Politics

[Happy Face 29]

If only he listened to his neighbour, Terrence the Tory and cut his spending habits back in the day!

 

Well then he would have lost his teeth and they'd have been supping cider in the park 15 years ago and his kids wouldn't be the healthy intelligent people they are with good prospects.

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

 

This this, fucking this.

 

I honestly don't think they have a clue what they are doing, and I don't think they care. They were horribly wrong about how to deal with the sub prime crisis, and I honestly am terrified about the damage they are about to cause now.

[AgentAxeman 193]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

 

This this, fucking this.

 

I honestly don't think they have a clue what they are doing, and I don't think they care. They were horribly wrong about how to deal with the sub prime crisis, and I honestly am terrified about the damage they are about to cause now.

 

i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work.

 

either way, we're all in the shit!

[Renton 22065]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

 

This this, fucking this.

 

I honestly don't think they have a clue what they are doing, and I don't think they care. They were horribly wrong about how to deal with the sub prime crisis, and I honestly am terrified about the damage they are about to cause now.

 

i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work.

 

either way, we're all in the shit!

 

You don't understand what evidence is.

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

 

This this, fucking this.

 

I honestly don't think they have a clue what they are doing, and I don't think they care. They were horribly wrong about how to deal with the sub prime crisis, and I honestly am terrified about the damage they are about to cause now.

 

i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work.

 

either way, we're all in the shit!

 

I didnt say increased spending will bring us out of recession, I agreed that deep cuts would plunge us back into recesiion. You however said that cutting costs WILL WORK and used capitals, so you must be right.

 

I am also confused by why you would want a solution that

it'll take longer and cause more hardship

 

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

 

A hard one to debate on the bat phone in the car without figures, but I guess that's a comparison to the budget defecit and not the debt so in reality it's a loan to keep up on a loan.

 

Your family has already raked up thousansd worth of debt and now can't keep up with the payments or the food shopping so is going to billy the loan shark for an extra 7,000 a year to try and keep up.

 

All the while your familys breadwinner is Hoping his ship is going to come in and that big promotion is around the corner.

 

A few years down the line his ship hasn't docked, his debt has kept on growing horifically, he's now paying really sill interest rates and Billy the loan shark wants his money back.

 

No one else will lend him anything, he loses his teeth, his wife, his kids and ends up supping cider at mill dam......

 

If only he listened to his neighbour, Terrence the Tory and cut his spending habits back in the day!

 

I prefer it when you cut and paste from google

[Happy Face 29]

i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work.

 

either way, we're all in the shit!

 

The IFS looked at the gap between the deficit and proposed cuts/tax rises. The difference was huge for all parties, but was biggest for the Tories. £53bn per year short by 2014/2015.

 

They're pinning their hopes on recovery more than any other party, but stimulating the economy much less.....it'll be lucky to manage a lazy lob on.

[AgentAxeman 193]

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

 

 

Im citing it because it worked. duh!

 

as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit

 

Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument.

[Renton 22065]

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

 

 

Im citing it because it worked. duh!

 

as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit

 

Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument.

 

Are you aware we live in a global economy? Why haven't you taken global economics into account when citing your Canadian example or describing the economic competence of the previous government?

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

 

 

Im citing it because it worked. duh!

 

as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit

 

Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument.

 

lol@ my fancy dan plan. Nobody is suggesting sponding more you muppet. If we freeze spending and grow the economy at 2 -2.5% a year the defecit would be paid off in 5 years.

 

Also a minor point but the economy is actually growing already -it wont be for much longer mind.

[Happy Face 29]

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

 

 

Im citing it because it worked. duh!

 

as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit

 

Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument.

 

Do you also think Ashley should sell Carroll, Taylor, Guttierez, Collocini etc to ensure the financial stability of Newcastle?

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Love the way you are citing the Canadian model

 

 

Im citing it because it worked. duh!

 

as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit

 

Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument.

 

 

i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work.

[Happy Face 29]

Start here.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/oy-macro/

 

Krugman railing against austerity again today....

