Will Gordon Brown send UK economy over the edge?

mbga9pgf

LauraW10 wrote: »

Will Gordon Brown send the UK over the edge?

No - but the Tories will!

Yet an other stupid bint.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Yet an other stupid bint.

Yet another intellectually stunning post. You've won me over with the power of your argument:rolleyes:

mbga9pgf

How anyone can claim that the Tories will wreck the economy after the last 12 years is beyond me. Want to remind everyone which major economy is still in recession? Which government has grown their liabilities the most during their tenure? Plunged their nation into at least a decade of austerity?

It wasnt the Tories that did that.

As I said, stupid bint.

kabayiri

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

What's your point? Is it that under the conservatives the recession will be made worse and then we won't be able to pay our debts back?

Fair challenge

I think the main point is that number 1) we have to reassure the finance markets about our commitment to repair our balance sheets.

In my view, this can be about shifting spending priorities as much as cutbacks.

I believe the Conservatives understand this. But....I have no proof of this, none of us do.

The idea that anyone here can make a statement that the Tories will ruin things is guesswork.

doire_2

It should be interesting when the 'financial steroids' have stopped

Graham_Devon

The tories can not "wreck" the economy. It is already wrecked.

At the moment, as I see it, we have a choice, that choice, it seems is basically the same choice WE all have, just on a massively larger scale.

- Cut back and reduce the debts and take the pain. The pain will therefore be shorter, but quicker.
- Look at our credit cards which we know we can't really pay back, and splurge a load more cash, putting ourselves into a precarious position where the possibility of bankrupcy is getting higher.

With the first choice, we are kind of accepting the situation and looking to sort it out.

With the second choice, we are accepting were in trouble, but trying desperately to ignore it and carry on as long as possible before the party ends.

The difference however for Gordon is he KNOWS the party ends in roughly may next year. So what's to lose?

Either way, he won't have to pay it back. The party may end, but it's unlikely to end for him before May when he can hand over and the party is still alive. He can walk out five mins before it all kicks off.

For the rest of us, we cannot carry on with choice 2 without having to face the mess.

Now, IF party politics was not in play here, if say Gordon had a secure 5-10 years ahead of him, I believe the game would be played extremely differently to how it is being played today.

kabayiri

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The difference however for Gordon is he KNOWS the party ends in roughly may next year. So what's to lose?

I wouldn't shed too many tears for Gordon. Word has it he's got a few nice 'gigs' lined up after the party.

All these MPs, they complain that the public has loft faith in them. Maybe it's because they are on a cushy number regardless.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The tories can not "wreck" the economy. It is already wrecked.

At the moment, as I see it, we have a choice, that choice, it seems is basically the same choice WE all have, just on a massively larger scale.

- Cut back and reduce the debts and take the pain. The pain will therefore be shorter, but quicker.
- Look at our credit cards which we know we can't really pay back, and splurge a load more cash, putting ourselves into a precarious position where the possibility of bankrupcy is getting higher.

With the first choice, we are kind of accepting the situation and looking to sort it out.

With the second choice, we are accepting were in trouble, but trying desperately to ignore it and carry on as long as possible before the party ends.

The difference however for Gordon is he KNOWS the party ends in roughly may next year. So what's to lose?

Either way, he won't have to pay it back. The party may end, but it's unlikely to end for him before May when he can hand over and the party is still alive. He can walk out five mins before it all kicks off.

For the rest of us, we cannot carry on with choice 2 without having to face the mess.

this was certainly the prevalent view in the 30's and is largely credited with causing the massive depression and fairly directly the second world war.

although it tempting to say that a country should be managed just like a domestic household budget unfortunately it doesn't really work that way.

government cutting back in times of recession will increase unemployment..
higher unemployment will mean people have less to spend and so more private compaies will go bankrupt so there will be more unemployed who will spend less so causing more private companies to go bust etc etc.


sadly this won't be a short sharp shock but a decade of massive unemployment and all the financial and social consequences

which is why the conservatives will probably continue the broadly the current polices (with of couse a lot of spin as to why they're quite different etc etc)

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

this was certainly the prevalent view in the 30's and is largely credited with causing the massive depression and fairly directly the second world war.

although it tempting to say that a country should be managed just like a domestic household budget unfortunately it doesn't really work that way.

government cutting back in times of recession will increase unemployment..
higher unemployment will mean people have less to spend and so more private compaies will go bankrupt so there will be more unemployed who will spend less so causing more private companies to go bust etc etc.


sadly this won't be a short sharp shock but a decade of massive unemployment and all the financial and social consequences

which is why the conservatives will probably continue the broadly the current polices (with of couse a lot of spin as to why they're quite different etc etc)

Agree to all of the above.

However, this is stimulus. Stimulus will have to end sometime. Whether that be through bankrupcy, or a change of tact for political reasons.

When the stimulus ends, all of what you say will happen any way.

Some stimulus is obviously crucial, but a lot of the stimulus we are seeing now, is only creating the need for something, to create the need for keeping a person in employment.

So effectively, we create a need for a job, and then offer the job. However, that need is not a natural need.

A recent example is paying people to train other people. The training job is created. Then, the people to train are created through the benefits system whereby they have to go on training courses to keep their benefits income.

We therefore pay the benefits to someone going on a course to keep their benefits, and we pay the training to train the people who are only there to keep their benefits.

That cannot go on forever. A system on "created" need cannot go on forever where we pay for the need and pay for the servicing of the need. It's coming out of our pockets, and theres only so much they can take from there.

CLAPTON

Once the economy is growing again then slowly reducing the stimulus will be possible without causing an increase in unemployment... and growth can resume again.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'natural need' ..what is that... holidays, nights out, flat scren TVs, large houses, sport are 'real' ... but a training course is somehow artifical? (I have to say I think that the training courses are largely rubbish but that's a different story)