[Closed] Has the deficit got smaller under the Tories?

Yes. But they haven't reduced it by as much as they originally planned to. The current forecast doesn't show it being eliminated until 2018.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653 ]BBC Summary[/url]

Shrunk?

Surely 'reduced' would be a better word, if in case it is true, as we are [b]only[/b] talking about the deficit and not the actually debt.

The debt has actually increased....

Edit: too slow or typed too much

Note also the difference between deficit and debt.

The Tories* are spending more than they have as a government but have slightly reduced the amount they are overspending by.
Of course debt relative to GDP (which governs our ability to pay off debt) also looks bad, but that's because they've failed to engineer a decent recovery.

So would it have been any better under Labour? Of the available answers (yes, no and who knows) the only sensible one is probably who knows - but don't let that stop the clairvoyants telling you otherwise.

*yes I know the LibDems are culpable too, but it seems cruel when they have so many other problems of their own.

[img] [/img]

"They didn't actually believe you, did they?!!!!"

Ah ok in plain english what is the difference between the deficit and debt?

Edit IGM has kind of answered my question.

They deliberately talk about "eliminating the deficit" as people think that means paying back the debt that's already accrued, when what they actually mean is stopping the debt getting any bigger, so if there's still a deficit it means those fiscally responsible Tories are still spending more than is coming in.

To be fair getting tax receipts higher than spend is step one in reducing debt.

Or you can go for inflation to reduce the relative size of the debt.

So would it have been any better under Labour? Of the available answers (yes, no and who knows) the only sensible one is probably who knows - but don't let that stop the clairvoyants telling you otherwise.

Trust me.... when it comes to economic matters, I really know what I'm doing. This guy taught me everything I know......

[img] [/img]

Ah ok in plain english what is the difference between the deficit and debt?

Say we're a million in debt now. Running at a deficit means this year we receive 50 million and spend £51 million, so next year we're 2 million in debt.

Eliminating the deficit next year, we receive £50 million and spend £50 million (so no deficit) but we're still £2 million in debt.

Think about having a balance on a credit card and you're only making the minimum payments, so the interest is covered, but the debt isn't being paid down.

Debt is what the country owes

Deficit is the difference between what we got coming in and going out, more out than in is deficit

If you have a deficit then it implies that your debt is increasing.

[quote=footflaps said]The debt has actually increased....

Well if there's a deficit then how can the debt decrease ?

They deliberately talk about "eliminating the deficit" as people think that means paying back the debt that's already accrued

Only stupid people. It's actually rather more useful to discuss the deficit than the debt in terms of management of the economy.

Well if there's a deficit then how can the debt decrease ?

Well the real value of the debt could still decrease 😉

Rate of change of national debt increase has gone down (but isn't negative as we do not have a surplus).

Say we're a million in debt now. Running at a deficit means this year we receive 50 million and spend £51 million, so next year we're 2 million in debt.

That's too simplistic, isn't it? As well as new borrowing, the deficit also includes any existing debt falling due and that requires re-financing.

National debt's often looked at as a percentage of GDP, rather than as an absolute, since obviously large debt is less worrying for a large, strong country- a pound of debt is a massive issue if you earn a penny a year, not so much if you earn a tenner a year. So if you grow the economy faster than the debt it's generally seen as being similiar in effect to reducing the debt.

Ironically, Labour reduced both the deficit, and the debt-to-GDP ratio, up til 2008. Obviously shit then hit fan

....That's too simplistic, isn't it?

remember your audience here largely still think "poo jokes" are funny and that rude witlessness passes as "banter" 😆

They deliberately talk about "eliminating the deficit" as people think that means paying back the debt that's already accrued, when what they actually mean is stopping the debt getting any bigger

You didn't notice Balls the other day pledged to 'eliminate the current account deficit' rather than 'eliminate the deficit'

Note the subtle but vitally important difference...

Ironically, Labour reduced both the deficit

hmmmm......

[url= http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jp g" target="_blank">http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

I like these threads. I've missed them. 🙂

hmmmm......

take you facts back with you Troll, this was a perfectly reasonable thread before you came on here spoiling it!

Hmmm, Labour government or Tory government?