 

Rereading my post on the folly of the G20, it seems to me that I didn’t fully convey just how crazy the demand for fiscal austerity now now now really is.

 

The key thing you need to realize is that eliminating stimulus spending, while it would inflict severe economic harm, would do almost nothing to reduce future debt problems. Here’s the IMF’s estimate of sources of the growth in debt over the next few years:

 

 

And even this figure conveys a misleading impression of the importance of stimulus spending. First, since cutting stimulus would weaken the economy, it would reduce revenues — that is, a substantial part of the debt growth the IMF attributes to stimulus would have happened even without stimulus, through lower revenue. Second, for the US at least the core reason for long-run budget concern is rising health care costs — in fact, health cost control is the sine qua non of long-run solvency — which has nothing whatever to do with how much we spend on job creation now.

 

So how much we spend on supporting the economy in 2010 and 2011 is almost irrelevant to the fundamental budget picture. Why, then, are Very Serious People demanding immediate fiscal austerity?

 

The answer is, to reassure the markets — because the markets supposedly won’t believe in the willingness of governments to engage in long-run fiscal reform unless they inflict pointless pain right now. To repeat: the whole argument rests on the presumption that markets will turn on us unless we demonstrate a willingness to suffer, even though that suffering serves no purpose.

 

And the basis for this belief that this is what markets demand is … well, actually there’s no sign that markets are demanding any such thing. There’s Greece — but the Greek situation is very different from that of the US or the UK. And at the moment everyone except the overvalued euro-periphery nations is able to borrow at very low interest rates.

 

So wise policy, as defined by the G20 and like-minded others, consists of destroying economic recovery in order to satisfy hypothetical irrational demands from the markets — demands that economies suffer pointless pain to show their determination, demands that markets aren’t actually making, but which serious people, in their wisdom, believe that the markets will make one of these days.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...n-in-authority/

 

He'd earlier noted...

 

But don’t we need to worry about government debt? Yes — but slashing spending while the economy is still deeply depressed is both an extremely costly and quite ineffective way to reduce future debt. Costly, because it depresses the economy further; ineffective, because by depressing the economy, fiscal contraction now reduces tax receipts. A rough estimate right now is that cutting spending by 1 percent of GDP raises the unemployment rate by .75 percent compared with what it would otherwise be, yet reduces future debt by less than 0.5 percent of GDP.

 

The right thing, overwhelmingly, is to do things that will reduce spending and/or raise revenue after the economy has recovered — specifically, wait until after the economy is strong enough that monetary policy can offset the contractionary effects of fiscal austerity. But no: the deficit hawks want their cuts while unemployment rates are still at near-record highs and monetary policy is still hard up against the zero bound.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...e-here-we-come/

Edited June 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Start here.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/oy-macro/

 

Krugman railing against austerity again today....

 

Rereading my post on the folly of the G20, it seems to me that I didn’t fully convey just how crazy the demand for fiscal austerity now now now really is.

 

The key thing you need to realize is that eliminating stimulus spending, while it would inflict severe economic harm, would do almost nothing to reduce future debt problems. Here’s the IMF’s estimate of sources of the growth in debt over the next few years:

 

 

And even this figure conveys a misleading impression of the importance of stimulus spending. First, since cutting stimulus would weaken the economy, it would reduce revenues — that is, a substantial part of the debt growth the IMF attributes to stimulus would have happened even without stimulus, through lower revenue. Second, for the US at least the core reason for long-run budget concern is rising health care costs — in fact, health cost control is the sine qua non of long-run solvency — which has nothing whatever to do with how much we spend on job creation now.

 

So how much we spend on supporting the economy in 2010 and 2011 is almost irrelevant to the fundamental budget picture. Why, then, are Very Serious People demanding immediate fiscal austerity?

 

The answer is, to reassure the markets — because the markets supposedly won’t believe in the willingness of governments to engage in long-run fiscal reform unless they inflict pointless pain right now. To repeat: the whole argument rests on the presumption that markets will turn on us unless we demonstrate a willingness to suffer, even though that suffering serves no purpose.

