Corbynomics: A Dystopia

LHW99

Well if they were selling policies based on living longer and people aren't they'll be coining it in.

See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/09/legal-general-profits-soar-uk-life-expectancy-stalls/

cogito

LHW99 wrote: »

See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/09/legal-general-profits-soar-uk-life-expectancy-stalls/

And some years ago they sold annuities based on the calculation that people would die younger than they actually did and that cost them a packet.

Moby

cogito wrote: »

You can always rely on the Graun. Smoke 50 fags a day, eat pie and chips, drink six pints of cider, die at 60 from a lifestyle disease and blame the Tories.

About ten years ago when I was still working, I read a report from life assurance companies predicting that life expectancies would level out for exactly these reasons.

If you actually bother to read it the Guardian is reporting conclusions arrived by independent research. Its simplistic and harsh to bang on about personal responsibility as your 'one size fits all' response. So easy isn't it when your world is comfortable to castigate other peoples situations. I also think you should remember that the tories are the biggest supporters of the free market advertising driven world we live in..... in which alcohol and fags were sold as positive lifestyle choices.

Moby

bobbymotors wrote: »

Ok...what's your solution then? Which taxes do you want to raise or departments cut?

You've swallowed the austerity agenda hook line and sinker. You are just parroting the economics of tory central office in which the economy is run like Margaret Roberts father's grocery store. The real world is not like that......if you know your history! Look at Roosevelt's New Deal after the depression. Look at what the Labour Govmt achieved in this country after the war! It improved the lives of millions of people through its social policies.....and aimed for 'a land fit for heroes to live in'. There is always a way. Remember the tories actual record is worse than Labours!

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

bobbymotors

Moby wrote: »

You've swallowed the austerity agenda hook line and sinker. You are just parroting the economics of tory central office in which the economy is run like Margaret Roberts father's grocery store. The real world is not like that......if you know your history! Look at Roosevelt's New Deal after the depression. Look at what the Labour Govmt achieved in this country after the war! It improved the lives of millions of people through its social policies.....and aimed for 'a land fit for heroes to live in'. There is always a way. Remember the tories actual record is worse than Labours!

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

Except that at some point the books have to balance, or we go skint.

the tories are working towards this...yes, we still borrow, but it is coming down. One day there will be balanced books, reserves, and the means to implement plan B when the situation requires it.

Corbyn and Labour simply want to borrow and spend.

We are very very far from depression led America in the 1930s or post war UK when, yes, the only way was to borrow. You CAN borrow as long as it's used for non depreciating assets like roads, hospitals, etc. Borrowing to fund benefits is crazy to the extreme.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

If you actually bother to read it the Guardian is reporting conclusions arrived by independent research. Its simplistic and harsh to bang on about personal responsibility as your 'one size fits all' response. So easy isn't it when your world is comfortable to castigate other peoples situations. I also think you should remember that the tories are the biggest supporters of the free market advertising driven world we live in..... in which alcohol and fags were sold as positive lifestyle choices.

Alcohol and fags haven't been sold as positive lifestyle choices ford decades as I dare say you know. Quite the opposite.

There's no end of publicity about the hazards of tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods etc., etc. Even the dimmest individual can't fail to be aware of that.

Who actually compels people to harm themselves in these ways? No one. But people like you think that there's no such thing as personal responsibility.

Tromking

bobbymotors wrote: »

Borrowing to fund benefits is crazy to the extreme.

Isn't that what the Tories are doing though?
I don't think I've seen too much in the way of real welfare reform since 2010, just a wanton defunding of our vital public services to pay the deficit down.
I wonder what bump we would see in the country's finances, if the millions of part time jobs in the private sector were not subsidised with in work benefits and the Government desisted from the policy of upping the personal tax threshold every five minutes.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Government debt maybe. That still leaves a huge amount of other debt i.e. mortgages.

On day one I've cleared the UK's government's debt and still you're not happy? It's tough being in charge.

Anyone with the foresight to stick $100 under the mattress would find their £100,000 mortgage suddenly looked tiny on day two.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Devaluation of the £ would make UK assets even more attractive to overseas investors. Though not many airports, ports, hotels, prime commercial property, tech companies, Lloyds underwriters etc left to buy.

We won't need to sell UK assets anymore. On the brexit thread I read a weak currency is super great for exporters.

This is tongue in cheek (ish). The left don't have the answers but neither do the centre and right. It's a fallacy that a front bench wearing blue underpants has a better idea and, if they did, it wouldn't be implemented anyway.

Better to assume economies and countries will bump along as usual. Boom to bust and back with a general uptrend over time.

.string.

Re Richard Murphy's blog, ... He concentrated in borrowing without, if seems, proper account of the effect of deficit, regrettably a common befuddlement.

Clearly if the deficit goes up so does borrowing. It is certainly true that the Tories have borrowed more, but this is the consequence of the Labour deficit.

I can't help but query Murphy's objectivity.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

... Look at what the Labour Govmt achieved in this country after the war!l]

By implementing austerity.

Read this book.
Austerity Britain 1945-51 by David Kynaston

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/may/20/historybooks.features

The Attlee government inherited a fiscal deficit of about 6.5% of GDP in 1946 and was running a surplus 1951.

I know I've said that before. But for some reason some people seem to ignore it.:)