It's like asking whether you want to sever your left testicle or your right testicle with a pair of rusty pliers.....

So Brown started well, then got a bit carried away and realised the mistakes he'd made so started to get things in the right direction again. Along comes Darling and things start to go completely haywire. Was this due to:

A: his incompetence?
B: pressure from Brown to win votes with pay rises and other schemes that were financial suicide?

Actually quite impressed that Osbourne seems to have cut the deficit by about a third!

A Guardian reader Mr Stoner?

Hmmm, Labour government or Tory government?

It's like asking whether you want to sever your left testicle or your right testicle with a pair of rusty pliers.....

Would sir like his huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread? Actually, I reckon we decide by who looks the biggest twonk while delivering their conference speech....

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Was this due to:

A: his incompetence?
B: pressure from Brown to win votes with pay rises and other schemes that were financial suicide?

No it was a world wide financial crisis, surprised you didn't notice it.

Stoner - Member

hmmmm......

Fair point, treasury stats have it still in deficit while your graph shows it in surplus, but it depends on how you measure.

A [b]^former[/b] Guardian reader Mr Stoner?

I still take the saturday edition. But stopped my weekday subscription when they sacked all their decent international journalists because like any good left wing outfit they ran out of someone else's money (Scott Trust) 🙂

But dont worry, deep-pocketed-leftie-fans-of-Islington! You can now personally help pay for Mr Rusbridger's new piano and £400k salary 🙂

http://www.theguardian.com/membership

but it depends on how you measure.

"No it was a world wide financial crisis, surprised you didn't notice it."

So what's the excuse for the 5 years of increasing deficit before that happened - given that other major economies were not increasing their borrowing?

Stoner's numbers (looks like a Guardian pice to me, come on own up closet lefty - edit: apologies I missed your confession above) do seem to suggest there's nothing to choose between Labour and Tory, but global financial melt downs are bad under any administration.

In other news, Pope still...

Labour inherited a strong economy as you can see from the lead in on that graph. The Labour got carried away with spending in a strong economy instead of running a surplus as should be the case in such times. So when things went bad they went really bad.

Odd that Gordon Brown didn't get ribbed for opting not to use his first name, James, while George Osborne does for opting not to use Gideon.

They deliberately talk about "eliminating the deficit" as people think that means paying back the debt that's already accrued

Only stupid people. It's actually rather more useful to discuss the deficit than the debt in terms of management of the economy.

Yes, stupid people. Stupid people who have votes. Or to be slightly less harsh, fiscally illiterate people, of whom there are a great many, a lot of whom you wouldn't necessarily describe as "stupid" in general...

Labour inherited an economy in deficit, took it into surplus, then back into deficit, then the worlds finances collapsed and the deficit rose hugely as world governments had to bail out financial institutions and major companies, the tories inherited the economy at the bottom but haven't made that much impact on the deficit for the pain they have inflicted.

FWIW, the IMF concluded that the UK's increase in national debt was mostly because of the damage to output, rather than government spending. The direct cost of the bailouts were relatively small.

Whether you want to trust the IMF is another question of course, though they're usually skewed towards austerity rather than stimulus.

Stoner's numbers (looks like a Guardian pice to me, come on own up closet lefty) do seem to suggest there's nothing to choose between Labour and Tory

That kind of depends how you read them, given there was a recession in the early 90s, but not in 2005

Odd that Gordon Brown didn't get ribbed for opting not to use his first name, James, while George Osborne does for opting not to use Gideon.

Yeah, I mean what sort of sensible reason might there be for a public figure to choose not be called "James Brown"?

Or Tony instead of Miranda 😉

Aracer - interpretation is everything. I still reckon they're all equally bad though.

However one side crowing about how they are the only ones fit to run the economy, having pretty much a free hand to do whatever they liked and singularly failing to make much on an impression (yes the deficit is a two-thirds of what it was, but it was never going to remain at that level under any of the UK parties - well maybe under UKIP once links with our nearest large trading partner were cut) does grate a bit. Not as good as their press I reckon.

Yeah, I mean what sort of sensible reason might there be for a public figure to choose not be called "James Brown"?

