Ed Balls

Generali

LauraW10 wrote: »

The Labour party, or any party with politicians with half a brain between them, wouldn't have decimated consumer and business confidence within a week of coming into office...

NURSE! She's out of bed again.

Is your argument seriously that borrowing more money leads to less debt? I think your old maths teacher needs a talking to.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

NURSE! She's out of bed again.

Is your argument seriously that borrowing more money leads to less debt? I think your old maths teacher needs a talking to.

I think her argument is that less growth leads to a larger deficit.

And it clearly does.

The question then becomes would stimulus spending, done in the right way, create a multiplier effect into the wider economy, kick starting growth and ultimately reducing deficit spending.

I think it could, but as always, the devil is in the details.

IronWolf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think her argument is that less growth leads to a larger deficit.

And it clearly does.

As does increased interest rates.

I wonder which one would happen the fastest?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IronWolf wrote: »

As does increased interest rates.

UK Gilt Yields.:cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IronWolf wrote: »

I wonder which one would happen the fastest?

Perhaps we should just ask the biggest "bond vigilante" in the World......

In an interview in the Times on 5 September, the managing director of Pimco, Bill Gross, argued that:

"The economy in the UK is worse off than it was when the plan was developed, so there should be at a minimum fine-tuning and perhaps re-routing of the plan . . . the problem becomes if it is too quick and swift and leads to an economic contraction, which it appears close to doing in the UK. Bond investors obviously want not just low inflation but some type of positive growth. An economy that doesn't grow, like Japan, ultimately can't resolve its debt crisis, either."

angrypirate

smartn wrote: »

Unfortunately I think the Tories have done enough in the Autumn statement to ensure they wont be re-elected for another term. God help us when labour get back in.

I dunno. I think Balls might just be their saviour.

Also, if the proposed seat boundary changes go through, this currently weights significantly in Labours favour (FACT). In the 2005 general election labour got 35.2% of the votes to the tories 32.4% whereas in 2010 the tories got 36.1% to labours 29.0%. Go figure

angrypirate

LauraW10 wrote: »

The Labour Party were right. All the coalition have done is rack up vast amounts of debt and put millions on the dole.

Who knew? Well the following are just a few....


Paul Krugman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/22/paul-krugman-condemns-spending-review

Danny Blanchflower

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-blanchflower/2011/11/nothing-economics-european

Joseph Stiglitz

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-first-budget-its-wrong-wrong-wrong-2011501.html




Useless Tories.

I feel sorry for you Wookster having to be a cheerleader for the government. At least one of the coalition needs to read an economics text book......

Are you being sarcastic? I hope you are. After all, its Labour who ran up the massive debts, foolishly claiming they abolished boom and bust.

angrypirate

angrypirate wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic? I hope you are. After all, its Labour who ran up the massive debts, foolishly claiming they abolished boom and bust.

DOH - i forgot, Laura is the left wing Labour activist who, just like her leaders, doesnt understsand economics.

Can you tell me which party, prior to making Britain bankrupt, nearly went bankrupt themselves only to be bailed out by the unions. Oh hang on, wasnt that labour? They cant manage their party's finances let alone the whole country's

hallmark

Don't fall into the trap of arguing with people like LauraW10 who try to encourage arguments over "whether the severe austerity measures were necessary or not". It's an argument based on an entirely false premise. The "austerity measures" consist of the Govt continuing to spend a ridiculous percentage of GDP. Historically, the spending during the current "austerity" period is colossal compared to almost any other period in history.

The only reason it feels like cuts is it's being compared to the frankly insane & ruinously damaging policy of spending that Gordon Brown pursued.

I remember reading, years & years ago, that the current (as it was then) Labour Govt would bankrupt the country just like every other Labour Govt had before them. At the time it seemed far-fetched to a lot of people, but it turned out to be correct.

Ed Balls was & is an utter disgrace, offering no support for anything that's working (& quite how the coalition have maintained the UK's credit rating so far is a marvel). He's an attack-dog pure & simple, a career politician of the worst kind offering not one single credible policy, just banging on about how bad everything is & hoping people are too stupid to remember he was directly responsible for most of the policies that led us here.

IronWolf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

UK Gilt Yields.:cool:

Well thanks for proving my point. Austerity measures = low interest rates = saving money