 

And the basis for this belief that this is what markets demand is … well, actually there’s no sign that markets are demanding any such thing. There’s Greece — but the Greek situation is very different from that of the US or the UK. And at the moment everyone except the overvalued euro-periphery nations is able to borrow at very low interest rates.

 

So wise policy, as defined by the G20 and like-minded others, consists of destroying economic recovery in order to satisfy hypothetical irrational demands from the markets — demands that economies suffer pointless pain to show their determination, demands that markets aren’t actually making, but which serious people, in their wisdom, believe that the markets will make one of these days.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...n-in-authority/

 

He'd earlier noted...

 

But don’t we need to worry about government debt? Yes — but slashing spending while the economy is still deeply depressed is both an extremely costly and quite ineffective way to reduce future debt. Costly, because it depresses the economy further; ineffective, because by depressing the economy, fiscal contraction now reduces tax receipts. A rough estimate right now is that cutting spending by 1 percent of GDP raises the unemployment rate by .75 percent compared with what it would otherwise be, yet reduces future debt by less than 0.5 percent of GDP.

 

The right thing, overwhelmingly, is to do things that will reduce spending and/or raise revenue after the economy has recovered — specifically, wait until after the economy is strong enough that monetary policy can offset the contractionary effects of fiscal austerity. But no: the deficit hawks want their cuts while unemployment rates are still at near-record highs and monetary policy is still hard up against the zero bound.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...e-here-we-come/

 

But what about the evidence of the canadian model -surely irrefutable

[Christmas Tree 4867]

Is there a reason happy / chez that you would like us to value this Krugmans view over that of the G20?

 

Surely the truth here is that there is no definite answer and either way is a bit of a finger in the wind, however the Tory / Canadian way is guaranteed, but does come with pain.

 

Vincyboy apparently saw all this coming so either it's so random that nobody believed him or they chose ( as most politicians do) to repeat the popularity of the boom and let the next fuckers clean up the bust.

 

As axeman says, it's all immaterial anyway as the path of pain has been chosen and we've all got to take a walk down it.

 

I suppose the problems are going to come from the unions as everybody trys to look after themselves.

[Renton 22065]

I'd take the advice of a Nobel prize winning economist seriously mind, or I suppose we could stick to you Terrence the Tory analogy.

 

Don't see how you reckon the Conservbative way is guaranteed either, it could equally plunge us into a depression - that is a very real fear.

[Happy Face 29]

Is there a reason happy / chez that you would like us to value this Krugmans view over that of the G20?

 

Surely the truth here is that there is no definite answer and either way is a bit of a finger in the wind, however the Tory / Canadian way is guaranteed, but does come with pain.

 

Vincyboy apparently saw all this coming so either it's so random that nobody believed him or they chose ( as most politicians do) to repeat the popularity of the boom and let the next fuckers clean up the bust.

 

As axeman says, it's all immaterial anyway as the path of pain has been chosen and we've all got to take a walk down it.

 

I suppose the problems are going to come from the unions as everybody trys to look after themselves.

 

 

It's not just Krugman. 60 of them wrote letters to the FT saying cuts are "positively dangerous"

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/...315552728?f=rss

Edited June 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

Is there a reason happy / chez that you would like us to value this Krugmans view over that of the G20?

 

The point is we are being force fed the lie there is no alternative, when there plainly is. You might beleive it is the best way, and as a Tory you obviously do, thats fair enough. It doesn't make it necessarily correct though

 

Surely the truth here is that there is no definite answer and either way is a bit of a finger in the wind, however the Tory / Canadian way is guaranteed, but does come with pain.

 

No it isn't guarenteed - citing it ignores the global financial situation as mentioned ad nauseum in this thread. If it was guarenteed there might have been a mention of it before this weekend.

 

As axeman says, it's all immaterial anyway as the path of pain has been chosen and we've all got to take a walk down it.

 

That I can agree with - not exactly happily though

[Christmas Tree 4867]

I'd take the advice of a Nobel prize winning economist seriously mind, or I suppose we could stick to you Terrence the Tory analogy.

 

Don't see how you reckon the Conservbative way is guaranteed either, it could equally plunge us into a depression - that is a very real fear.