[s]Pappa's[/s] Chancellor's got a [s]brand new[/s] quite old [s]bag[/s] red box

Or perhaps...

I've got money
Money won't change you
Don't be a drop out
Say it loud - I'm [s]black[/s] Scots and I'm proud

I have a mental image of Gordon Brown singing Sex Machine.

The deficit doesn't scare me quite as much now 😯

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the economic policies (such as there is any 'policy' at all) of both main parties are now basically indistinguishable from one another?

Its not like labour have committed to some grand programme of Keynesian economic stimulus, or owt. They're just going to do exactly the same, but just look like they're not enjoying it as much.

MSP - if your income goes down you cut your spending where practicable. Darling carried on regardless and then decided to spend even more on bailing out banks etc.

If your boss told you that you were being cut down to 3 days a week with a third of the wages would you then continue spend in what you did before then think 'I've got all this free time, might as well buy a £5k wonder bike on the credit card and hit the trails!' in the full knowledge that you'll most likely never see that money again and that you'll be trying to pay it back for the next decade or more?
Then when your wife/partner goes to do the food shopping she discovers all the money's gone and you've left a little note saying 'Sorry, the party's over!'?

That's pretty much what Daring and Brown did to the whole sodding country!! Except that countries can't declare themselves bankrupt then start all over again in a few years.

Can they 💡 ❓

They can - it's called default. It's not good.

Nor would failing to bail out the nasty capitalists responsible for this mess* - the hit on Champagne sales might have destroyed Europe and caused a black hole to eat Wall Street.

*any bankers in?

I have a mental image of Gordon Brown singing Sex Machine.

The deficit doesn't scare me quite as much now

😀

Personal finances always make incredibly poor analogies for national economies - they simply don't work in the same way.

binners - that's my understanding.

The Tories are portrayed by all (including themselves) as the party of tough cuts and austerity, despite adding £10k [i]per person[/i] to the national debt over 5 years, and Labour as diametrically opposed to this policy, despite offering pretty much exactly the same.

they simply don't work in the same way.

Oh I dont know....most people are happy for inflation to chip away at their mortgage for them....

It's just a pity I cant unilaterally devalue the pound to help it along a bit more 😉

aracer -
Personal finances always make incredibly poor analogies for national economies - they simply don't work in the same way.

Agreed, but for the majority of people it's the nearest example of balancing the books they can relate to. The whole mechanism nationally (and internationally) is incredibly complicated but if you try and explain it to the average person their eyes will glaze over in confusion. I certainly don't understand a lot of it, but if you put it as more going out than in people get the basic idea and can use that to get some understanding of the rest of it.

Labour inherited an economy in deficit, took it into surplus, then back into deficit, then the worlds finances collapsed and the deficit rose hugely as world governments had to bail out financial institutions and major companies, the tories inherited the economy at the bottom but haven't made that much impact on the deficit for the pain they have inflicted.

Of course the Tories increased the national debt, to have done otherwise would have meant moving to a budget surplus which would have been impossible over the past 3 years. Look at the chart @Stoner put up. The Tories are doing what they can to try and improve the situation but it's going to take a very ling time.

Don't the French just expect the rest of Europe to fund their lifestyles anyway?

CaptainFlashheart - Member

I have a mental image of Gordon Brown singing Sex Machine.

The deficit doesn't scare me quite as much now

I really want Jamie to produce a gif for this!

[i] hilldodger - Member

....That's too simplistic, isn't it?

remember your audience here largely still think "poo jokes" are funny and that rude witlessness passes as "banter"[/i]

I couldn't have put it better myself. It's an observation which probably renders the remainder of this post, a waist of time.

[i]Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the economic policies (such as there is any 'policy' at all) of both main parties are now basically indistinguishable from one another?[/i]

Well, while in general, Labour are a pretty arrogant lot and not beyond concluding that the general public are too stupid to notice Labour trying to match the Conservatives, hoping this will get them elected (When they're not calling old women bigots).
So long as they remember to mention the economy, in the first place..... Priorities, innit. Yes, Labour will try to poach as much from the Conservatives on economic matters, as they can as they're generally shocking at even remembering to talk about the economy, yet alone devise a plan to rebuild it.

