Politics

[Danny CL 0]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

Every analyst you talk to. The only time you'll talk to analysts is when they ring up for their Sony Ericsson upgrade.

 

You need some new material undercut boy.

[Happy Face 29]

As if by magic, Krugman decided to explain things to Danny. He posted this a couple of minutes ago....

 

The story goes like this: the more the government borrows, the more interest it has to pay, which requires even more borrowing, and before you know it the debt explodes.

 

Sounds terrible, until you think about it a bit harder and look at the numbers.

 

Consider what happens to the ratio of debt to GDP –which I’ll call DR, for debt ratio — over time. There are three things affecting the growth in DR. One is the “primary” budget deficit — spending other than interest payments minus revenue. The second is interest payments. But there’s a third factor: growth in GDP, which increases the denominator of D/GDP. The equation looks like this:

 

Increase in DR = primary deficit as % of GDP + [(r-g) * Previous year's DR]

 

where r is the interest rate on debt, and g is the growth rate of GDP.

 

And here’s the thing: for major advanced countries, r-g is a small number: interest rates on government debt are at most a bit larger than the economy’s growth rate. In fact, at the moment they’re actually less: the real interest rate on long-term US government debt is 1.8%, which is below most estimates of long-run growth.

 

So the debt dynamics coming out of interest payments on existing debt aren’t anything like the explosive force the austerity crew would have you believe. Even after all these years of borrowing, the overwhelming determinant of growth in Japan’s debt is still the primary deficit, not interest payments on past debt.

 

The real message here is that people like Bowles and Senor are so eager to tell deficit horror stories that they don’t bother to check their facts.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/1...=NytimesKrugman

Edited July 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

Every analyst you talk to. The only time you'll talk to analysts is when they ring up for their Sony Ericsson upgrade.

 

You need some new material undercut boy.

Tell me which analysts you talk to.

[Danny CL 0]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

Every analyst you talk to. The only time you'll talk to analysts is when they ring up for their Sony Ericsson upgrade.

 

You need some new material undercut boy.

Tell me which analysts you talk to.

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

[ewerk 30266]

Economic theory from a call center worker.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

Every analyst you talk to. The only time you'll talk to analysts is when they ring up for their Sony Ericsson upgrade.

 

You need some new material undercut boy.

Tell me which analysts you talk to.

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

You said analysts you talk to, suggesting it's the done thing to talk to analysts, so which ones do you specifically talk to?

[Happy Face 29]

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

 

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

[Guest alex]

Without any data / reasoning to backup any any of these empty insults that are getting thrown around your arguments appear pretty flimsy boys I'm afraid.

Was this just self-parody btw?

[Danny CL 0]

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

 

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

 

The two are intrinsically linked.

[Happy Face 29]

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

 

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

 

The two are intrinsically linked.

 

But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise?

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

[Happy Face 29]

Boris Johnson told the London Assembly that he was fighting to protect the capital from the "dramatic and deep cuts" announced by George Osborne.

 

In particular, he is desperate to secure the future of the £16bn Crossrail project and vital tube upgrades. He said: "It is quite wrong to treat us [London] in the same way as other more spend thrift areas

 

 

Prick!

[Danny CL 0]

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

 

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

 

The two are intrinsically linked.

 

But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise?

 

I would like to think they would give a balanced view based on the data.

[Danny CL 0]

 

I could real off names but they are easy enough to find on google so it would prove nothing.

[Happy Face 29]

Maybe if you read the FT once in a while rather than your copy of razzle you will see what said analysts are saying.

 

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

 

The two are intrinsically linked.

 

But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise?

 

I would like to think they would give a balanced view based on the data.

 

Dodging the question.

 

You'd be wrong.

 

They'd say "fuck jobs, fuck healtchare, fuck education, fuck transport, fuck modernisation, fuck oversight and fuck everything else. The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

Edited July 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

Boris Johnson told the London Assembly that he was fighting to protect the capital from the "dramatic and deep cuts" announced by George Osborne.

 

In particular, he is desperate to secure the future of the £16bn Crossrail project and vital tube upgrades. He said: "It is quite wrong to treat us [London] in the same way as other more spend thrift areas

 

 

Prick!

 

Forgot tto use the mantra: "we're all in this together".

[Danny CL 0]

I'm sure each authority would try to do the same to get whats best for there area.

 

Boris is right though. Return on investment in London will be proportionately larger than in other areas.

[Danny CL 0]

The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

 

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times.

 

Typical loony lefty I guess.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Danny CL

[Guest alex]

The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

 

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times.

Which idiotic internet conspiracy theorists is he quoting like? Not that I'm suggesting you're a hypocrite in light of your earlier comments or anything.

[Danny CL 0]

Just the usual rubbish you get on here. Basically, everything America / Israel do is an evil conspiracy.....everything bad that happens is down to them / capitalism and other such repetitive b0ll0x.

[Guest alex]

Or in other words he isn't actually referring to anything you said so you've already had to resort to making stuff up. It's like you've never been away

[NJS 4371]

Just the usual rubbish you get on here. Basically, everything America / Israel do is an evil conspiracy.....everything bad that happens is down to them / capitalism and other such repetitive b0ll0x.

 

They don't need a conspiracy - they're blatant about everything they do.

[Happy Face 29]

The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

 

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times.

 

Typical loony lefty I guess.

 

That's a bit of an about turn isn't it?

 

Just a couple of posts ago you said that social welfare spending and market welfare were inextricably linked.

 

When i say the same thing it's a loony lefty conspiracy.

 

Get your story straight.

 

Are they linked or not?

Does the market improve with austerity measures or not?

Does the FT prefer immediate austerity measures to improve the market while the public take the burden or an extended stimulus that lessens the public burden but slows market growth?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[Danny CL 0]

The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

 

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times.

 

Typical loony lefty I guess.

 

That's a bit of an about turn isn't it?

 

Just a couple of posts ago you said that social welfare spending and market welfare were inextricably linked.

 

When i say the same thing it's a loony lefty conspiracy.

 

Get your story straight.

 

Are they linked or not?

Does the market improve with austerity measures or not?

Does the FT prefer immediate austerity measures to improve the market while the public take the burden or an extended stimulus that lessens the public burden but slows market growth?

 

I should imagine they have weighed up the threat of credit rating downgrade against the threat to growth from austerity.

[Guest alex]

You answered that one in full like