The Money Tree

grizzly1911

lvader wrote: »

Growth figures take inflation into account so zero growth is keeping pace with inflation.

It might take into account a measure of inflation which does not reflect that being sustained by the poorest. Energy, fuel, food, housing more often than not rise faster and account for a much bigger proportion of their "income" which is now pegged at 1% now.

I very much doubt that business will be happy to stay constant and to increase profutability often means reduction in staff costs.

CLAPTON

robmatic wrote: »

Why is growth the be all and end all? We had plenty of fake growth in the Noughties to last us for a while and look where we ended up.

We have a massive amount of personal and public debt - deleveraging will take years.

growth isn't the be all and end all

however we live in a world where technological and organisational progress is still being made, so productivity is increasing.

with no growth the current level of goods and services can be produced with less labour so in a static situation unemployment is likely to increase.

usually people consider that a negative.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It might take into account a measure of inflation which does not reflect that being sustained by the poorest. Energy, fuel, food, housing more often than not rise faster and account for a much bigger proportion of their "income" which is now pegged at 1% now.

I very much doubt that business will be happy to stay constant and to increase profutability often means reduction in staff costs.

Increasing profitability means decreasing staff costs compared to output.

When times are good output (GDP) is rising so wages can rise and profitability increase at the same time. Also, managers can refuse pay rises and not lose staff as there are fewer alternatives for staff to leave for.

Wookster

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I didn't ask for the rich to taxed more - you suggested it.

I do think our governing elite are totally out of touch.

What happens after 2016.2017,2018 with little or no growth.?

Well there are only two ways to plug the deficit: tax rises or spending cuts. Growth will remedy it far too slowly to be a credible solution.

If by governing elite you mean our entire political class with a very few exceptions then I'll go along with you but if you mean the "two posh boys" then we'll have to agree to differ.

Good question as to what happens in 2016 onwards with no growth. I think this is the new norm and we'd better get used to it. After all we (as a country) are wealthy enough, we don't need much more, it just needs to be more equitably spread. We need to make/produce & grow more of the things we consume and reduce the cost of living so that our wealth goes farther (eg. with more houses to bring down the cost of housing, better insulation to bring down the cost of energy).

Using the resources we have more efficiently should be the prime focus of our activity, not simply going for growth as the be all and end all.

These are all simple things yet no one is talking about them.

PaulF81

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Without growth inflation will rapidly erode the means of the poorest in society to live. It will mean that unemployment and welfare costs will increase as business cuts to stay afloat.

Let the poorest eat cake. Or not, as the case may be.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

It exists!

http://www.easybloom.com/plantlibrary/plant/money-tree

Better still you can eat the fruit.

The Socialist Tax Flying Unicorn which can tax unlimited amounts of money from The Rich remains to be discovered however.

Tories in power for 22 years between 1970 and 1997.

Number of years Tories ran a surplus = 2

(1988 & 1989).

Labour in power for 23 years between 1964 and 2009

Number of years Labour ran a surplus = 9

(1998 - 2001 inclusive, and 1964-1968 inclusive).

How come when the 20th Century is generally seen by historians as one of mainly Conservative rule that it is always "the Socialists" fault.


The Tories - "its never their fault".

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Tories in power for 22 years between 1970 and 1997.

Number of years Tories ran a surplus = 2

(1988 & 1989).

Labour in power for 23 years between 1964 and 2009

Number of years Labour ran a surplus = 9

(1998 - 2001 inclusive, and 1964-1968 inclusive).

How come when the 20th Century is generally seen by historians as one of mainly Conservative rule that it is always "the Socialists" fault.


The Tories - "its never their fault".

Who said anything about anyone's fault? I just thought it was amusing that I found the money tree!