[i]Don't the French just expect [s]the rest of Europe[/s] [b]Germany[/b] to fund their lifestyles anyway? [/i]

Probably not an example we should aspire to emulating though....

A difference between Labour and the Conservatives, is one side (Labour) for an apparent lack of understanding economics. Tend to want to employ the entire nation, bloat the public sector, burden the few brave souls left to work in the private sector with tax, tax and more tax. Tax the big companies who employ folk, yadda, yadda. With no regard for how much into the red they send us as a nation.
They're spending addicts, who will not stop using the credit card until the nation votes them out of power and takes the credit cards away.
They're supported by the type of person who seems to want the state to take away all of our money in taxes and provide all the services those people could ever want, in return.
Twice, in my life time, Labour have have been in power and twice, that reign has ended in financial crisis.
At least they're consistent.

The Conservatives tend to want to reduce the size of the state, which unfortunately for some means kicking people off the cushy government pay roll and into the dreaded private sector, where they might have to actually earn their wages and pensions. It's a party characterized as being a gang of toffs, a class discimination the left are quick to exercise as often as possible. Twice in my lifetime they've had to come in and attempt to clear up what was left by the previous administration. Trouble is, if and when they do, it goes to their heads, they probably cut too far and so the pendulum swings back the other way, and on, and on, and on......

Yeah that cushy government payroll, they should have daddies friend get them a job instead, then they will understand how hard life can be 🙄

All those policemen, nurses, teachers, social workers etc etc etc that are all lazy workshy overpaid ****ers suckling off the nipple of hard working corporate heroes.

Twice in my lifetime they've had to come in and attempt to clear up what was left by the previous administration.

And as discussed, the 2007/8 melt down was global.

You could probably as easily and accurately characterise the Tories as the party of unemployment as Labour as the party of taxation. They are both tools that the parties use.

All those policemen, nurses, teachers, social workers etc etc etc that are all lazy workshy overpaid ****ers suckling off the nipple of hard working corporate heroes.

@binners I think the French expect future generations of French to fund their lifestyle that plus a misplaced optimism which just says it will all be all-right

The Conservatives tend to want to reduce the size of the state, which unfortunately for some means kicking people off the cushy government pay roll and into the dreaded private sector, where they might have to actually earn their wages and pensions. It's a party characterized as being a gang of toffs, a class discimination the left are quick to exercise as often as possible. Twice in my lifetime they've had to come in and attempt to clear up what was left by the previous administration. Trouble is, if and when they do, it goes to their heads, they probably cut too far and so the pendulum swings back the other way, and on, and on, and on......

I'm surprised you've found the time to post on here from the tory party conference. When are you due on stage for your speech?

Solo has coveted it fairly well with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

And for balance, I remember my dad leaving the RAF in 1979 after 22 years and struggling to get a job, mum working 2-3 part time jobs to cover the bills, before falling on his feet c1982 and having a great 15 year career before he retired. All under Tory rule.

So, basically, they will each screw tbe country over, pure chance whether you catch the right wave at the right time.

and into the dreaded private sector, where they might have to actually earn their wages and pensions.

Christ not this again. I work in the private sector. I reckon about 2/3rds of the people here couldn't hack working in frontline public sector posts such as a social worker, nurse, police officer, teacher etc. In fact in my Mrs job (drug worker) I'm pretty confident they wouldn't last a single week before they handed in their notice.

Personal finances always make incredibly poor analogies for national economies

'The nations credit card'. Quite possibly the most willingly stupid and nonsensical phrase ever invented by a politician.

milky1980 - Member
So Brown started well, then got a bit carried away and realised the mistakes he'd made so started to get things in the right direction again. Along comes Darling and things start to go completely haywire. Was this due to:

A: his incompetence?
B: pressure from Brown to win votes with pay rises and other schemes that were financial suicide?

Actually quite impressed that Osbourne seems to have cut the deficit by about a third!

Remember, however, Gordon Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserve between 1999 & 2002. At knock down prices as well!

I would be gobsmacked if he had racked up a budget deficit as well. There was then probably significant pressure placed upon Darling to maintain spending at a similar level once Gordon had moved to number 10. Thing is Darling borrowed to do so 🙁

Solo has coveted it fairly well with his tongue firmly in his cheek

Conveniently ignoring all the Tory led recessions of the 80s....

