Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Conrad

Undiluted socialism starts out with noble aims, but always ends up the same;

Can rabbit meat save Venezuela from going hungry?

"Plan Rabbit" illustrates the government's extreme measures to alleviate food shortages in Venezuela.

by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/14/news/economy/venezuela-maduro-rabbit-plan/index.html

Moby

Boredatwrork wrote: »

I think going back 70 years is a bit ridiculous, and hardly relevant to the state of affairs of our society, when you factor in Globalisation, WW2 and how culture/technology etc has progressed, an interesting study, but hardly relevent in real terms.

The actual point scrolling back up was about the NHS thriving under Labour, until it came time to check the credit cards. How is that any different than the guy on minimum wage buying a flash car then going bankrupt, its simply not sustainable, and builds unrealistic expectations.
And Labour are at it again, no party can compete with "here is free money students" whatever fully costed rubbish they kept spouting, and when the bubble eventualy bursts and someone has to clean up the mess of course they are going to look like the problem.

Sorry you dont get to define how far back we go just so you can ignore the point. Anyway I'd rather a decent NHS with a big debt than the scandal we have now.

Fella

Moby wrote: »

Anyway I'd rather a decent NHS with a big debt than the scandal we have now.

Of course you would. You won't be paying it back. Luckily all those wide-eyed youngsters at Labour Party meetings are too thick to realise it's them that will be.

michaels

Moby wrote: »

Sorry you dont get to define how far back we go just so you can ignore the point. Anyway I'd rather a decent NHS with a big debt than the scandal we have now.

Isn't there a difference between a big debt and a rising debt? We are not like Japan where the debt is to Japanese lenders, our debt is to foreigners which means that they have to be willing to finance it. Greece demonstrated that if your debt goes beyond a certain level then the maths no longer works. It is mathematically impossible to just borrow more and more to pay the interest on ever increasing debt forever, at some point lenders realise they will not get their money back however high the interest rate the borrower claims to be willing to pay and at that point suddenly there are no choices.

What would have happened to the UK economy in 2008 if rather than having 35% debt to gdp and the markets be willing to lend us 10% plus more of GDP per year for 5 years so that we could gradually reduce the annual deficit, we had been at 90% and the markets had refused to lend us any more money so the govt had had to close the deficit overnight. Then the true meaning of austerity would have been made clear and it would not have been about A&E waiting times going up and waiting lists getting longer, it would have been cancer drugs being withdrawn, diabetics struggling to get insulin unless they could pay privately etc. An instant cut of 20% in govt expenditure would have been devastating not just on those immediately impacted but on the rest of the economy too as every other sector lost demand.

Perhaps someone who thinks that govt finances are different from personal finances could explain how we could avoid the Greece (and Venezuela) scenarios if we do not keep govt debt at a level the markets will support?

Malthusian

Moby wrote: »

Sorry you dont get to define how far back we go just so you can ignore the point. Anyway I'd rather a decent NHS with a big debt than the scandal we have now.

Replace "NHS" with "car" and you can see that this the exact same delusion that is fuelling the consumer debt "time bomb", but on a political and macroeconomic level.

I want I want I want it now and I don't care if I can afford it or even if I need it in the first place.

Fella

michaels wrote: »

Isn't there a difference between a big debt and a rising debt. We are not like Japan where the debt is to Japanese lenders, our debt is to foreigners which means that they have to be willing to finance it. Greece demonstrated that if your debt goes beyond a certain level then the maths no longer works. It is mathematically impossible to just borrow more and more to pay the interest on ever increasing debt forever, at some point lenders realise they will not get their money back however high the interest rate the borrower claims to be willing to pay and at that point suddenly their are no choices.

What would have happened to the UK economy in 2008 if rather than having 35% dept to gdp and the markets be willing to lend us 10% plus more of GDP per year for 5 years so that we could gradually reduce the annual deficit we had been at 90% and the markets had refused to lend us any more money so the govt had had to close the deficit overnight. Then the true meaning of austerity would have been made clear and it would not have been about A&E waiting times going up and waiting lists getting longer, it would have been cancer drugs being withdrawn, diabetics struggling to get insulin unless they could pay privately etc. An instant cut of 20% in govt expenditure would have been devastating not just on those immediately impacted but on the rest of the economy too as every other sector lost demand.

Perhaps someone who thinks that govt finances are different from personal finances could explain how we could avoid the Greece (and Venezuela) scenarios if we do not keep govt debt at a level the markets will support?

Indeed:

"Ignoring interest payments to Bank of England, the government spent £33 billion in debt interest in 2015/16, with estimates of £36 billion and £42 billion for the following couple of years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility."

https://fullfact.org/economy/interest-payments-national-debt/

And that's after "7 years of evil Tory austerity".

mrginge

Fella wrote: »

Of course you would. You won't be paying it back. Luckily all those wide-eyed youngsters at Labour Party meetings are too thick to realise it's them that will be.

These imbeciles have all latched onto the endlessly printing more money idea as though it's the eternal solution to rising debt.

They really are utter morons.

Tromking

The usual 'slash and burn' Tories on here failing to realise that the argument re. the deficit and how to bring it down is slightly more nuanced than they would have us believe. It's like the forced ending of the public sector cap never happened.
Ask yourselves why the Tories are even contemplating slashing Uni tuition fees, it starts with 'Cor' and ends with 'byn'.

michaels

Tromking wrote: »

The usual 'slash and burn' Tories on here failing to realise that the argument re. the deficit and how to bring it down is slightly more nuanced than they would have us believe. It's like the forced ending of the public sector cap never happened.
Ask yourselves why the Tories are even contemplating slashing Uni tuition fees, it starts with 'Cor' and ends with 'byn'.

WE just see the BoE raising interest rates because lifting the pay cap will lead to average wages rising and don't really see a lot of pluses - especially as it will then make the interest bill on the govt debt mountain even higher and the only way we can afford to service it is by selling even more London property to foreign buyers.

(Agreed the Tories are even worse than Labour when it comes to selling off capital assets and treating the revenue as income to be spent immediately - Labour's preferred trick is to buy depreciating capital assets like hospitals on the never never paying way over the odds to do so - a sort of Littlewoods economics)

ukcarper

Boredatwrork wrote: »

Lots of things improved considerably under Labour, fantastic right.....Well until we checked the receipt!

I have to chuckle that so many people on the Money saving expert forums seem to struggle with the concept of affordability, debt and balancing the books.

The receipt was largely due to financial crisis and that would have happened if Tories were in power.