The prime minister insisted the figures that the coalition had inherited were wildly over-optimistic. “There were two levels of optimism in what the [Labour] government was forecasting,” Cameron said. “One was trampoline growth of 3% and above, and the second theory was that interest rates would always stay low.

 

“One of the most shocking things is the extent of the interest we are paying on our debt. If we don’t do anything about it, it is going to be £50, £60, £70 billion.

 

“It is going to be huge. We will be spending more on debt interest than we do on educating our children and defending our country. It is totally irresponsible what we are left with.”

 

Despite the challenge of cutting the deficit, Cameron said he was still confident that most of the gap could be closed by cuts in public spending.

 

“Sometimes politicians haven’t tried hard enough to reduce inefficient spending and reach for the taxes too quickly,” he said. “We shouldn’t do that.”

 

However, he refused to rule out an increase in Vat, which many analysts believe will go up from 17.5% to 20%.

 

“We want expenditure to bear the burden of what needs to be done,” he said.

 

Cameron signalled a softening of his stance on capital gains tax, which is due to go up this month from 18% to nearly 40% to help pay for the Lib Dem aim of taking the low-paid out of income tax.

 

Facing a growing rebellion from Tory backbenchers, the prime minister said he was considering some sort of relief for investors selling assets such as shares or second homes that they had held for a long time. “I totally understand the arguments,” Cameron said. “I did not come into politics to punish people who want to do the right thing and save.”

 

Giving his own gloss on the budget cuts, Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and Lib Dem leader, warned there would be no return to the “sink or swim” economics of the Thatcher era. “Fiscal retrenchment does not mean a repeat of the 1980s,” Clegg told The Observer. “We are going to do this differently.”

 

George Osborne, the chancellor, claimed a significant victory yesterday as the G20 group of leading nations backed the British government’s stance on spending cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highest paid and the influential get us into this mess.

Who do the Tories make pay for it?

 

Fucking rewind to the Thatcher years

 

There will be bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway. The new Keynesians say

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...zero-bound.html

 

Its the recession that caused the deficit anyway CT, so the solution is an economic recovery. We shrank by 6%, so we need to grow by 3% for 2 years to be nearly back to where we were on tax revenues (with a debt built up whilst returning to even).

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...ce-1904129.html

 

Depressed earnings in the financial sector and the general weakness of the economy conspired to push receipts down by 9 per cent overall compared with last year; income tax takings slumped by 20 per cent, and corporation gains tax revenues fell by 6 per cent. VAT payments were up a little, after the 17.5 per cent rate was restored on 1 January. On the other side of the ledger, public spending is still showing double digit increases: 15 per cent up in January, driven higher by the rise in benefits to the unemployed.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CGT tax change affects 130,000 people - Cameron wants to protect them as a priority over millions of others - same old cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website....

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

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.

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway.

 

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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway. The new Keynesians say

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...zero-bound.html

 

Its the recession that caused the deficit anyway CT, so the solution is an economic recovery. We shrank by 6%, so we need to grow by 3% for 2 years to be nearly back to where we were on tax revenues (with a debt built up whilst returning to even).

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...ce-1904129.html

 

Depressed earnings in the financial sector and the general weakness of the economy conspired to push receipts down by 9 per cent overall compared with last year; income tax takings slumped by 20 per cent, and corporation gains tax revenues fell by 6 per cent. VAT payments were up a little, after the 17.5 per cent rate was restored on 1 January. On the other side of the ledger, public spending is still showing double digit increases: 15 per cent up in January, driven higher by the rise in benefits to the unemployed.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CGT tax change affects 130,000 people - Cameron wants to protect them as a priority over millions of others - same old cunts.

 

 

So objectively you will acknowledge that your lot are cunts for reducing it to 18% 2 years ago. :angry:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website....

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway.

 

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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway.

 

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 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? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway. The new Keynesians say

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...zero-bound.html

 

Its the recession that caused the deficit anyway CT, so the solution is an economic recovery. We shrank by 6%, so we need to grow by 3% for 2 years to be nearly back to where we were on tax revenues (with a debt built up whilst returning to even).

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...ce-1904129.html

 

Depressed earnings in the financial sector and the general weakness of the economy conspired to push receipts down by 9 per cent overall compared with last year; income tax takings slumped by 20 per cent, and corporation gains tax revenues fell by 6 per cent. VAT payments were up a little, after the 17.5 per cent rate was restored on 1 January. On the other side of the ledger, public spending is still showing double digit increases: 15 per cent up in January, driven higher by the rise in benefits to the unemployed.

 

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.

 

It was the global crash and resultant recession that has made the deficit a problem though. Before that we'd had a decade of growth and had never had it so good - witness the regeneration of cities, real improvements in the NHS and education system etc. For whatever reason though, politicians and economists alike didn't see the crash coming. Which is just history repeating itself really - human nature.

 

At least Labour avoided a catastrophic depression happening though, something which could well have happened under tory plans of the lasr few years.

 

277.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway.

 

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 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.

 

What is the intrinsic benefit in 'owning' a school btw? They cost money whatever the ownership situation. The point is to get them performing and in fairness Labour did that better than the Tories, who largely couldnt give a fuck about state education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its funny because the lastest Keynesian models predict that the most effective expansionary policy, when interest rates are effectively zero, is increased government spending. Arguably the situation we are in now. The deficit hawks say to cut spending and encourage the banks to lend. The banks still arent lending but they are cutting anyway.

 

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 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? :angry:

 

As its labour whose reduced gapital gains tax, what do you think? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website....

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

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). :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website....

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

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). ;)

 

:angry:<_<

 

Yes but Matts post could have been in chinese for all I understood of it......Basel 111 wtf! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×