Chancellor on course to hit targets

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

my dear fellow; the question was posed and I gave the standard (abbreviated) economics textbook answer

it was in the context of 'good ' times and not in the context of 'bad' times

you may know that already or you may not wish to learn or you may know everything there is to know about economics

others might be interested or maybe not


regards

Depends on which economic text books you read.

Do you have the theory for the bad times too?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Depends on which economic text books you read.

Do you have the theory for the bad times too?

I simply quoted the theory to help those that didn't know.

The generally accepted Keynesian theory for bad times is for the government to spend and so create additional demand and then the 'multiplier ' effect will bring the economy out of recession........ but you knew that.

chewmylegoff

lvader wrote: »

That is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read here.

Really? How do you think we would have bailed out our banks without borrowing? How do you think we would cover our budget deficit without debt? If we had no national debt, the only explanation would be that we hadn't borrowed any money. If we hadn't borrowed any money this country would be an economic ruin, a total disaster.

hallmark

Degenerate wrote: »

More recently they've been trying the "grind your economy into dust with austerity" plan blah blah blah

Haven't bothered reading any more of what you've written since if the rest of it is as moronic as that it'd be a waste of time.

Just for starters, do you even know the numbers behind the "austerity plan". We're still spending fortunes, way more than we should be & way more than even the utterly profligate nulabor disaster did for most of their term.

Quite unbelievable that anyone still defends Broon. A man so inept that he proclaimed to have got rid of boom & bust & nearly got away with it.......purely because he wasted so much money during the boom years that almost no-one noticed we were actually in one.

Everyone's noticing the bust he left us with though.

lvader

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Really? How do you think we would have bailed out our banks without borrowing? How do you think we would cover our budget deficit without debt? If we had no national debt, the only explanation would be that we hadn't borrowed any money. If we hadn't borrowed any money this country would be an economic ruin, a total disaster.

How about if we didn't have debt and had money saved for a rainy day, many people live just fine following that rule. Not all countries have debt and run deficits either.

grizzly1911

hallmark wrote: »

Quite unbelievable that anyone still defends Broon. A man so inept that he proclaimed to have got rid of boom & bust & nearly got away with it.......purely because he wasted so much money during the boom years that almost no-one noticed we were actually in one.

Everyone's noticing the bust he left us with though.

I certainly don't defend Brown he certainly played a pretty poor hand.Raided pensions, undermining many peoples futures increasing the tax take for the average Jo

I don't know but I would be surprised if the conservatives would have been running a surplus had they been in power. Even if they had would it have survived the global Meltdown?

I don't believe labour were solely responsible for bank deregulation. Certainly labour didn't police it but that is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Part of the reason labour tend to be proliferate is often to give back some "normality" after periods of conservative austerity - the cycle occurring because both parties had extended periods in power.

The worst thing a party can do is to stay in power too long.

I certainly don't advocate getting further into new debt but I do think it is a high risk strategy to expect the private sector to provide the life rafts. If they do they will want paying for them.

bendix

It truly is amazing the depths people will go to to bitterly resent George Osborne actually doing what he promised to do, and doing it efficiently.

You Labourites just hate being proven wrong, don't you? Years and years of economic mismanagement, and the Tories come back in and within a year and a half, we are back on track to reducing the budget as planned, despite operating in the tumultuous economic circumstances such as your lot never experienced.

hallmark

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The worst thing a party can do is to stay in power too long.

Yes altho the US system isn't perfect the limit on two terms for a President is a good rule. In the UK the 3rd term seems to be the one that goes most off the rails. And the UK system should change immediately the rule that allows an unelected leader like Brown to ever be in charge. At the very least there should be a published list of who would takeover leadership so people know what they're voting for.

CLAPTON

hallmark wrote: »

Yes altho the US system isn't perfect the limit on two terms for a President is a good rule. In the UK the 3rd term seems to be the one that goes most off the rails. And the UK system should change immediately the rule that allows an unelected leader like Brown to ever be in charge. At the very least there should be a published list of who would takeover leadership so people know what they're voting for.

another brilliant idea with new 'rules' and un-necessary changes to our constitution to solve a problem we don't have.

the 'published list' would almost certainly have had Brown as number 1

hallmark

CLAPTON wrote: »

another brilliant idea with new 'rules' and un-necessary changes to our constitution to solve a problem we don't have.

the 'published list' would almost certainly have had Brown as number 1

An unelected leader is a substantial problem & if you can't see why you're a moron.