We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt
Comments
-
I've become very fit as a result of not working though!
How often do you go to the gym?Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »I suggest no such thing - I am well aware of the technical accounting rules in use.
I think you are Rochdale. All other countries adopt the same method in counting national debt, and the UK has increased its national debt by 14% in the current year. What country other than the US exceeds this?Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »I'd say us. Germany's economy relies on manufacturing exports, which until the global economy picks up will remain in a hole. As the lender of last resort for the entire EU Germany will end up either allowing the Euro to break apart (and thus shoulder the costs of recreating the Mark and the effects of the Euro's failure on the Eurozone), or will have to bail out the poorer parts of the union - Spain, Italy, Greece, Eastern Europe - and that will cost a fortune.
We are liable for the failings of our banks. Germany is effectively liable for the failings of Europe's banks. I know where I'd rather be.
You reckon that Germany, who currently has a 3-4% budget deficit and an enormous positive trade deficit is less able to repay a country (the UK) that has an enormous (and growing) trade deficit and is running a 10% annual deficit?
Are you actually serious or are you takin' the mick?0 -
How often do you go to the gym?
I don't.
I cycle perhaps 200km per week, play soccer once a week, swim once a week, play with the kids and then just generally mess around. Oh and I jog with Mrs Generali maybe once a fortnight and probably do an exercise video with her about as often. And I go out on my mate's boat maybe every 6 weeks and that's quite hard work (seriously).0 -
All other countries adopt the same method in counting national debt, and the UK has increased its national debt by 14% in the current year. What country other than the US exceeds this?
You're still evading/missing the point.
The technical measure of national debt is not the same as the actual national debt that has to have interest paid on it and needs to be repaid. Your 14% reflects the assets and loan books of the banks we have nationalised on the international accounting measure that we rightly follow. The amount of money that we actually owe has not increased by 14% - the two are different. We did not borrow a penny to cover the value of the bank's loan books (not that we would need to as their default rate will not be the assumed 100%) despite that value being added in our debt column.
That means that this debt is not money that we owe, nor money that we pay inflation on. Its simply an entry in profit and loss. As amazing an increase as this is on P&L, we will see just as amazing a decrease when it is cleared down.
Look, its a very simple point which you seem incapable of grasping. I'm pretty sure that you're intelligent so that means that you are obsfucating. Parading the 14% increase number suits your political narrative - I get that. What I'm not going to do is to accept that the amount of cash owed by the UK to others has increased by 14% because it quite patently hasn't.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »You're still evading/missing the point.
The technical measure of national debt is not the same as the actual national debt that has to have interest paid on it and needs to be repaid. Your 14% reflects the assets and loan books of the banks we have nationalised on the international accounting measure that we rightly follow. The amount of money that we actually owe has not increased by 14% - the two are different. We did not borrow a penny to cover the value of the bank's loan books (not that we would need to as their default rate will not be the assumed 100%) despite that value being added in our debt column.
That means that this debt is not money that we owe, nor money that we pay inflation on. Its simply an entry in profit and loss. As amazing an increase as this is on P&L, we will see just as amazing a decrease when it is cleared down.
Look, its a very simple point which you seem incapable of grasping. I'm pretty sure that you're intelligent so that means that you are obsfucating. Parading the 14% increase number suits your political narrative - I get that. What I'm not going to do is to accept that the amount of cash owed by the UK to others has increased by 14% because it quite patently hasn't.
AIUI, the £500,000,000,000 that the Government look likely to borrow over the next three years will need to be repaid. As will most of the £700,000,000,000 that is the current UK debt.
The figure of £691,000,000,000 as at end 2008 for Government Debt includes NRK and B&B only. Their gross liabilities are fairly small.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »You're still evading/missing the point.
The technical measure of national debt is not the same as the actual national debt that has to have interest paid on it and needs to be repaid. Your 14% reflects the assets and loan books of the banks we have nationalised on the international accounting measure that we rightly follow. The amount of money that we actually owe has not increased by 14% - the two are different. We did not borrow a penny to cover the value of the bank's loan books (not that we would need to as their default rate will not be the assumed 100%) despite that value being added in our debt column.
Stop trying to play the lies, dammed lies and statistics game. We have already established that different countries count debt in the same way so that bond investors can make informed choices.
Just answer the questions: which country (counting national debt in the same way that the UK is) is running in excess of a 10% annual deficit in 2009? Which country has increased its national debt by 14% in the 2008/2009 tax year?
You're right, it is simple. Just answer the questions? How hard can it be?
(FTR I do understand that all the liabilities, but not necessarily all the assets of the nationalised banks are counted in the national debt, but other countries are doing that as well so as long as everyone uses the same methods we're on an even playing field)0 -
You think the UK Government isn't Socialist? They've increased Government spending and debt dramatically, increased tax take and redistributed income as a result.
Isn't that Socialism? That they use laissez-faire rhetoric doesn't make them Libertarian.
Whatever ideology the current UK Government is, perhaps we can agree that they've destroyed the economy for a Generation and perhaps beyond.
Excuse me if I got this one wrong, but I've always been under the impression that 'socialism' meant redistributing the taxes in favour of the poor? not the rich?
Not nicking money off the hard-working middle classes and bailing out corrupt bankers?
Or did I miss something there?
Personally, my problem with Nu Labour is precisely thatit's not socialist, it's just an equivalently corrupt and inefficicient version of the Tories.0 -
-
Excuse me if I got this one wrong, but I've always been under the impression that 'socialism' meant redistributing the taxes in favour of the poor? not the rich?
Not nicking money off the hard-working middle classes and bailing out corrupt bankers?
Or did I miss something there?
Personally, my problem with Nu Labour is precisely thatit's not socialist, it's just an equivalently corrupt and inefficicient version of the Tories.
That you understand this to be what Labour have done over the last 12 years is evidence that they have worked towards their aims with incredible stealth and success. It also shows that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
They could never have got re-elected with the sort of policy which I assume you would classify as socialist - the likes of 98% taxes on unearned income, penal top rates, clause 4 - soak the rich stuff.
Instead they have steadily allowed inflation to do their job by not raising tax thresholds, and introducing tax credits and the minimum wage. That approach combined with spouting freemarket rhetoric got them re-elected.
Labour aren't interested in the aspirational middle classes any more than they are the super rich - they're not in "relative poverty". Tbh the middle classes are probably perceived to be part of the problem and if they can be made to feel relatively poor and downtrodden by plutocrats so much the better.
Because all the work has been insidious it will take much longer to put right assuming DC is up to it.0 -
Instead they have steadily allowed inflation to do their job by not raising tax thresholds, and introducing tax credits and the minimum wage. .
I don't see why anyone would oppose a minimum wage. The only problem I can see is it's not high enough.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards