FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt

benood

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Generali - its worth pointing out that your figures are based on the technical measure of borrowing (all nationalised bank loans worthless, all bank assets worthless, all government investment worthless) rather than the actual amount the government will have borrowed.

It's called prudence. You know, that stuff our great leader was big on once. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

Is your head buried in the sand Rochdale?

Oh I forgot, you're a socialist, you just don't see that being an inefficient, non productive economy that borrowing on such a massive scale cannot be unsustainable indefinitely.

So long as someone else pays there's no problem is there?

lol - do you ever let up?

My point is not about whether borrowing is good or bad. It is merely challenging the level of borrowing that we will be doing.

Claiming that we will have to borrow to cover the entire loan books of banks and that we have no bank assets to offset is disingenuous at best and a blatant lie at worst. We don't have to borrow to cover the theoretical maximum liability if all the banks we own suddenly found their loans defaulting at 100% because that won't happen. Creating accounting rules which force numbers to be calculated for such a possibility does not make this the reality of what the government actually owes.

I suspect that you are fully aware of this, and chose to pretend it isn't so - burying your head in the sand - for political reasons. So, are you being disingenuous or simply lying?

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

lol - do you ever let up?

My point is not about whether borrowing is good or bad. It is merely challenging the level of borrowing that we will be doing.

Claiming that we will have to borrow to cover the entire loan books of banks and that we have no bank assets to offset is disingenuous at best and a blatant lie at worst. We don't have to borrow to cover the theoretical maximum liability if all the banks we own suddenly found their loans defaulting at 100% because that won't happen. Creating accounting rules which force numbers to be calculated for such a possibility does not make this the reality of what the government actually owes.

I'll let up when you wake up and smell the coffee

Is your argument now that national debt isn't well national debt because of silly statistical rules?

It doesn't really cut the mustard as an argument does it? Surely even you can concede this?

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

lol - do you ever let up?

My point is not about whether borrowing is good or bad. It is merely challenging the level of borrowing that we will be doing.

Claiming that we will have to borrow to cover the entire loan books of banks and that we have no bank assets to offset is disingenuous at best and a blatant lie at worst. We don't have to borrow to cover the theoretical maximum liability if all the banks we own suddenly found their loans defaulting at 100% because that won't happen. Creating accounting rules which force numbers to be calculated for such a possibility does not make this the reality of what the government actually owes.

I suspect that you are fully aware of this, and chose to pretend it isn't so - burying your head in the sand - for political reasons. So, are you being disingenuous or simply lying?

So what do you think the National Debt will be in 3 years time?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

I'll let up when you wake up and smell the coffee

Is your argument now that national debt isn't well national debt because of silly statistical rules?

It doesn't really cut the mustard as an argument does it? Surely even you can concede this?

Well do we actually borrow the money or don't we? The statisticians have to follow their accounting rules which push up our net debt alarmingly, but at no point does the government actually have to borrow that money off anyone, and no interest has to be paid on it because its still sat in the accounts of our theoretical lendees. "Debt" that we haven't had to borrow isn't what I would call "debt".

So yes, it isn't national debt. The silly statistical rule is calling it debt in the first place when it quite patently isn't.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

So what do you think the National Debt will be in 3 years time?

How the hell do I know? You, I and everyone else have got no idea what it will be. Answer my point about statistical debt vs actually money you owe someone - if we add a theoretical bank exposure to our figures and call it "debt" but at no point do we have to borrow that money, in what way is it actual debt?

chucky

Generali wrote: »

So what do you think the National Debt will be in 3 years time?

wouldn't it depend on the toxic debt that is being held as assets?

some will go bad and some will go good

Generali

JACKBLACK wrote: »

So Mrs Generali claims on the Generali families behalf - what difference does it make?

Actually my in-Laws are paying the bills - in return I cook (I was a chef many years ago) and Mrs Generali keeps the house clean.

No hypocrisy there. An apology would be nice.

Generali

JACKBLACK wrote: »

Good luck with that;) No chance of an apology - I don't apologize to people who would happily kick the ladder away from others who don't have relatives to sponge off.

Another one for the ignore list!

chucky

chucky wrote: »

wouldn't it depend on the toxic debt that is being held as assets?

some will go bad and some will go good

just to add that the trades that are booked against these would rarely be over 5 years.

majority will have an average over 2 or 3 years.