Ed Balls... Jesus wept

hallmark

Nulabor don't have a clue how to improve the economy. The sum total of their combined genius is for the Government to spend more in the hope that the public will spend more.

At some point it may occur to these utter morons that what's actually required is an environment where businesses can flourish & generate actual real money & jobs etc. I.e. less red tape, less NI, less of all the endless regulation & expense they spent their entire time in office heaping upon businesses.

The fact is they are economically illiterate & the extent of their ability is to squawk about "hard working families" & moan about the cuts whilst offering no apology for the mess they left us in & no suggestions as to real ways to get us out of it.

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well the proposal is for a VAT cut - so presumably the plan is to stimulate GDP growth by encouraging people to circulate money more within the economy, buy a few more things from each other, hopefully imported, that sort of thing. an excellent form of wealth creation which will leave us well placed to pay back all the extra debt.

The UK needs to cut imports not increase them. Around 3 million people work in the retail sector compared to 1 million in manufacturing. The imbalance needs to worked through. Much in the same way as Private\Public sector. The economy needs rebalancing. Which may take a decade to achieve.

nearlynew

I still don't understand why people think what politicians have a say in the way things are run.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

My question, however was whether Say's Law was working in Ireland or Greece?

What relevance has something written many many years ago in a different era to the situation today?

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What relevance has something written many many years ago in a different era to the situation today?

too true
exactly my point

do try to keep up

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm surprised

so you are saying that as a result of the VAT rise absolutely everyone continued spending exactly as before?

so we could solve the debt problem by raising VAT to say 40% and people would continue to spend exactly as before?

presumable the same applies to fuel prices or elecrticity or gas or water or transport too?

Were talking about a £5 saving on a white good, such as a £200 fridge. Not even £5 actually if the 2.5% cut labour propose was introduced. Thats if its passed on. I didn't see any change at all in any white good or anything sold by the likes of PC world, Comet etc when VAT was reduced, or increased. Prices stayed at rounded numbers, and the same rounded numbers.

It's not going to create spending. In either case, we'd probably not even notice.

Simply doubling the VAT rate overnight is a bit different. If labour were suggesting removing VAT altogether, then yes, I would agree, that would stimulate spending. But they are not. They are talking about saving the average family up to £40 a year on VAT rated goods, if it's passed on.

Worth remembering that even labour themselves exempted stuff like fuel from the VAT reduction in order to keep revenue up.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Were talking about a £5 saving on a white good, such as a £200 fridge. Not even £5 actually if the 2.5% cut labour propose was introduced. Thats if its passed on. I didn't see any change at all in any white good or anything sold by the likes of PC world, Comet etc when VAT was reduced, or increased. Prices stayed at rounded numbers, and the same rounded numbers.

Therein lies the problem. The UK no longer manufactures any white goods.

prosaver

its a game they play ..he dosent mean it ...you cant just say cut taxes.....
we know the score/;;;
the solution ?
http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/unemploy.htm

globalds

prosaver wrote: »

its a game they play ..he dosent mean it ...you cant just say cut taxes.....
we know the score/;;;
the solution ?
http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/unemploy.htm

Ahh but the greedy will hate that.
They will argue that it limits their opportunity and people should be allowed to give and get as much a they feel they are willing.

..whilst ignoring the obvious fact ..this is and never has been a win /win game .

If someone wants 70% ..then it can never really be shared out fairly ..

Masomnia

lvader wrote: »

You can't assume borrowing costs would stay low if the current prudent fiscal policy was abandond.

We can't assume borrowing costs will stay low in any case.

It's all well and good being a safe haven with relatively low rates, but a lot of funds are starting to move out of cash and safer assets and back into equities. Being a safe haven is only useful if everyone wants a safe haven, and if the optimism on the Eurozone is well founded, then there's going to be a sell off of bonds however prudent we are. Fact is, we're selling too many gilts.

Investors will only accept a negative real return for so long.