Postpone some of the cuts?

tomterm8

Yes, he is also responsible for the 200% debt to GDP ratio of Japan, the $1.5 trillion debt of America, the fact the Irish economy has shrunk more than at any time since the great depression, and the fact that half the peripheral European countries have had recessions actually slightly worse than the great depression. The AntiCameron is indeed powerful.

Thrugelmir

[QUOTE=DervProf;40822232OK._The_question_I'd_like_to_ask,_where_has_all_this_defecit_come_from_?_Did_we_not_have_quite_high_economic_growth_from_2001_-2007_(HPI_would_have_suggested_that_we_did)_?_If_so,_why_do_we_now_have_such_a_large_defecit_?_During_the_"good_times",_did_we_have_a_surplus_?_I_would_have_thought_that_we_would_have_done,_so_where_did_the_surplus_go_?[/QUOTE]

A growing contribution in taxation revenues from the Financial sector (note I used a broader term than banks alone) was a key driver in funding Government spending during 2001-2007. When the financial crash occured in 2008 and as events subsequently unfolded. Tax revenues have diminished.

To recover this lost tax revenue will neccessitate growth in other sectors of the economy. This will take time.

DervProf

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A growing contribution in taxation revenues from the Financial sector (note I used a broader term than banks alone) was a key driver in funding Government spending during 2001-2007. When the financial crash occured in 2008 and as events subsequently unfolded. Tax revenues have diminished.

To recover this lost tax revenue will neccessitate growth in other sectors of the economy. This will take time.

I try to keep my eggs in different baskets. I find it safer.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Agreed. The cuts have little to do with ecomonics and a lot to do with ideology. They won't back down under any circumstances as it would mean the end of Oik's career and the likely end of the Tories.

That just goes to show you just don't get it.

tomterm8 wrote: »

It is ideological on all sides.

Its ideological when you are running a balanced budget, but its not ideological when you are running >10% budget deficit.

How many times does this have to be said?

This silly notion that you can live beyond your means indefinitely is what got us into this mess in the first place.

LauraW10

ILW wrote: »

I still cannot see how throwing more and more money at a non productive public sector can do anything but get the country deeper into debt.

We know that It's nothing to be proud off (joke!)

LauraW10

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

That's not what the press release says. Any "case" (what they actually say) for postponing some 'cuts' is based on the ever-dodgy output gap that the BoE admit to have totally misjudged prior to the recession.<br><br>The report does say:<br>"In the longer term, however, the government should set itself a more ambitious target of running sustained surpluses to prepare for the cost of population ageing."<br><br>The NIESR saying we can spend more now because of low interest rates is bizarre. It's the reigning in of more spending that has led to lower borrowing costs! <br><br>Britain is currently paying 1.5% less than Germany, US & Japan for 10 year borrowing based on current inflation rates*. There is an assumption in the market that inflation will come down over the next decade and Britain will not continue spending at such a crazy rate. Any foolhardy change in government policy will dramatically change our creditworthiness.<br><br>The cost of borrowing is projected to rise from £30bn last year to £64bn by the end of this parliament. How high should  the debt bill become before Labour supporters stop their support for  rampant spending?<br><br>*bottom chart from Nomura in this ftalphaville post.<br>

Mr Mumble there may be some good points in here but I find this post unreadable.

Surely, if you have some good points, they are worth making so we/I can read them?

tomterm8

Wookster wrote: »

Its ideological when you are running a balanced budget, but its not ideological when you are running >10% budget deficit.

How many times does this have to be said?

This silly notion that you can live beyond your means indefinitely is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Yes. Your post is purely ideological. Who said anything about 'living beyond your means indefinitely'. Only you.

Before the government cuts started to take effect, the budget deficit had started to shrink. Now, even before we have seen 95% of the cuts, the budget deficit is growing again. Which is what I predicted would happen.

The debate is about how to cut the deficit, and how to 'stop living beyond our means'.

Putting us back into recession with badly thought out economic policy based on slogans and not thought is not a great way to do that.

LauraW10

ILW wrote: »

The theory is the same, increasing the amount of borrowing every month or year finally hits a point where the money needed to service the interest alone is more than income. = No public services whatsoever.

If the government puts the UK into recession the deficit will end up higher than it would have done under Labour. So what you say is true. It will happen faster under the Tories.

LauraW10

ILW wrote: »

you can find "experts" for all sides of the argument. Many who have proved themselves wrong in the past.

Well find us some experts to back up your arguments please. I, for one, will read with interest.:)

LauraW10

Wookster wrote: »

That just goes to show you just don't get it.



Its ideological when you are running a balanced budget, but its not ideological when you are running >10% budget deficit.

How many times does this have to be said?

This silly notion that you can live beyond your means indefinitely is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Why don't you back your POV up with some real evidence Wookster?