Oh dear - Bradford & Bingley nationalisation looks increasingly likely

Sir_Humphrey

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The economy is screwed, it's heading for disaster. The only 'choice' the governments have is the shape that the crash takes. Hopefully they won't try to 'save the day' as that will at best prolong the agony, at worst precipitate an even more calamitous end. Either way, nothing anyone says or does here will influence that.

I am not making this point a fourth time, so this is the last time.

The government can ameliorate the pain (I know there is going to be a recession), and it is the government that will pull us out via deficit spending. The only question is how long it takes for the politicos to work this out.

I am talking about amelioration of a recession, not prevention (it is far too late to prevent it). Herbert Hoover tried doing nothing, as did Weimar Germany in 1930-31. It doesn't work. Governments running a constant balanced budget is for the fairies and economic illiterates.

WTF?_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not making this point a fourth time, so this is the last time.

The government can ameliorate the pain (I know there is going to be a recession), and it is the government that will pull us out via deficit spending. The only question is how long it takes for the politicos to work this out.

I am talking about amelioration of a recession, not prevention (it is far too late to prevent it). Herbert Hoover tried doing nothing, as did Weimar Germany in 1930-31. It doesn't work. Governments running a constant balanced budget is for the fairies and economic illiterates.

Good luck in your efforts to formulate a solution.

dannyboycey

I would rather see my money save a health system that appears to be on it's knees than banks that got themselves into mess by literally chasing after extremely high risk investments. Not to mention education, public transport, crime prevention... Becoming 'bail-out Britain' is bad enough, but bailing out those with blood on their hands instead of innocent bystanders is wrong in every sense.

I don't pretend for a minute to be clued up on economics but even I can see these billions which keep being 'magically generated' by the government are being misdirected. If their primary remit were to restore confidence to the economy, then they sould inject some of this money towards us taxpayers!

Sir_Humphrey

dannyboycey wrote: »

I would rather see my money save a health system that appears to be on it's knees than banks that got themselves into mess by literally chasing after extremely high risk investments. Not to mention education, public transport, crime prevention... Becoming 'bail-out Britain' is bad enough, but bailing out those with blood on their hands instead of innocent bystanders is wrong in every sense.

I don't pretend for a minute to be clued up on economics but even I can see these billions which keep being 'magically generated' by the government are being misdirected. If their primary remit were to restore confidence to the economy, then they sould inject some of this money towards us taxpayers!

I would much prefer that too. But we are where we are.

Of course, if people were willing to accept European levels of taxation, then the banking system could be saved, and money provided for those other things too.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Would you rather have better healthcare and education paid out taxes, or consumer trinkets paid for by tax cuts? Either would stimulate the economy, which you choose is a political choice.

dannyboycey

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Of course, if people were willing to accept European levels of taxation, then the banking system could be saved, and money provided for those other things too.

I believe the current levels of taxation are more than adequate. Considering how much of our money goes to the government, it's astonishing how few people seem to care how this is allocated and how its being put to use. There lies the problem in my opinion. Take the benefits system as an example - the amount of revenue spent on keeping people in fags, white tracksuits and cider is mindblowing, yet people who desperately need (and deserve ) the benefits system barely get enough to survive. Getting OT though, so maybe a topic for another day ;-)

Realy

dannyboycey wrote: »

I would rather see my money save a health system that appears to be on it's knees than banks that got themselves into mess by literally chasing after extremely high risk investments. Not to mention education, public transport, crime prevention... Becoming 'bail-out Britain' is bad enough, but bailing out those with blood on their hands instead of innocent bystanders is wrong in every sense.

I don't pretend for a minute to be clued up on economics but even I can see these billions which keep being 'magically generated' by the government are being misdirected. If their primary remit were to restore confidence to the economy, then they sould inject some of this money towards us taxpayers!

Same here mate but if we have a major depression all that you have mentioned will suffer as it is tax payers money that pays of them and their would be a lot less tax payers.
I think they can all se how stupid it as been. We just have to hope now that it will not be too painful and that they can help in some way.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

You can't have your cake and eat it. Would you rather have better healthcare and education paid out taxes, or consumer trinkets paid for by tax cuts? Either would stimulate the economy, which you choose is a political choice.

Or to put it another way, would you rather spend your money raising your family or someone elses.

Tax cuts aren't a gift from a munificent Government to a grateful populace, they're a reduction in the amount being confiscated on pain of imprisonment.

Sir_Humphrey

dannyboycey wrote: »

I believe the current levels of taxation are more than adequate. Considering how much of our money goes to the government, it's astonishing how few people seem to care how this is allocated and how its being put to use. There lies the problem in my opinion. Take the benefits system as an example - the amount of revenue spent on keeping people in fags, white tracksuits and cider is mindblowing, yet people who desperately need (and deserve ) the benefits system barely get enough to survive. Getting OT though, so maybe a topic for another day ;-)

Spending less on unemployment benefit is a good thing in principle, which is why it is a good idea to promote policies that encourage employment. In a recession, that means running a budget deficit and increasing the national debt.

In reality though, there is not choice, as the deficit would still be run up to pay the benefits, even if the government cut spending elsewhere (as those cuts would increase unemployment).

You can see this in action in the early 1980s recession. Thatcher actually increased public spending as the dole queue lengthened. So her attempts to run a tight ship by restricting spending were self-defeating as unemployment rose. Of course, being hypocrites, the Thatcherites blamed the poor despite it being their policies causing the unemployment.

There is massive doublethink in this: people here want less money spent on benefits, but support policies that encourage unemployment, such as high interest rates, cuts in govt spending and balanced govt budgets/reduced national debt. It seems some people on this board are just as Orwellian as the powers that be!

sabretoothtigger

The economy is screwed

I hate to agree with brown but in general the economy is or was fine but the credit markets and banks have screwed up big time.
The idea is to contain the damage, if they fail on this then yea it'll screw the economy

I was thinking last night how this mess resembles the aftermath of a pyramid scheme, everyone was playing with free money from profits that never really existed.

Now the house of cards is falling, it needs propping up and cementing with something real to stop a total waste and collapse

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Or to put it another way, would you rather spend your money raising your family or someone elses.

Tax cuts aren't a gift from a munificent Government to a grateful populace, they're a reduction in the amount being confiscated on pain of imprisonment.

Tax cuts benefit the rich more than the poor (usually).

I happen to care about people who aren't part of my family as well as those who are. It is not as though the better off parts of the economy as starving. Also, of course, in some cases the richer people make their money by ripping off the poorer (eg dodgy mortgage companies)

Also, bear in mind that without government, there would be no legally binding property rights anyway, so "your" property would not be "yours" to "confiscate" anyway. Your wealth level would depend on how big a stick you "owned". Don't bite the system that serves you well, Generali.