Economic news brings fresh disaster to section of population!

Devon_Sailor

BobQ wrote: »

Blue coloured spectacles........

Instead of sitting in a US hotel room watching the drivell that passes for news on whatever local TV you were watching, you should have asked the US citizens about how cheerful they are.

Thank you Bob for that reasoned and well researched personal jibe; the common tool of choice on these forums it appears.

For your information, I wasn't in a hotel room I was embedded with the US Navy for two months. So, funny old thing, my impressions are gleaned from actual prolongued exposure both to US citizens and their economy in general; I think I am actually qualified to make the comment that I did, based on my own personal experience rather than what I read from whatever rags are on offer.

I stand by the point too about actual vs perceived cuts. If you go back to the last election, it was well spun by the left ("same old Tory cutting b***ards") but if you actually bothered to look beyond the facade, all three parties were actually fighting over the ridiculous nuances of who would raise spending by the least. If projected spend in department A is due to rise 4.5% under a returned Labour govt, but 2.5% by an incoming Tory one, that is not a CUT that is just slowing down increases!

And the actual, somewhat tongue in cheek nature of my post, was not that the world is all hunky-dory happy, but that it might not be quite as bad as it is made to appear by the continual force feeding of doom-mongering articles posted on here.

And to MOBY - mate, I am far from priviledged. But again, thank you for your baseless assumptions founded on nothing more than the fact I quoted from the Telegraph! :T

D_S

thor

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Absolutely, no doubt about it. However, continually talking the economy down simply to achieve one's own political objectives is both childish and socially negligent.

So you will similarly agree that the CONservatives were childish and socially negligent while they were in opposition? I don't seem to remember them talking up the economy when it needed it.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's the nature of recessions. Better that the lame ducks are allowed to die. So that new businesses can grow to take their place.

but too many "lame ducks" are dying,2012 was worse than 2008 for retail failures,and very few new businesses with any real chance of success are appearing,those that do will be under capitalised and wont last 18 months

[Deleted User]

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Thank you Bob for that reasoned and well researched personal jibe; the common tool of choice on these forums it appears.

For your information, I wasn't in a hotel room I was embedded with the US Navy for two months. So, funny old thing, my impressions are gleaned from actual prolongued exposure both to US citizens and their economy in general; I think I am actually qualified to make the comment that I did, based on my own personal experience rather than what I read from whatever rags are on offer.

I stand by the point too about actual vs perceived cuts. If you go back to the last election, it was well spun by the left ("same old Tory cutting b***ards") but if you actually bothered to look beyond the facade, all three parties were actually fighting over the ridiculous nuances of who would raise spending by the least. If projected spend in department A is due to rise 4.5% under a returned Labour govt, but 2.5% by an incoming Tory one, that is not a CUT that is just slowing down increases!

And the actual, somewhat tongue in cheek nature of my post, was not that the world is all hunky-dory happy, but that it might not be quite as bad as it is made to appear by the continual force feeding of doom-mongering articles posted on here.

And to MOBY - mate, I am far from priviledged. But again, thank you for your baseless assumptions founded on nothing more than the fact I quoted from the Telegraph! :T

D_S

and meanwhile back in the real world my next door neighbour who works in a supposed growth area has seen the company eploy 32 people 12 months ago now employs just 9,and my BIL has applied for 100 jobs in 3 months without a single reply never mind interview,i could go on but you get the gist
most people i know have simlar stories to tell and that is why it is all doom and gloom atm in the uk,and nobody is giving anyone any hope

Thrugelmir

woodbine wrote: »

but too many "lame ducks" are dying,2012 was worse than 2008 for retail failures,

Some would say we have too many shops in the UK.......

Economic recovery won't depend on consumer spending.

PaulF81

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I know we're only a couple of weeks into 2013, but I think that will win the award for stupidest statement of the year.

He is right though. Your ideas died in the credit crunch Hamish.

Thrugelmir

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Similar to this forum then.

Honda cuts 800 jobs : Plus 300 temporary \ contract workers.

Jaguar Land Rover creates 800 jobs : silence

Updated for you.

John_Pierpoint

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Thank you Bob for that reasoned and well researched personal jibe; the common tool of choice on these forums it appears.

For your information, I wasn't in a hotel room I was embedded with the US Navy for two months. So, funny old thing, my impressions are gleaned from actual prolongued exposure both to US citizens and their economy in general; I think I am actually qualified to make the comment that I did, based on my own personal experience rather than what I read from whatever rags are on offer.

I stand by the point too about actual vs perceived cuts. If you go back to the last election, it was well spun by the left ("same old Tory cutting b***ards") but if you actually bothered to look beyond the facade, all three parties were actually fighting over the ridiculous nuances of who would raise spending by the least. If projected spend in department A is due to rise 4.5% under a returned Labour govt, but 2.5% by an incoming Tory one, that is not a CUT that is just slowing down increases!

And the actual, somewhat tongue in cheek nature of my post, was not that the world is all hunky-dory happy, but that it might not be quite as bad as it is made to appear by the continual force feeding of doom-mongering articles posted on here.

And to MOBY - mate, I am far from priviledged. But again, thank you for your baseless assumptions founded on nothing more than the fact I quoted from the Telegraph! :T

D_S

I agree with you about all the lies spouted at the last election - just could not believe the number of vested interests and stupid voters that thought the emperor's economy still had a full wardrobe of fine clothes.

I just wonder how many neurotic Americans have been to their shrink and been put on an overdose of Prozac?

Mind you the American economy having fallen the fastest, and in some ways the furthest, and being the least hide bound by regulations and government spending commitments, should be the first to bounce.

GeorgeHowell

thor wrote: »

So you will similarly agree that the CONservatives were childish and socially negligent while they were in opposition? I don't seem to remember them talking up the economy when it needed it.

There was nothing to talk up was there ? Years of debt-fuelled pseudo-boom together with reckless public spending, some pillock waffling on about how he had abolished boom and bust, and then the most almighty crash that any of us had ever seen.

Devon_Sailor

thor wrote: »

So you will similarly agree that the CONservatives were childish and socially negligent while they were in opposition? I don't seem to remember them talking up the economy when it needed it.

I agree that coining (or providing the ammunition for someone else to coin) that awful phrase "austerity Britain" was about as politically naive as it comes, and a gift for the (soon to be) opposition, but their overall message wasn't doom and gloom. Was there any money left? No. Do we need to tighten belts a bit? Yes. Can we get through this and build a stronger Britain on the other side? Yes.

Childish was Lyam Byrne leaving a note saying "Sorry - there is no money left" for his successor!

Like many of the Tory/Coalition policies, the underlying message isn't necessarily contentious, just the way the handle/present them. The recent child benefits farce for example. Ask the man in the street the simple question, do you think couples over a certain combined salary figure, say £50,000, should loose this benefit in order to help maintain payment levels for the most needy in society, 90% would probably say Yes, that's fair.

I cannot believe they allowed the ensuing train wreck to happen - any idiot and his dog could see how bitter and divisive it would become when they started fudging with figures, tapering and no distinction between individual claimant and couples joint income.

I would still take this lot, even hamstrung as they are by the Lib Dems, over absolutely anything Labour can offer instead. Milliband as PM and Balls as Chancellor? Heaven help us! :eek: