Austerity Vs Growth

Going4TheDream

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

I agree with that completely, we do need to start some spending to kick start some growth. What I don't agree with is that spending automatically should mean borrowing. We could use the money we have better.

Take one thing, the billions we are now paying out to these back to work advisers like A4E and all the other copycats. In a time of plenty they are a good PR gimmick, they make the government look like they are doing something about the long term unemployed and help to fudge the unemployment figures. When times are lean though gimmicks are not necessarily cost effective. The amount we are spending on them is producing pitiful results in actually getting people back to long term work. Much better would be to get out of these contracts asap and use those billions to fund tax cuts and business incentives so the money directly helps business to grow and take on new workers.

That's just one thing, there are many ways we could put the money we do have to be use and I don't just mean by cutting all services and benefits in sight. We need to cut smart not on political whims and then we need to use the money smart, currently we are not doing either of those two things.

I am very much inclined to agree. All these companies make large profits. Why can they not be done cheaper in house so to speak, using synergy of scales.

Private funded initiatives cost an absolute fortune and we are tied in to many for many year, was this really the only way we could build schools/ hospitals. Why do we pay such companies £8 for a ream of paper for gods sakes, that is just for starters.

!!!!!! I know its not that simple but any housewife or family or even single person these days is looking at ways of stretching their £'s to make them go as far as possible

Is it really so unrealistic to expect the government to do be doing the same?

Fella

pqrdef wrote: »

Fact is, the government doesn't believe in austerity at all. In fact it's got no coherent economic strategy of any kind. It's just using the state of the economy as the excuse for ideological spending cuts, which it hopes to turn into tax cuts for the rich eventually.

Tax cuts for the rich? Under the coalition the highest rate of tax is a huge 45%. That's 5% more than it was throughout Labour's 13-year stint in power.

(I'm going to assume no-one reading this board is stupid enough to view the rise to 50% that Gordon Brown instigated 5 minutes before he was booted out of No 10 as anything other than the pathetic bit of politics that it was).

CLAPTON

crash123 wrote: »

I can do a balance sheet.
I asked you who was going to pay? If not us/our children etc. The other option is we default we do not pay
I am not bothered that the West is in decline. Everything moves in cycles.

firstly lets remember that in 1945 the national debt was 250% of gdp ; now its round 80% of gdp

nevetheless there was money to set up the NHS, to massively improve education and there was a continous improvement in the health, wealth and living standards and opportunities of the UK peoples

that's because the government of the day choose a path of growth rather than simple 'family' book-keeping

it wasn't a zero sum game.

so the debts can be paid off if we grow and don't go down the road of 25% unemplyment that we see in Spain and Greece.

Invest and grow; there will then be more wealth to pay the debts down

and of course internal debt (i.e. debt owed to the UK peoples) is merely a recycling of the money which is just a transfer from one section of our society to the other

crash123

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Private funded initiatives cost an absolute fortune and we are tied in to many for many year, was this really the only way we could build schools/ hospitals. Why do we pay such companies £8 for a ream of paper for gods sakes, that is just for starters.

My sister was a school teacher and I remember her telling me that a clock for the wall was about £30 that you could buy from Argos for £10 but you weren`t allowed to buy it from Argos.

Going4TheDream wrote: »

!!!!!! I know its not that simple but any housewife or family or even single person these days is looking at ways of stretching their £'s to make them go as far as possible

Is it really so unrealistic to expect the government to do be doing the same?

It is not unrealistic. Remember the saying `look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves`.

bigadaj

The PFI schemes, or PPP, weren't actually bad in principle, just very poorly carried out. AS with any contract you are reliant on the people managing and administering it being competent and politicians and civil servants unfortunately aren't. Some contracts were actually good, even where there were large profits, as the builders/ financiers took on a large amount of risk and/ or were very efficient unfortunately these were very much in the minority. THe political reason for this was of course to get the spending off the governments balance sheet but that's another issue.

crash123

CLAPTON wrote: »

firstly lets remember that in 1945 the national debt was 250% of gdp ; now its round 80% of gdp

nevetheless there was money to set up the NHS, to massively improve education and there was a continous improvement in the health, wealth and living standards and opportunities of the UK peoples

that's because the government of the day choose a path of growth rather than simple 'family' book-keeping

it wasn't a zero sum game.

so the debts can be paid off if we grow and don't go down the road of 25% unemplyment that we see in Spain and Greece.

Invest and grow; there will then be more wealth to pay the debts down

and of course internal debt (i.e. debt owed to the UK peoples) is merely a recycling of the money which is just a transfer from one section of our society to the other

It seems we got some very cheap loans from the Americans and only finished paying it back in 2006.Google is wonderful isn`t it.
Lets hope our borrowing costs stay cheap. Can`t see it but you never know.
Yes we need to grow but not sure where that is going to come from. Do not trust this lot to spend wisely. Sorry have no faith in either party.

CLAPTON

crash123 wrote: »

It seems we got some very cheap loans from the Americans and only finished paying it back in 2006.Google is wonderful isn`t it.
Lets hope our borrowing costs stay cheap. Can`t see it but you never know.
Yes we need to grow but not sure where that is going to come from. Do not trust this lot to spend wisely. Sorry have no faith in either party.

I wonder if the people in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, saw where the growth was coming from?

crash123

CLAPTON wrote: »

I wonder if the people in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, saw where the growth was coming from?

Where do you see it coming from? genuine question.

CLAPTON

crash123 wrote: »

Where do you see it coming from? genuine question.

to be honest I failed to predict mobile phones, internet, WiFI, google, facebook, the rise of India and China, the commodities boom, global warming, solar panels, costa coffee, car climate control, adaptive 4x4, artificial hips, GPS/SatNav and much much more

but I believe that given the right environment growth will come, probably from things I haven't predicted.

crash123

CLAPTON wrote: »

to be honest I failed to predict mobile phones, internet, WiFI, google, facebook, the rise of India and China, the commodities boom, global warming, solar panels, costa coffee, car climate control, adaptive 4x4, artificial hips, GPS/SatNav and much much more

but I believe that given the right environment growth will come, probably from things I haven't predicted.

Thanks.
Lets hope it is British inventions. I just wish that the money invested in houses had been spent in other areas.