Madmen in Authority

Kohoutek

LauraW10 wrote: »

And they MUST know that - so I can only reach the conclusion that they are lying to the electorate! Why would they do that?

Well, some organisations have called for early big cuts in the UK, like the OECD and EU, so I suppose it depends who they're listening too. The OECD said the UK should make big cuts, raise interest rates and withdraw QE. You'd think that they want to see us in Great Depression II with advice like that...

I wouldn't underestimate the stupidity and naivety of politicians, it's not necessarily lying. After all, Gordon Brown put the UK's fiscal policy on a trajectory for a world where he thought boom and bust had been 'abolished'. Obviously he didn't live in the real world...

tattycath

LauraW10 wrote: »

We are not in this position because of "spend, spend, spend" we are in this position because we bailed out the banks.

and because more money was put in the system -and it had to have been borrowed from somewhere- but this plan of action didn't really have the desired effect, it just exacerbated the problem

Degenerate

Kohoutek wrote: »

But Krugman is referring to the whole G20 in that article. The main countries that are starting 'austerity' immediately are the Eurozone countries that don't control their own currencies. So they have three options - austerity, get into more debt, or default. 'Restructuring' debt, i.e. defaulting is very common in developing countries. It means that creditors take the loss for bad debts and big deficits, rather than being socialised through austerity.

Default is inevitable in some of the Euro-zone countries. They would be better off working out a plan for the currency break-up and debt restructuring and implementing it as quickly as possible. It's going to be economically destructive, but all austerity achieves is to grind their economies down further in the meantime.

mbga9pgf

LauraW10 wrote: »

And the coalition MUST know that - so I can only reach the conclusion that they are lying to the electorate! Why would they do that?

Because if you were freshly elected, would you want moderate pain over the term of the election, or lots of pain at the start followed by real evidence of recovery towards the end?

Why do you think the coalition has been pushing for a fixed 5 year term?

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Dont you get it? We exploded the deficit and it didnt change a thing, apart from conning thick Labour voters that it was all going to be ok, when really it wasnt? All we did was delay the inevitable, at massive cost, for the ego of one man, Gordon Brown.

How do you know that?

mbga9pgf

LauraW10 wrote: »

We are not in this position because of "spend, spend, spend" we are in this position because we bailed out the banks.

Want to explain why we had a deficit from 2001 onwards, and why if you strip out debt consumption out of the GDP figures, we have been in recession since 2000?

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Because if you were freshly elected, would you want moderate pain over the term of the election, or lots of pain at the start followed by real evidence of recovery towards the end?

Why do you think the coalition has been pushing for a fixed 5 year term?

Ahh so you agree that the coalition deficit plan will be designed for political motives not for the good of the country, now we are getting somewhere

tattycath

I think you mean:

StevieJ wrote: »

Ahh so you agree that the coalition deficit plan will be designed for political motives and for the good of the country, now we are getting somewhere

LauraW10

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well, some organisations have called for early big cuts in the UK, like the OECD and EU, so I suppose it depends who they're listening too. The OECD said the UK should make big cuts, raise interest rates and withdraw QE. You'd think that they want to see us in Great Depression II with advice like that...

I wouldn't underestimate the stupidity and naivety of politicians, it's not necessarily lying. After all, Gordon Brown put the UK's fiscal policy on a trajectory for a world where he thought boom and bust had been 'abolished'. Obviously he didn't live in the real world...

"or" they don't believe in "big" government and this is their oppotunity and they only have a few years to do what they really want to do - which is to slash the public sector, whatever the cost, and whether the moment is right or not? And if that is the case why would the Lib Dems be a part of that?

StevieJ

tattycath wrote: »

I think you mean:

I know what I mean, thankyou