I want interest rates to stay at rock bottom for ever

jimjames

Linton wrote: »

Suggest you look at the data even if it doesnt demonstrate your prejudices. Pre-crash during Gordon Browns chancellorship public spending as a % of GDP was not very different to that during the previous Major years and rather less than that during Margaret Thatcher's time. It increased greatly after the crash as GDP dropped and unemployment increased.

Not sure what data you're looking at.

Just opened that link and there seems to be a very clear increase between about 2000 and 2010 going up from around 37% to just under 50%.

The commentary says:

After 2000 public spending increased rapidly, with a peak of 45.5 percent of GDP in 2010 in the afermath of the financial crisis of 2008, followed by a slow decrease in subsequent year

Linton

jimjames wrote: »

Not sure what data you're looking at.

Just opened that link and there seems to be a very clear increase between about 2000 and 2010 going up from around 37% to just under 50%.

The commentary says:

After 2000 public spending increased rapidly, with a peak of 45.5 percent of GDP in 2010 in the afermath of the financial crisis of 2008, followed by a slow decrease in subsequent year

You can get a magnified graph of public spending as a % of GDP showing the data from 1990 to present. It does show ups and downs but.......

My reading of the data:

1990 35%
1992 37.5%
1994 39%
1996 39%
Avg 37.6%

---

1998 36%
2000 35%
2002 36%
2004 37.5%
2006 39.5%
2008 40%
Avg 37.3%

ColdIron

Public spending and public spending by % of GDP are very different things

Linton

ColdIron wrote: »

Public spending and public spending by % of GDP are very different things

Indeed, but you do need some scaling of the crude £ figure. Clearly inflation is highly significant as is the population size - changes in either will naturally lead to changes in £ spending. Then there are changes associated with technology: a higher tech economy with a much smaller need for basic manual labour requires better mass education. Improved health care technology means more can be done, at a price. GDP, however crude, is a scaling factor that incorporates all these factors.

Perhaps this discussion would be better held in the Debate forum.

Tammer

Interesting thread.


You have to remember that David Cameron essentially works for the richest people living in the UK (and donating to the Tory party). So anything he does has to benefit, or at least not inconvenience, those people.


When you understand that his actions tend to make sense e.g. reduction in 50% tax rate, Increased tax fee saving allowances etc. It also means that things like higher rate tax relief on pensions will never be removed under his watch.


I can only guess that the richest people in the UK (even though they are rich on paper) do still borrow a lot and are therefore concerned about interest rate rises.
T

kidmugsy

Tammer wrote: »

You have to remember that David Cameron essentially works for the richest people living in the UK

I'm so old that I can remember when large chunks of the Labour Party worked for the richest people in the USSR, and most of the rest worked for the people who pimped off the poorest in the UK.

And with Blair, I often wondered whether he worked for the richest people in the USA (a thought that also struck me about Wilson, Callaghan, and Heath).

colsten

Tammer wrote: »

You have to remember that David Cameron essentially works for the richest people living in the UK
T

I subscribe to the view that Cameron essentially works for whoever will vote for him and his party. Which makes him essentially no different to any other politician, and no politician with his eye on the PM job will be daft enough to only appeal to a minority.

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

It increased greatly after the crash as GDP dropped

Correct. Brown based his future spending plans on an increasing level of GDP and therefore tax take.

Total nonsense to suggest that things happen over night. Or can be cured overnight.

Thrugelmir

Tammer wrote: »

Interesting thread.


You have to remember that David Cameron essentially works for the richest people living in the UK (and donating to the Tory party). So anything he does has to benefit, or at least not inconvenience, those people.


When you understand that his actions tend to make sense e.g. reduction in 50% tax rate, Increased tax fee saving allowances etc. It also means that things like higher rate tax relief on pensions will never be removed under his watch.


I can only guess that the richest people in the UK (even though they are rich on paper) do still borrow a lot and are therefore concerned about interest rate rises.
T

Unfortunately politics is detached from the real world. Hence why all three main parties are in decline. There's simply no trust that they are competent enough to manage an economy. I wouldn't trust them with a school tuck shop.

Not the forum for this discussion. So I'll leave it at that.

colsten

HSBC forecast no interest rate rises before 2016: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11235420/Dont-expect-an-interest-rate-rise-until-2016.html

They could well be right, and even optimistic. May be we have to get ready for japanese rates.