Corbynomics: A Dystopia

System

bobbymotors wrote: »

No I don't think it works like that to be honest! That's the magic money tree.

The $1tn has to come from somewhere.

they will HAVE to run a surplus eventually.

The US can 'print' $1tn to pay off her debts. Can your household do that?

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

Their debt is $ denominated. If they owe someone $1tn and the debt is called in they just send a cheque for $1tn and that's that.

Quite different when you owe money in a currency you don't control i.e. like a household

Like the UK they'll be selling their assets to fund the shortfall. As on the debt they'll have interest to service.

bobbymotors

ilovehouses wrote: »

The US can 'print' $1tn to pay off her debts. Can your household do that?

yes, they can.

and if it was as easy as that then they would do it. Haven't though have they?

governments just 'printing' money on demand is extremely inflationary. It's borrowing from yourself effectively. Not a good idea!

the money owed has to be taken in revenue before it can be used.

Thrugelmir

bobbymotors wrote: »

governments just 'printing' money on demand is extremely inflationary. It's borrowing from yourself effectively. Not a good idea!

Has been the mainstay of economic policy in the developed world since the end of WW2. Perhaps it has reached the end of it's useful life. Now that the undeveloped world has joined the game.

Rusty_Shackleton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Good financial management requires no knowledge of economics. Something that the Labour party have been lacking for some years. Allowing a financial journalist to become Chancellor was a grave mistake.

Good financial management (of the country) requires no knowledge of economics?! Did you really mean to type that?

I agree that a chancellor shouldn’t really have a background in journalism... alongside their 2:1 degree in Modern History it doesn’t really give them the experience to be chancellor… oh wait, that’s George Osborne’s background! Silly me!

bobbymotors wrote: »

Yep.

Every single labour government since 1964 has left us in a financial mess, and worse than before they came to power.

You can't borrow your way out of trouble.

there are only two things that work, in combination.

spend less
earn more

there's no other way.

What do you mean by every labour govt. has left us in a financial mess? If you mean Labour have borrowed more money, you’re categorically wrong. The Tories have borrowed more money than labour over the past 70 years. See here. If you bother to read that link, you’ll see even excluding post-2010 (as the Tories like to claim they’re clearing up ‘Labours mess’), adjusting for inflation etc. the tories consistently borrow more, and labour consistently repay more debt.

If you mean other economic factors such as GDP, then technically the last Labour government left us in an economic mess (although certainly not economically worse off than whe they came to power in ’97) – unless you ignore the worldwide recession a couple of years before the election that saw them leave government. Even on that measure you’ve not got much of a leg to stand on. In 2010 the economy was improving, then the coalition drove us into another recession in late 2011/early 2012.

bobbymotors

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Good financial management (of the country) requires no knowledge of economics?! Did you really mean to type that?

I agree that a chancellor shouldn’t really have a background in journalism... alongside their 2:1 degree in Modern History it doesn’t really give them the experience to be chancellor… oh wait, that’s George Osborne’s background! Silly me!



What do you mean by every labour govt. has left us in a financial mess? If you mean Labour have borrowed more money, you’re categorically wrong. The Tories have borrowed more money than labour over the past 70 years. See here. If you bother to read that link, you’ll see even excluding post-2010 (as the Tories like to claim they’re clearing up ‘Labours mess’), adjusting for inflation etc. the tories consistently borrow more, and labour consistently repay more debt.

If you mean other economic factors such as GDP, then technically the last Labour government left us in an economic mess (although certainly not economically worse off than whe they came to power in ’97) – unless you ignore the worldwide recession a couple of years before the election that saw them leave government. Even on that measure you’ve not got much of a leg to stand on. In 2010 the economy was improving, then the coalition drove us into another recession in late 2011/early 2012.

Of course they've borrowed more money. £1 billion in 1975 was a fortune, it's nothing now (although it would do me...)

Wilson in the 60's had to devalue the £ due to a balance of payments crisis.

Callagahan in the 70's had to go cap in hand to the IMF as we were skint.

Blair inherited a budget surplus in 1992 and we all know where Gordon Brown went with that.

Although the Heath government was awful, the others have largely had to bail us out of labour's poor monetary policy.

The books have to be balanced at some point. The tories have a plan to do so (although no where near at an acceptable rate) Labour have no plan to do so.

bobbymotors

'What do you mean by every labour govt. has left us in a financial mess?

They have

'If you mean Labour have borrowed more money,'

I don't. Merely that they have, since 1964, left us in a financial mess. Every time.

Rusty_Shackleton

bobbymotors wrote: »

No, I don't know much about economics.

But it would appear that what knowledge I have surpasses yours.

Tell me where what I said is untrue.

Tell me where the money will come from.

I doubt you can.

If, as a country, we have £x billion coming in in revenue and we spend £x billion plus another £25 billion on top, we will, at some point, run out of money. It really is that simple. It applies to you, to me, to everyone, if you spend more than you've got coming in, there are only two things you can do that will work.

1. cut what you spend
2. increase what you have coming in

that's the ONLY solution that can ever possibly work

So what's your solution?

And SOLUTION please not insults or raving about the tories.

bobbymotors wrote: »

yes, they can.

and if it was as easy as that then they would do it. Haven't though have they?

governments just 'printing' money on demand is extremely inflationary. It's borrowing from yourself effectively. Not a good idea!

the money owed has to be taken in revenue before it can be used.

Bobby, you really can't compare a country's finances with that of a household or a business.

It's literally impossible for a country that issues it's own free-floating currency to 'run out of money'. Yes, we literally can keep printing money. Admittedly, you can't print it too fast, but you'd be surprised how much you can get away with.

For example, do you believe that we could print over £900 billion in a single year without Zimbabwe like results? For context the total UK government expenditure in 2016-17 is expected to hit £772 billion. Well we can print £900 billion in a year, and I can prove it... because that's what we did in 2008 to bail out the banks.

Now, I know what you're thinking... that was a one off, we couldn't possible keep doing that!

Well I'm afraid you'd be wrong again because quantitative easing is another way of saying print money... and by 2012 the BoE QE programme stood at £375 billion. Remember, this is completely separate and in addition to the money we 'borrow' to cover the deficit.

The above is just to demonstrate just how much money we can borrow in a short time, and not cause economic catastrophe.

Please learn more about a topic before making such sweeping statements as you've been making. In the words of Abe Lincoln, 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt'.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Show me quotes about Corbyn getting personal about the tories as people! However they've smeared him day after day as unpatriotic, a traitor to his country, a terrorist sympathiser etc. Look at the headlines in the press the day of the election! He can't be held responsible for what people say in his name. He can only be held accountable for what he says himself!

You might try reading my post again and then point out to me where I said Corbyn had got personal. I didn't. I'm talking about his supporters who spew endless bile about the Tories and whom he never ever pulls back into line.

Rusty_Shackleton

bobbymotors wrote: »

'What do you mean by every labour govt. has left us in a financial mess?

They have

'If you mean Labour have borrowed more money,'

I don't. Merely that they have, since 1964, left us in a financial mess. Every time.

Okay, you need to quantify what you mean by financial mess then - since you've been talking about government debt, I gave you a source demonstrating that the Tories have borrowed more in the last 70 years than Labour, adjusted for years in power and for inflation. So in real terms, Tories borrow more per year than Labour.