FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

Well this is an estimate - the year isn't over but here you go. Are you going to play straight and answer the question or are you going to keep your head buried in the sand?

Congratulations - you demonstrated that you aren't just making things up on the spot. Why not just post the evidence every time you start throwing figures around?

I don't need to answer your question - its self evident that its the UK and the US. The relevant question is what it means - you threw the question in as some kind of weapon against my position, but what does it actually mean? Our near 10% a year deficit forecasts that our government borrowing may approach 70% by 2013. Whilst thats clearly a lot worse than it was why is this in any way the end of the world or whatever else you doom-mongers think it is? How have France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan, the US and others been able to manage with debt levels up there and higher? As the Economist article you linked to points out: "If Britain’s bill turns out to be more like Japan’s than Sweden’s, the Treasury would gulp but could swallow it, for Britain’s official debt has been relatively smaller than that of other G7 countries. In 2007 Britain’s gross government debt was 47% of GDP; in France, for example, it was 70%."

And what do Standard and Poor - whose chart you finally posted - think of Britain's prospects? "Despite this setback, the NIESR forecasts growth of 2.2% in 2011 and 2.4% in 2012, not least thanks to the greater competitiveness a lower pound will bring. The City may take a back seat this time. But Britain remains a diversified economy, and it retains a flexible labour market that will allow companies to adapt to new conditions, notes Trevor Cullinan of Standard & Poor’s, a credit-rating agency that reaffirmed Britain’s AAA status as a sovereign borrower earlier this year."

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Congratulations - you demonstrated that you aren't just making things up on the spot. Why not just post the evidence every time you start throwing figures around?

I don't need to answer your question

So once someone actually jumps through the hoops you've spent days demanding they should you then refuse to play ball.

I'd like to ask you a question - do you receive payment from the Labour Party, do you do this as a part of the unpaid part of the Labour Party organisation or do you do it unpaid as an informal supporter?

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Congratulations - you demonstrated that you aren't just making things up on the spot. Why not just post the evidence every time you start throwing figures around?

I don't need to answer your question - its self evident that its the UK and the US. The relevant question is what it means - you threw the question in as some kind of weapon against my position, but what does it actually mean? Our near 10% a year deficit forecasts that our government borrowing may approach 70% by 2013.

SO lets get this right, despite the UK growing its deficit at a faster rate than any other single country (bar the US) you think that it is better able to repay debts than Germany?
Germany, who currently has a 3-4% budget deficit and an enormous positive trade deficit, compared to the UK that has an enormous (and growing) trade deficit and is running a 10% annual deficit?

So what exactly is it that the UK produces that all these other countries will want to buy?

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And what do Standard and Poor - whose chart you finally posted - think of Britain's prospects? "Despite this setback, the NIESR forecasts growth of 2.2% in 2011 and 2.4% in 2012, not least thanks to the greater competitiveness a lower pound will bring. The City may take a back seat this time. But Britain remains a diversified economy, and it retains a flexible labour market that will allow companies to adapt to new conditions, notes Trevor Cullinan of Standard & Poor’s, a credit-rating agency that reaffirmed Britain’s AAA status as a sovereign borrower earlier this year."

Are these the same rating agencies that gave all those CDOs comprised of NINJA mortgages AAA ratings? Yup I'd believe everything they say :rolleyes:
And if you seriously think we'll be doing 2.2% growth in 2011 then you really are cloud cuckoo land

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

Germany, who currently has a 3-4% budget deficit and an enormous positive trade deficit

That I doubt. Germany has spent 4% of GDP (about 1.5% more than us) on stimuli because its industry is collapsing unde falling orders. Its GDP is shrinking faster than ours due to this.

As usual, can you post a citation for your claim?

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

That I doubt. Germany has spent 4% of GDP (about 1.5% more than us) on stimuli because its industry is collapsing unde falling orders. Its GDP is shrinking faster than ours due to this.

As usual, can you post a citation for your claim?

Are you prepared to explain your continued uncritical support for the UK Labour Party? Are you a paid supporter, a volunteer who has been asked to post here or just somebody who happens to find all Labour policies at all times perfect? Perhaps there's a different explanation for your love of all things Labour.

Labour have been in power 4 times prior to 1997 and every time it's ended in a horrible mess. That some people here are trying to head that off could be seen as patriotic against the inadvertent treason of the Socialists.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

That I doubt. Germany has spent 4% of GDP (about 1.5% more than us) on stimuli because its industry is collapsing unde falling orders. Its GDP is shrinking faster than ours due to this.

As usual, can you post a citation for your claim?

Can you get your head out of you b@ckside and see the graph I posted from the economist on the previous page? You'll see Germany has a deficit of <4%.

You are the most myopic, Labour parrot I have ever seen: when presented with facts you try and sully them.

carolt

Generali wrote: »

Are you prepared to explain your continued uncritical support for the UK Labour Party? Are you a paid supporter, a volunteer who has been asked to post here or just somebody who happens to find all Labour policies at all times perfect? Perhaps there's a different explanation for your love of all things Labour.

Labour have been in power 4 times prior to 1997 and every time it's ended in a horrible mess. That some people here are trying to head that off could be seen as patriotic against the inadvertent treason of the Socialists.

Hey, less of the 'Socialists'. If Nu Labour are socialist, I'm a badger. (No offence, A. Badger.)

Good point re RP - I find this obsessive toeing of party line on a public forum a bit creepy - it's not like this is a party conference, we are free to say what we like here, and frankly, you have to be a bit weird to think the current govt is perfect in every way.

I say this as someone who is a long-term Labour supporter - but utterly cheesed off at the moment.

benood

carolt wrote: »

Hey, less of the 'Socialists'. If Nu Labour are socialist, I'm a badger. (No offence, A. Badger.)

Good point re RP - I find this obsessive toeing of party line on a public forum a bit creepy - it's not like this is a party conference, we are free to say what we like here, and frankly, you have to be a bit weird to think the current govt is perfect in every way.

I say this as someone who is a long-term Labour supporter - but utterly cheesed off at the moment.

But they are socialists - clever ones who know that if the electorate thought they were socialists they wouldn't get elected.

I'll bet that big swathes of the government grin gleefully at the thought of so many nationalised banks - a key policy in the 1982 (socialist) manifesto.

Couldn't agree more about RP - an acolyte of Derek Draper if there ever was.

carolt

Funny that - it cuts both ways. If I thought for 1 moment they were socialist, I might vote for them - no chance though, as I have to disagree with your interpretation of socialism.

Wookster

carolt wrote: »

Funny that - it cuts both ways. If I thought for 1 moment they were socialist, I might vote for them - no chance though, as I have to disagree with your interpretation of socialism.

Socialism is about the public ownership of the means of production and a bigger role of the state. Labour certainly believe in a significant role of the state paid for with free market rates!