UK 'must cut spending or raise taxes,' say experts

tomstickland

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

In what is the biggest global recession since 1929, complete with mass bank bailouts and fiscal stimuli, UK debt as a percentage of GDP is forecasted to increase by 1300 basis points from 44% to 57%. In the last recession - with no bailouts or stimuli - our borrowing increased by 2,000 basis points from 32% to 52%.

I've no idea what they spent money in the early 90s. I was under the impression that 1991-1996 was spent recovering from the recession.

The last recession might have cost 20%, but this one hasn't finished happening yet.

bubblesmoney

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Sadly the same is true of most privatisations. Set the value low to ensure demand and thus spread the ownership of shares - this was a stated Conservative policy of the 80s as a means of converting voters from socialism to capitalism. You look at how shares in the utilities all performed after floatation, and a lot of people made vast amounts of money - everyone except the taxpayer.

there is a difference between general public buying the shares and making a killing and people INVOLVED in giving the advice for valuations suggested to the govt(and also getting quid pro quo as performance incentives from the buyer subsequently) and such people making killings. this is blatant corruption but done in a sophisticated manner.

ManAtHome

tomstickland wrote: »

The last recession might have cost 20%, but this one hasn't finished happening yet.

Just 4 weeks in (as we luckily had 0% growth/slowdown in Q2...).

Sir_Humphrey

Quite a bit of money has gone on NHS wages, but I have no problem with Nurses being paid decently for the work they do.
At the end of the day though, that is money that they will spend allowing a multiplier effect. Money needs to be kept circulating in a Capitalist economy. Money that goes upwards does not get circulated down as the rich have a greater tendency (& ability) to accumulate wealth. If it is not moved back downwards (and for practical purposes that means taxation) then eventually the system will collapse as demand collapses at the bottom of the economy. Economists often fail to recognise this as their methods are based on comparative statics rather than historic time.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Quite a bit of money has gone on NHS wages, but I have no problem with Nurses being paid decently for the work they do.
At the end of the day though, that is money that they will spend allowing a multiplier effect. Money needs to be kept circulating in a Capitalist economy. Money that goes upwards does not get circulated down as the rich have a greater tendency (& ability) to accumulate wealth. If it is not moved back downwards (and for practical purposes that means taxation) then eventually the system will collapse as demand collapses at the bottom of the economy. Economists often fail to recognise this as their methods are based on comparative statics rather than historic time.

That only works if money spent on nurses wouldn't be spent otherwise.

I've not seen any evidence that paying nurses more makes them more productive either. Why pay more for the same thing? It's not very MSE.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

That only works if money spent on nurses wouldn't be spent otherwise.

I've not seen any evidence that paying nurses more makes them more productive either. Why pay more for the same thing? It's not very MSE.

Nurses are productive anyway. They are just being paid for productivity that was previously unpaid. I would be interested to hear your arguments for why nurses should be paid less than they are now.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Nurses are productive anyway. They are just being paid for productivity they was previously unpaid. I would be interested to hear your arguments for why nurses should be paid less than they are now.

There was no massive shortage of nurses that I'm aware of. There is no good reason to pay more than is necessary to fill the posts.

"paid for productivity they was previously unpaid" is a meaningless phrase.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

There was no massive shortage of nurses that I'm aware of. There is no good reason to pay more than is necessary to fill the posts.

"paid for productivity they was previously unpaid" is a meaningless phrase.

But posts were unfilled, and had to be covered by more expensive agency staff. My comment was not meaningless, if you do work for no payment (such as unpaid overtime) then that is still productive work. Presumably voluntary work is unproductive?

Rochdale_Pioneers

A couple of comments:

1. Manathome - we're 30 weeks in, not 4. You're forgetting to count 08Q3 and 08Q4 which were both in negative growth. You also have to bear in mind that we were spending money that is associated with the recession as far back as late 2007 when Northern Rock first got into trouble.

2. Nurses. Generali - you are forgetting the mass of foreign nurses that was at one time filling all of the vacancies in the NHS. There was a shortage in both doctors and nurses and their pay was substandard, which is why there was a mass training and recruitment drive and why wages have gone up. As for productivity, those of us without access to 30ft yachts tend not to work particularly hard when we are distracted by the pressing need to find enough money to pay bills and keep ourselves fed.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

As for productivity, those of us without access to 30ft yachts tend not to work particularly hard when we are distracted by the pressing need to find enough money to pay bills and keep ourselves fed.

That I've got a mate with a boat is jolly nice but ultimately neither here nor there. He's a prison guard !!!!!!, not a child pornographer or (worse it seems) a banker's son.