Solo pre the crash GO and the tories agreed to match Labour on spending and now Labour agree to match the tories. It is inaccurate to claim one is this and one the other

At best you get a different flavour of spin whilst doing. largely, the same thing,

Twice in my lifetime they've had to come in and attempt to clear up what was left by the previous administration

No matter how right wing or polemic you wish to be it is quite hard to blame the labour party for

1. OPEC quadrupling oil prices in the 70's
2. the sub prime slump in the USA and subsequent global meltdown and recession- remember the tories are even more light touch and had matched spending plans

2. the sub prime slump in the USA and subsequent global meltdown and recession- remember the tories are even more light touch and had matched spending plans

yeah, but we went [i]into[/i] the recession with several years worth of a huge, growing deficit and government spending at an all time high.

edit: I'd even feel like cutting them some slack if that spending had seen the delivery of public services at an all time high, but instead that massive expansion of the state and huge spending bought us Baby P, Rotherham, Stafford NHS trust etc!

yeah, but we went into the recession with several years worth of a huge, growing deficit and government spending at an all time high.

based on spending plans the tories pledged to match?

I'd even feel like cutting them some slack if that spending had seen the delivery of public services at an all time high, but instead that massive expansion of the state and huge spending bought us Baby P, Rotherham, Stafford NHS trust etc!

Take a quick drive around Manchester or any other northern city. What you will see is brand spanking new schools, hospitals, health centres etc all of which were built since 1997. Yes there are problems, and you can criticise the funding mechanisms (PFI etc), but you can't deny that a lot of money was spent on providing 1st class facilities which simply wouldn't have happened in a non-borrowing environment.

based on spending plans the tories pledged to match?

Really? I don't get that statement. Tories found plenty of places to make cuts right?

[i]Remember, however, Gordon Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserve between 1999 & 2002. At knock down prices as well![/i]

1. Because the treasury wanted rid of a volatile commodity and replaced by long term bond holding
2. Has to balanced against the massive income generated by mobile phone licence auctions
3. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that it was a bit if wheeze to deliberately drive down the price if gold in order to rescue some banks (natch) who held short debt positions on gold
4. We've still holding over 300 tonnes of the stuff

Can we put it to bed now?

but instead that massive expansion of the state and huge spending bought us Baby P, Rotherham, Stafford NHS trust etc!

Just think what we would we have had [i]without[/i] all that spending then!

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

as for the NHS, waiting times were reduced, big improvements were seen in cancer treatment under labour, all being reversed thanks to the cuts in funding to NHS, universities and research currently

yeah, but we went into the recession with several years worth of a huge, growing deficit and government spending at an all time high.

Not huge by any means, in absolute terms (£) it was smaller than the Tories under Major and relative to GDP it was much smaller. It was also reducing (prior to the global melt down)....

[img] [/img]

And for balance, I remember my dad leaving the RAF in 1979 after 22 years and struggling to get a job, mum working 2-3 part time jobs to cover the bills, before falling on his feet c1982 and having a great 15 year career before he retired. All under Tory rule.

Given the Tories only came into power in 1979 I am not sure you can blame them for the sorting everything out inside a few months. There was a lot going on politically at the end of the 70s and into the 80s.

When talking about Labour matching the Tory spending plans I seem to recall that was only for the first 2 years of the NuLab parliament. after that it was all down to Gordon's awesome prowess as a chancellor. Or not.

In the same way that the global economic crash of 2008 was not the fault of Labour (although the spending plans and management within our economy before it most definitely were) neither was the economic crash in the early 90s (black Wednesday etc) the fault of the current Govt but more the result of being part of, and tied to, the ERM. Things started to get better once we pulled the plug on that and could begin to take control of our own finances.

Anyway, although the leftist view maybe that solo's comment was tongue in check it is still at a generalisation level pretty accurate.

but instead that massive expansion of the state and huge spending bought us Baby P, Rotherham, Stafford NHS trust etc!

Well I'm surprised you didn't go further and quote your hero Dan Hannan there labrat.

