Ed Balls... Jesus wept

lvader

Masomnia wrote: »

Fact is, we're selling too many gilts.

Didn't you get the memo? The BOE is buying most of the gilts in the form of QE.

Thrugelmir

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

It's obviously a balancing act, but I think there's too much of a tendency on this board to go with the blanket 'debt is always bad, therefore anything that increases it is always bad and anything that decreases it is always good' approach rather than considering each proposal on its merits.

Debt isn't "bad". However the UK is in a situation where the end of growth in the debt pile cannot be forecast. The politicians cannot rely on the old mantra of growth to inflate the debt away. Life is no longer that simple. Until there is at least light at the end of the tunnel. A squeeze needs to be applied that at least maximises the way money is spent.

PaulF81

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

This is only taking one side of the issue into account though. Yes, with increased borrowing there's the risk of higher credit cost in future that'd make debt harder to repay. But reduced spending increases the risk of reducing growth, which would also make debt harder to repay -- if we cut debt by 3% but in the process lost 4% of GDP we would be in a worse position than when we started. It's obviously a balancing act, but I think there's too much of a tendency on this board to go with the blanket 'debt is always bad, therefore anything that increases it is always bad and anything that decreases it is always good' approach rather than considering each proposal on its merits.

the gdp drop would be temporary. the added debt is permanent. tell me the last time we ran a surplus.

sheffield_lad

PaulF81 wrote: »

the gdp drop would be temporary. the added debt is permanent. tell me the last time we ran a surplus.

Tell me the last time anyone talked about paying it all back :eek:

More bus lane enforcment officers thats what we need lol

oldvicar

PaulF81 wrote: »

the gdp drop would be temporary. the added debt is permanent. tell me the last time we ran a surplus.

I haven't checked, but believe that it was under Gordon Brown around the turn of the millennium. In the 1997 election campaign to be credible Labour had committed to follow the outgoing (Tory) government's spending plans. After that he let rip.

heathcote123

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

Interesting read. It might work for a sausage factory, but not much else.

nickmason

Apologies to those who will take this as politicking; but the positivity on this thread towards Alistair Darling, and the vitriol towards Ed Balls, reminds me of some comments made recently by a senior Blairite.

He was arguing that Alistair Darling has come to be seen as the best - possibly only - option for the Labour party "after Ed" (who most of the party has given up on). If this is to become more than mere speculation, then watch him play a big part in the Future of the Union debate.

As for Ed Balls - I rather enjoyed the following, damning, description: "He's the man who having burnt the house down, is outside on the lawn telling the fire brigade what to do. Even if he's right, he's still the guy that burnt the house down".

CLAPTON

nickmason wrote: »

Apologies to those who will take this as politicking; but the positivity on this thread towards Alistair Darling, and the vitriol towards Ed Balls, reminds me of some comments made recently by a senior Blairite.

He was arguing that Alistair Darling has come to be seen as the best - possibly only - option for the Labour party "after Ed" (who most of the party has given up on). If this is to become more than mere speculation, then watch him play a big part in the Future of the Union debate.

As for Ed Balls - I rather enjoyed the following, damning, description: "He's the man who having burnt the house down, is outside on the lawn telling the fire brigade what to do. Even if he's right, he's still the guy that burnt the house down".

yes he was part of the economic team that let the house burn down

but lets bear in mind the current economic team

a. promised to continue spending at Labour levels
b. wanted further financial sector deregulation (especially in the mortgage market)
c. were in favour of low interest rates that were fueling the housing bubble

take your pick

Wookster

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes he was part of the economic team that let the house burn down

but lets bear in mind the current economic team

a. promised to continue spending at Labour levels
b. wanted further financial sector deregulation (especially in the mortgage market)
c. were in favour of low interest rates that were fueling the housing bubble

take your pick

Another Labour moron who think they can absolve responsibility by arguing is that the other guys would have done the same.

Do you realise how stupid this makes you sound?

T.Howard

Wookster wrote: »

In order to actually find a solution to our current economic woes you need to really understand the problem.

Ed Balls, Ed Milliband and the vast majority of the rest of the Labour party just simply do not understand what actually caused the 2008 credit crunch and therefore will never ever be able to actually resolve any of the deep economic problems the UK is suffering from, instead they will only be able to apply plasters that actually leave the wound to turn gangrenous.

It is a good thing they aren't in power.

Grass is always greener!