More Breaking news Help2Buy II starting now...

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

is government borrowing for infrastructure spending a bad thing?

Not always, but quite often, especially when the cost of borrowing the money is not factored in to the cost.
Nowhere near all the government borrowing over the last few decades has gone on infrastructure though. Much has simply gone on keeping up a standard of living that we as a nation were not earning. For example. Creating public service non jobs in admin etc at relatively high salaries but no direct benefit to the economy.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

No, whilst the net effect is important it shows something quite different to the two individual numbers

the individual numbers show the value of exports and the volumes of imports; to say only the difference matters misses out a huge amount of relevant information.

Looked like balance of trade (net) one for goods and services and the other for goods alone.

We can't fill the leaky bucket fast enough, even if the tap is dispensing more.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Looked like balance of trade (net) one for goods and services and the other for goods alone.

We can't fill the leaky bucket fast enough, even if the tap is dispensing more.

Maybe so, we need a much more positive public attitude to profitable enterprise in general and to profitable export in particular.
We need to celebrate our successes rather an endless harping on negative factors.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Maybe so, we need a much more positive public attitude to profitable enterprise in general and to profitable export in particular.
We need to celebrate our successes rather an endless harping on negative factors.

Facts are facts regardless of how many times we are told everything is wonderful.

A short pint doesn't make up for all the froth on top.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Facts are facts regardless of how many times we are told everything is wonderful.

A short pint doesn't make up for all the froth on top.

incomprehensible I'm afraid

but I wonder if your response would encourage young bright people to choose a career in profit making export companies.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

incomprehensible I'm afraid

but I wonder if your response would encourage young bright people to choose a career in profit making export companies.

Up to you if you won't acknowledge the point.

I doubt many young up and coming export entrepreneurs would be bothered by our opinion so it doesn't really matter.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Up to you if you won't acknowledge the point.

I doubt many young up and coming export entrepreneurs would be bothered by our opinion so it doesn't really matter.

I said it was incomprehensible : that means I didn't understand what you were saying.


The education of the young is vitally important to our country;
whilst the public sector may be full of virtuous and self sacrificing people, most of them also wish to consume the (imported) food and fuel.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I said it was incomprehensible : that means I didn't understand what you were saying.


The education of the young is vitally important to our country;
whilst the public sector may be full of virtuous and self sacrificing people, most of them also wish to consume the (imported) food and fuel.

Sorry you have lost me. Either the balance of trade is deficit is increasing or it isn't.

What have the public sector got to do with it are they the only people that import products?

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

that shows the difference between two 'big' numbers; it doesn't show the level of our trade

it might show that our exports have declined, stayed the same or increased
it probably shows that our imports rocketed

You certainly have my sympathy about your fuel poverty : I trust you have contacted your MP about how you are a special case and would welcome extra help due the the disability of Mrs LM who has compulsive shopping and lunching syndrome

Maybe you could look at it again? The darker top line is indeed the total trade balance (or lack of it!). The lighter bottom line does, of course, only show the more drastic decline in 'goods' [basically manufacturing], while the upper line includes the surplus from invisibles. These days it still isn't big enough to make it all balance to zero.

It is a definite decline by any standards!

My MP is as bent as a nine bob note [flipping etc.] and would probably claim that the cost of heating swimming pools is not intended to be included in the definition of energy costs. If I complained about rising grocery costs, she'd probably claim that I am not supposed to complain about the cost of Gin [especially when I buy it outside the UK where the tax to European governments is far lower. Ironically doing my bit for the balance of trade, because Gordon's mark it up as an export, and then I import it again, but nobody knows so it doesn't get counted.]

Your recommendation about classifying Mrs LM's habits as a disability sound good. DLA plus (I assume) a bit of carer's allowance for myself - tax free - would go down well on top of our heating allowance.

Her taste for Champagne, New Zealand lamb, Prosciutto ham etc. doesn't help the balance of trade either, I'm afraid.

M.Johnson_2

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

I'm so disappointed this scheme was ever proposed, let alone brought forward. I've been saving like mad for the last couple of years, and now with this scheme, people who've frittered away most of their money are on a level footing with me when it comes to purchase price. How is that fair?

.

They will not be the same as you, in 5 years they will start having to pay interest on that 20% they borrowed from the government. You will not have to, this will be a real hardship if interest rates are back up to normal levels in 5 yrs.