 

 

Let's all hope I'm right and your wrong then

[Renton 22065]

I'd take the advice of a Nobel prize winning economist seriously mind, or I suppose we could stick to you Terrence the Tory analogy.

 

Don't see how you reckon the Conservbative way is guaranteed either, it could equally plunge us into a depression - that is a very real fear.

 

 

Let's all hope I'm right and your wrong then

 

Well, a depression was on the cards 2 years ago without the intervention Brown took so I fear the Conservatives really haven't got a clue.

 

I say we get Chez in to sort it out.

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

People at home know that when you've got a debt problem you've got to get on and deal with it and that is the key to the recovery.

 

Thats the sort of clear blue sky thinking that wins my confidence

[Renton 22065]

People at home know that when you've got a debt problem you've got to get on and deal with it and that is the key to the recovery.

 

Thats the sort of clear blue sky thinking that wins my confidence

 

CT should send him his Terrence the Tory story for him to use.

[spongebob toonpants 4167]

People at home know that when you've got a debt problem you've got to get on and deal with it and that is the key to the recovery.

 

Thats the sort of clear blue sky thinking that wins my confidence

 

CT should send him his Terrence the Tory story for him to use.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Cameron lies?

 

Perhaps the most surprising claim in David Cameron's speech today was that the public finances are in an "even worse" state than we thought. Surprising because only a few weeks ago the Budget deficit was in fact revised down from £163.4bn to £156bn.

 

Cameron would say that his claim rests on the news that government debt interest will reach £70bn in the next five years.

 

But, as the Telegraph's Edmund Conway points out, this isn't news. In research cited by the Tories at the time, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated several months ago that debt interest payments would climb to £73.8bn by 2014/15.

 

Thus, there is no economic data on which to base the claim that the debt problem is "even worse" than first thought.

 

If Cameron is convinced that dramatic spending cuts are needed then he should have the decency to make this argument without misrepresenting the state of economy.

 

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the prime minister, afraid to make the honest case for cuts, has instead resorted to scare tactics.

 

UPDATE: Alistair Darling has just issued a firm and measured rebuttal of Cameron's claims. He said: "There is absolutely nothing now that people didn't know when I made my budget statement in March".

 

"To somehow claim that's he's opened the books and found things are worse than he thought is nonsense. This is a classic case of the Tories seeking to blame the last government in order to pave the way for things they've always wanted to do."

 

Darling has actually understated his case. At the time of the Budget we thought the deficit was £163.4bn, we now know it to be £7bn lower than that.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...nterest-cameron

[Happy Face 29]

Before the election, Nick Clegg made much of his willingness to implement "savage and bold" spending cuts. In an interview with the Spectator, he pledged to reduce the deficit through cuts alone, a position that put him to the right of David Cameron.

 

Now, with George Osborne's emergency Budget just weeks away, Clegg reassures us that there will be no repeat of the savage cuts of the 80s, no return to "sink-or-swin economics". But the truth is that the cuts the coalition are planning will be much worse than anything we saw under Thatcher.

 

Many on the left, apparently including Clegg, are unaware that, despite her neoliberal ideology, spending actually rose during Thatcher's premiership. While education and health were neglected, spending on defence, law and order and welfare payments (thanks to mass unemployment) continued to grow. Overall, public spending under Thatcher -- from 1978-79 to 1989-90 -- rose by an average of 1.1 per cent a year.

 

And as this IFS chart shows, spending only fell in real terms in two years: 1985-86 and 1988-89.

 

 

The same body has forecast that the coalition will have to cut non-ring-fenced Budgets by at least 25 per cent to meet its deficit targets. Clegg's platitudes do nothing to prepare voters for the tightest spending squeeze since the Second World War.

 

The Lib Dem leader may attempt to redistribute wealth through the tax system but it remains the case that it is those most reliant on the state -- the poor, the young, the elderly -- who will be hardest hit by the cuts.

 

But on one point he is right. It's not going to be like the 1980s -- it's going to be much worse.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...-thatcher-clegg