Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So why on earth are you arguing the toss that they're rental agreements? That's what I'm replying about... :angry:

 

 

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.

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.

 

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 :angry:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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.

 

To be fair you're so much better at it though HF. Sometimes you even come across as having half a clue. <_<

 

Despite what CT has said above, I prefer not to Google and cut and paste where possible. If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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.

 

If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

 

 

<_< you dont think government websites are inherently biased towards themselves (ie. the government)?? And also didnt the bbc admit to being left wing biased not so long ago?

;)

 

I think you'll get more objective answers if you search the net. as long as you dont end up at www.iamamarxist.com or www.bnp.co.uk

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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.

 

If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

 

 

;) you dont think government websites are inherently biased towards themselves (ie. the government)?? And also didnt the bbc admit to being left wing biased not so long ago?

:icon_lol:

 

I think you'll get more objective answers if you search the net. as long as you dont end up at www.iamamarxist.com or www.bnp.co.uk

 

:rolleyes:

 

I don't think government sites are biased if you cite facts - like I did earlier in this thread in the form of a bar chart of our deficit. Do you think they could make up facts about our deficit and get away with it?

 

As for the BBC, I'd be interested to see where they have admitted they have a left wing bias, got a link for that? They probably are a bit left slanting, but still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a more independent and authorative source of information. Perhaps you can tell me about one?

 

But tell me, how do you effectively appraise the information (and disinformation) you get from a Google search? How is that being objective? What I suspect you're doing is trawling the net to find opinion that backs your prejudice. You're one of the worst offenders for this as it happens. ;) Parky is even worse however. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I suspect you're doing is trawling the net to find opinion that backs your prejudice. You're one of the worst offenders for this as it happens. <_< Parky is even worse however. :angry:

 

 

possibly, but maybe you are looking at the 'left leaning' sites as you call them because they are backing your predjudices?

 

totally agree with you about Parky tho ;)

 

Anyway, from the Telegraph

 

"Coalition government: the Canadian cuts model that the Tories wish to emulate

In the early 1990s the Canadian government faced a serious financial crisis, with a $39 billion budget deficit - representing 9.1 per cent of GDP.

 

 

Canada's cost-cutting programme saw its science budget halved, while agricultural subsidies, overseas aid and transport were also badly hit

 

But a swift and effective cost-cutting programme turned this deficit into a surplus within five years, while pulling the country out of recession and into economic growth.

 

Between 1992 and 1996 central government departments saw their budgets cut by an average of 20 per cent.

 

Aware that efficiency savings and pay freezes alone would be insufficient, the prime minister Jean Chrétien ordered that all non-essential national government spending be cut.

 

A handful of sectors – such as benefits for the elderly – were spared or saw their budgets increased, but only at the expense of more painful reductions elsewhere.

 

The science budget was halved, while agricultural subsidies, overseas aid and transport were also badly hit.

 

Under a system called Program Review, a committee of senior civil servants demanded that all departments nominate spending programmes that a lean national government should not be funding.

 

They scrutinised these plans and recommended which schemes should be axed to a second committee of ministers, which in turn advised the prime minister.

 

This collegiate approach muffled dissent from ministers who resented cuts to their budgets, by putting them at the centre of the decision-making process.

 

The process was devised to alter the way the country thought about state spending, by exposing subsidies which were not essential.

 

Marcel Massé, the cabinet office minister in charge of the ministerial committee, said the Program Review identified “what needs to be done by government and what we can afford to do”.

 

By releasing details of the spending programmes and public sector salaries approved by Labour, and establishing a "star chamber" to advise on potentially controversial cuts, Mr Cameron is taking inspiration from the Canadian model.

 

As provincial governments saw their health grants slashed, thousands of nurses were sacked and hospital waiting times soared. The shortage of new buildings also led to overcrowding and higher infection rates on wards.

 

But Canadians credit the success of the programme to speed and depth of the cuts. The previous government of Brian Mulroney, a Conservative, had failed to reduce the deficit with a more cautious approach.

 

Jocelyne Bourgon, cabinet secretary for the Canadian civil service at the time, said: "It is preferable to move expeditiously. It creates hope at the end of the tunnel."

 

As the Canadian deficit fell the economy returned to growth, after shrinking by 2.1 per cent in 1991. Between 1992 and 1997 the tax burden increased only slightly, by 0.3 per cent."

 

Fairly drastic but if it works................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but surely the aftermath of Canada's cuts coincided with worldwide growth.

 

It reminds me of blinkered Tories who think Thatcher's policies made Britain the only country to "boom" in the 80s when Germany and France did as well without the pain she inflicted.

 

Making savings with efficiency drives sounds good in theory but as the bit about waiting times and infection rates show, you need to be careful you don't go too far. Obviously the question is do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

 

 

and therein lies the question.

 

 

I know a lot of people on here would rather slit their own wrists than trust them.

 

Its gonna happen tho.

 

bad times ahead methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a lot of people on here would rather slit their own wrists than trust them.

 

I don't trust them but that doesn't mean I would relish their failure. Of course I would measure their success by the effects rather than the bare numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but surely the aftermath of Canada's cuts coincided with worldwide growth.

 

It reminds me of blinkered Tories who think Thatcher's policies made Britain the only country to "boom" in the 80s when Germany and France did as well without the pain she inflicted.

 

Making savings with efficiency drives sounds good in theory but as the bit about waiting times and infection rates show, you need to be careful you don't go too far. Obviously the question is do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

 

It's hard to make any conclusions based on on anecdote, as you say Canada's return to economic health coincided with a global boom.

 

The dangers of too drastic cuts are obvious - mass unemployment in the public sector, a domino effect on the private sector, more money spent on social security, less revenue in taxes. As you say, the 1980s all over agin. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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 <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :angry:

 

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 <_<

 

You agree you're a wum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've also got to remember that the Lib Dems and Labour both had higher tax increasses planned than the Tories. So however painful it's going to be, it's going to be more painful for the less well off than it is for the people that can afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

 

 

I'd like to see Blair and brown interviewed at length by paxman, fuck it then Jack Bauer if Paxman got nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

 

 

I'd like to see Blair and brown interviewed at length by paxman, fuck it then Jack Bauer if Paxman got nowhere.

 

He was interviewed by Paxman before the election. Good job you're not being interviewed by him as you never fail to dodge anything put to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've also got to remember that the Lib Dems and Labour both had higher tax increasses planned than the Tories. So however painful it's going to be, it's going to be more painful for the less well off than it is for the people that can afford it.

 

They said on the radio this morning that it will be 80% cuts and 20% tax rises iirc (was a bit sleepy). I think that's the wrong way round personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People often glaze over when hearing how many hundreds of billions are needed....

 

The IFS says this about the national debt.....

  • The official debt on the balance sheet when divided by household is £30,000.
  • PFI which isn't on the accounts yet will add £5,000 per household.
  • Public sector pensions represent an additional unfunded liability of £30,000 per household.
  • The next four years as budgeted is going to require another £25,000 of borrowing per household.

That's a total of £90,000 of national debt per household. How does that compare with your house?

Edited by Happy Face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

Why? Its the financial crisis and the subsequent recession that caused the deficit to rise to unmanageable levels, not e.g. NHS funding increases from 2000-2010.

 

BTW "all the corporation tax" is about 15% lower than it was 2 years ago.

 

Also, as me and Parky have been hinting recently, dont hold your wealth in money, get it in assets.

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


×