Red Eds Speech and the word Deficit

Gracchus_Babeuf

angrypirate wrote: »

Please can you avoid using personal insults. Just because we have a difference of opinions doesnt give you or anyone on this forum a right to be rude or abusive. I object to being called a moron or idiot.

Fine, happy to refrain. In which case can you please avoid using the forum to preach your monetarist ideology in such an arrogant tone.

angrypirate wrote: »

You obviously believe that piling on the responsibility of paying back this spiralling debt to future generations is acceptable. You think its acceptable to spend more than you can make, that its ok to have a bigger public sector than private sector. Well, there is no debating this - IT ISNT OK.

I'll also let you into a little secret - the morons who actually started quantitative easing and inflation were the Labour party.

The old red herring: 'future generations'. Ok, in this case you believe that it is acceptable that the present mainstream age group of people in employment, aged between 25 and 55, should shoulder the whole burden of paying back this debt. No sir, I think not! The burden has to be shared equally. And your statements are showing that you have a purely ideological agenda. There is no 'spiralling debt' - the debt can be be controlled and paid back gradually over several decades, even centuries if needs be, as long as the economy grows! Labour's mistake was not paying back the debt when it could afford to do so - I fully admit it was a mistake, no doubt about it.

The current government is following a policy of economic retrenchment that will worsen the deficit because it prevents the economy from growing. How can the economy grow when there is less money to spend? QE is useful only insofar as it sustains the stock market artifically, but it does nothing to stimulate demand.

Conrad

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You are truly a first class idiot. You make statements without understanding a thing about the consequences of what you suggest.

What good do you think 'real austerity' will do? Nothing is the answer. Piling on misery on ordinary people is not the answer. The answer is getting the economy to grow and create wealth that can then be used to pay off the bl**dy deficit. Austerity will contract the economy and then the national debt will keep rising and rising forever.

You are delluded.

From the 1970's, low skill work slowly leached abroad as consumers always seek out best price (mse style).

This void was then filled with something new, debt.

That system was always going to fail and sure enough in 2007 it did.


Your whole outlook predicates on the greedy assumption we the special people are ENTITLED to FAR more than we produce.

Your method is the lazy easy one. The one that pleases the masses by yet again showering them with money allowing them to continue thier greedy mass entitlment.

Our way is to slowly rebalance the economy and start selling to the world. Simpletons don't do patient hard graft.

Even after this period of austerity - lite, we will remain vastly over entitled. I mean, GP's often end up with a £4m pension pot - just one person !!!!!!!

Generali

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

based as it is on monetarism

No it's not.

Monetarism is an emphasis on controlling prices via the mechanism of the money supply. As Labour outsourced the money supply to the Bank of England, that is no longer a concern of Government.

chewmylegoff

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You are truly a first class idiot. You make statements without understanding a thing about the consequences of what you suggest.

What good do you think 'real austerity' will do? Nothing is the answer. Piling on misery on ordinary people is not the answer. The answer is getting the economy to grow and create wealth that can then be used to pay off the bl**dy deficit. Austerity will contract the economy and then the national debt will keep rising and rising forever.

the answer is, as always, not one or the other, but both, with some tax rises thrown in.

public spending at the moment is about £560 billion, compared to tax revenues of £440 billion. in order for tax revenues to catch up with public spending without any increase in the tax burden, GDP would therefore have to grow by nearly 30% just to bridge the gap that already exists (assuming that tax revenue stays constant as a % of GDP, and recognising that you don't need to balance the books, just to bring the deficit to within a manageable level).

clearly that is about as likely to happen in as ed milliband defecting to the tory party. economic growth is mostly beyond the control of politicians in a 'global' economy. the bits they do definitely control are how much we tax people and how much we spend. true, we can achieve growth by borrowing money and spending it to boost GDP, but as the years 1997-2007 show, that tends to just bring forward consumption which ends in tears...

any government is going to have to control public spending, and the reality is that labour were planning to cut public spending in a similar way to the current coalition, and will do the same assuming they get in in 2015 (whilst blaming it all on the tories). labour will also increase taxes for the rich, but as that is really a symbolic gesture which will raise precious little in revenue, they will also resort to increases in taxation which hit everyone.

i predict that under the next labour administration, the gap between rich and poor will continue to increase.

kabayiri

As a nation we manage to find £10bn+ on an NHS IT system and £10bn+ on a world sporting event with a rather lavish party wrapping it.

The robotics research centre used to struggle to attract funding running into the 10s of millions. It shows where our priorities lie.

We need to invest more in R&D to achieve growth, and cut back the state to pay for it. It's not politically attractive and thus it won't happen.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Generali wrote: »

No it's not.

Monetarism is an emphasis on controlling prices via the mechanism of the money supply. As Labour outsourced the money supply to the Bank of England, that is no longer a concern of Government.

Semantics. I would just prefer to call it Tory economic dogma.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Conrad wrote: »

You are delluded.

From the 1970's, low skill work slowly leached abroad as consumers always seek out best price (mse style).

This void was then filled with something new, debt.

That system was always going to fail and sure enough in 2007 it did.


Your whole outlook predicates on the greedy assumption we the special people are ENTITLED to FAR more than we produce.

Your method is the lazy easy one. The one that pleases the masses by yet again showering them with money allowing them to continue thier greedy mass entitlment.

Our way is to slowly rebalance the economy and start selling to the world. Simpletons don't do patient hard graft.

Even after this period of austerity - lite, we will remain vastly over entitled. I mean, GP's often end up with a £4m pension pot - just one person !!!!!!!

So I take it your solution is to turn our country into a European version of China or India? No thanks. We cannot compete with the third world and we should not even try. What we can and should do is ensure that our markets are protected against incursions from these sources of cheap labour. I do agree with you about public sector pensions, but that is another issue altogether.

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

As a nation we manage to find £10bn+ on an NHS IT system and £10bn+ on a world sporting event with a rather lavish party wrapping it.

The robotics research centre used to struggle to attract funding running into the 10s of millions. It shows where our priorities lie.

We need to invest more in R&D to achieve growth, and cut back the state to pay for it. It's not politically attractive and thus it won't happen.

Our priorities include useless foreign aid (many african academics now saying it automatically breeds inefectual local Governance), fighting very costly wars and other money wastes that could make a massive difference if used to pay down our debt.

Honstly, I'd make do with a very small border protection military just as plenty of other developed nations make do with, and note they attract less terrorist attention!

Gracchus_Babeuf

Well, foreign aid is one of those 'feelgood' things that the libertarians in the Tory party love as it makes them look all nice, loving and cuddly. Wasting millions of pounds on propping up a bunch of tin pot dictators is OK when we have a record deficit.

Conrad

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

So I take it your solution is to turn our country into a European version of China or India? No thanks. We cannot compete with the third world and we should not even try. What we can and should do is ensure that our markets are protected against incursions from these sources of cheap labour. I do agree with you about public sector pensions, but that is another issue altogether.

I said the only answer was to upskill!!!
We cannot hope to raise wages in the manner the union numpties argue for. That would be an automatic job killer as consumers wont pay those higher prices, even with higher incomes, no they will just buy even more from china.

I disagree with you on the protectionism as we would lose out, however I would like to see mse British bargain hunters being a little bit more thoughtful in thier purchasing decisions, instead of always going for best value, say on new tyres.