When talking about Labour matching the Tory spending plans I seem to recall that was only for the first 2 years of the NuLab parliament. after that it was all down to Gordon's awesome prowess as a chancellor. Or not.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Here[/url] is George Osborne promising to match Labours spending plans.

neither was the economic crash in the early 90s (black Wednesday etc) the fault of the current Govt but more the result of being part of, and tied to, the ERM.

Erm,(literally) The Government of the time Joined the ERM in 1990.

In the same way that the global economic crash of 2008 was not the fault of Labour (although the spending plans and management within our economy before it most definitely were)

Which I hasten to add again, the tories were going to match, the crash was a result of right leaning governments world wide and their poxy ideology of small state and minimal regulation. And what is the cure for it demanded by the right? Oh yes, even smaller states and even less regulation.

The Human race has a habit of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, but some can't see the barn door because of the potential to make even more money stacked in front of it.

There'll be another major crash, and once again it will be the ordinary folk who have to pick up the pieces again.

. Has to balanced against the massive income generated by mobile phone licence auctions

This is just a tax, you end up paying a bigger mobile phone bill as the companies need to recoup their expenditure.

Yes, the 'facts' are very convenient except we had a toxic blend of a Labour government de-regulating the banks and financial services sector, declaring that boom and bust was over and it was all boom going forward and them leading the charge and setting the tone by borrowing to the hilt and spending even more quickly such that when the inevitable eventually happened they had no choice but to put us 156 billion in the hole.

Over the last 3 years the deficit has been reduced by 56 billion, which is not a 'Small bit' as some have described it. Whilst at the same time delivering some economic stability and small level of growth at a time when our European neighbours are on the verge of economic collapse, because of countries like France who have adopted the sort of economic policies that could have been copied and pasted out of the Labour Party's manifesto and that they say they will adopt if they get back into power. Ironically it was Labour in the '70's after their previous economic disaster that declared that you can't spend your way out of recession. Its a shame the current rabble can't listen to the lessons of their own past.

Natiinal economies can run a pepertual deficit and still be successful.

Whar matters is the ability to raise capital cheaply on the intetnational markets - which is not a problem for the UK.

Eliminating deficit or reducing debt is really a side show, the real argument is aoput whether you believe reducing taxes and holding down public sector spend stimutaes growth to reduce and keeps the international money markets happy so debt cheap - or whether government spending to stimulate the economy is the way to go. The first austerity route is the way Europe is going generally, but there are a lot of commentators (with Nobel prizes in economics for what its worth) who think the second neo-keynsianism is the route.

Over the last 3 years the deficit has been reduced by 56 billion, which is not a 'Small bit' as some have described it. Whilst at the same time delivering some economic stability and small level of growth

Don't be silly. You have no idea if the growth would have been better or worse had a different policy been followed. That's the kind of logic that says rain dances work because if you do them enough it will rain eventually.

[img] [/img]
/p>

I hate to reproduce this terrible graph but as its part of the debate here goes

I hate this graph as it should really show the defect as a % of GDP.

I have literally know idea whether the defasit was better or worse in 1979 as I've no idea how to allow for inflation etc.

To try and show a bit of balance I'l start by putting down Brown. My complaint about him as that he presided over a growing economy but seemed to fail to notice that the growth had to end at some point as it was all based on borrowing against house. ithink something like 600 billion eneterd the Uk economey as increased mortgage debt. We now know how that ended but it had to end. We couldn't still be growing sarah Beeney style

But what really gets me cross is the but that looks quite good around the late 1980s. the problem is we don't live in numbers we live in an actuak country. Those numbers were achieved by not spending on things that eventually have to be paid for. Sewage infrastructure etc. was left to decay. It still needed doing so in effect its a debt it just doesn't show up on the graph. At the same time we were selling assets like the Phone network, which of course you only get to sell once. In stead the money went on tax cuts.

I think I need to end on a hopeless analogies

The late 1980s was like a yuppy stood outside his house grinning and pointing at his new Golf GTI which has just bought with the money granny left him. Some in street think he is doing really well. But he is not. The house needs a new roof and rewiring and many other jobs. He's just blown the money he had to do the repairs on short term splurg