We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Ed milliband smoking crack....
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Ask Hamish. He's the one saying the debt doesn't matter.
Actually, I noted that we had lower debt than at just about any time in history, which is not the story that you like to portray at all.
You're the one that's saying it wasn't good.
Because you seem to think having low debt is bad, because it was spent on things you didn't approve of, which of course makes no sense at all.
It was still nearly the lowest debt in history.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
What did the World Wars do to GDP? I'd be interested to know in the context of that graph. If GDP halved because everyone was fighting rather than making stuff, then the debt will have doubled, and will halve again when they return without any need for change in fiscal policy.
I'm not saying that happened, just that historical comparisons may not be so instructive.“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Actually, I noted that we had lower debt than at just about any time in history, which is not the story that you like to portray at all.
Oh right, so you didn't say this in post 52 at all then?
Must be my mistake.Honestly, given that debt has almost never (i.e., for about 90% of the last few centuries) been lower, what does it matter?
And what's this? Are you applying for the award for the best made up post of the year?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Because you seem to think having low debt is bad, because it was spent on things you didn't approve of, which of course makes no sense at all.
I mean, what land are you living in to take any of what I said and conclude that I'm saying low debt is a bad thing?!!?
Heres me, talking about debt, stating it depends on what it's used for as to how the chart can be taken, and you conclude that I'm saying low debt is bad?
You are simply making stuff up as you go along while claiming you didn't say what we can all see you said.0 -
What did the World Wars do to GDP? I'd be interested to know in the context of that graph. If GDP halved because everyone was fighting rather than making stuff, then the debt will have doubled, and will halve again when they return without any need for change in fiscal policy.
I'm not saying that happened, just that historical comparisons may not be so instructive.
Good point:
I'm sure a clever chap like you can find the actual debt figures on the internet and post them up (and the 'real' equivalents )0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Ask Hamish. He's the one saying the debt doesn't matter.
no, you were the one saying it was the 'reason' that mattered
and you still haven't said which of the debt figures you wish to suppress.0 -
no, you were the one saying it was the 'reason' that mattered
and you still haven't said which of the debt figures you wish to suppress.
Well of course the reason matters.
Otherwise you are just looking at a graph and concluding debt was once higher and therefore, our debt today is nothing to worry about.
You simply have to apply some context of why debt was high before now.
Well, I say you simply have to....you don;t, I suppose, but you'd be rather silly not to.
The high debt of the 40's was due to the war. Theres a very good reason for it and there was a very good reason for getting into debt. (I.e having to spend new money to achieve a specific goal).
The reason today is to keep living standards where they are. So we can continue spending money we do not have.
The 2 scenarios are very different, which is why a chart looking over history, and including massive historical events is meaningless in context to where we are today.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Well of course the reason matters.
Otherwise you are just looking at a graph and concluding debt was once higher and therefore, our debt today is nothing to worry about.
You simply have to apply some context of why debt was high before now.
Well, I say you simply have to....you don;t, I suppose, but you'd be rather silly not to.
which part of the figures do you wish to suppress?0 -
What did the World Wars do to GDP? I'd be interested to know in the context of that graph. If GDP halved because everyone was fighting rather than making stuff, then the debt will have doubled, and will halve again when they return without any need for change in fiscal policy.
I'm not saying that happened, just that historical comparisons may not be so instructive.
UK GDP increased by about 25% over the course of the war. War economies make lots of stuff to blow up the other side with.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Looking at just a graph and not even allowing anyone to look at why the debt was that high is absolutely ridiculous.
Who's saying you're not allowed to look at why the debt was high?
Looks to me like war is expensive, so is building an empire, and so is dealing with financial crises. The Napoleonic wars nearly bankrupted the country, so did WW1, so did the 1930's depression and so did WW2.Graham_Devon wrote: »Hardly surpressing the information. I know you don't like a bad word said about labour, but it's not really about that. You have never claimed people should just present the data and leave it at that....especially when it comes to the tories or house prices.
Try and trivialise it by waffling about Labour or Tories or, bizarrely, house prices, but we're only just off the highest standards of living the British have ever known.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »UK GDP increased by about 25% over the course of the war. War economies make lots of stuff to blow up the other side with.
Didn't we have to buy a lot of stuff off the US too. Not so sure they gave us very much for nothing.
I read somewhere we even had to pay them recently if we wanted them to bomb something in Afghanistan, on our behalf. Like protecting our troops in a hot zone. MOD had to decide whether it was cost effective."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards