Forum menu
lets you know that he was preparing for power from an early age changing his name to one the plebs might find less offensive
Or possibly he didn't like his name and decided to change it?
That redpepper article mentions debt levels between 1920 and 1960. Were there any significant world events just prior to, and during, that period which would make it poor as a comparison?
They didn't have a War on Terror (TM), for a start.
so perhaps a more telling stat would be to compare our levels of debt/gdp with a number of similar countries now, on which we are also far from the worst?
I said earlier that I've no interest in getting into a huge argument about this. For me to explain the problems to you, it's pretty clear that I'd have to teach you the basics of economics.
Here's a very rough list of what would determine whether the government has an acceptable level of debt:
Level of multiplier effect - dictated by public opinion
Current level of Debt
Level of Deficit
Growth predictions
Likely future currency movements
Future spending plans
Growth predictions for trading partners.
Likelihood of default.
Current interest rates.
Likely future interest rates.
I think you should be able to see that taking a TJ line of "we've got less debt than XYZ" is an incredibly narrow way of looking at the issue.
TJ mentioned the wonderfully happy Dutch and Scandinavians in a previous thread about taxation and service levels. Shame they have a higher suicide rate than the UK.
Ah, but they kill themselves in a good state of health! Ha!
I said earlier that I've no interest in getting into a huge argument about this. For me to explain the problems to you, it's pretty clear that I'd have to teach you the basics of economics.
You mean 'I've got no interest in actually making an argument, I'm just going to be patronising and make it sound like I know what I'm talking about, without actually saying anything'.
I'm not suggesting that everything is hunk-dory - I'm suggesting that the scale of the problem has been grossly exaggerated to suit the Tories idealogical position.
Agreed - some might say that it's been 'sexed up' 😉
I'm not suggesting that everything is hunk-dory - I'm suggesting that the scale of the problem has been grossly exaggerated to suit the Tories idealogical position.
Oh, I thought you were suggesting that Red Pepper article was something that should actually be taken seriously by people. I've explained to you why it's a badly argued piece, but you seem to be unable to understand my arguments. What other conclusion can I draw?
Hardly suggests the apocalypse we are being sold does it?
Debt/deficit - both begin with d so why not interchange them.
[img] 
[/img]
I've explained to you why it's a badly argued piece
Except that you haven't done any such thing.
Rio - so what we learn from that is that the government deficit increases massively during a huge recession - wow.
I also wonder why everyone is ignoring the point made earlier that the deficit could equally well be reduced by employing some of the anti-tax evasion policies that the Lib Dems have conveniently abandoned, presumably because they aren't allowed to upset the Tories rich chums.
Why is it that only cuts are being explored as an option? Because they are ideologically motivated.
druidh - look at this graph
... which shows current debt as a percentage of GDP is currently the highest it's ever been except during the post world war periods.
... which shows current debt as a percentage of GDP is currently the highest it's ever been except during the post world war periods.
In the middle of a massive worldwide financial crisis yes....
[url=
Well done tron - fail to make any kind of argument at all other than saying 'because you're wrong', then call people thick when they don't accept your inherent intellectual superiority - you really did well there. 🙄
'Tis quite funny though.
I've explained repeatedly to you what is wrong with the arguments in the article. I really don't see how you can fail to understand.
Saying that you don't agree with something isn't the same as explaining why it's wrong.
He has explained why he thinks it's wrong. However he clearly hasn't done it to the level of detail that you'd like... you're both right and wrong...
reviewing trons posts he has said
deficit does not equal debt
there are indirect taxes as well as direct ones
and the article doesnt take into account that public opinion and public spending may affect economic growth
it doesnt appear to be anysort of real analysis of teh article
He's also said that the key points it uses aren't relevant to the point being argued. I haven't read it so can't comment on the veracity of that statement but clearly grum would like him to explain in detail why they aren't relevant.
it doesnt appear to be anysort of real analysis of teh article
I've no interest in analysing the entirety of an article which anyone with basic knowledge of economics and logic can see is incorrect. Hence I've drawn a couple of points out - no understanding of the multiplier effect, or that what is acceptable in one context is not in another. I think once you've exposed such basic flaws in the argument, there's no point going any further.
grum - MemberWhy is it that only cuts are being explored as an option? Because they are ideologically motivated.
?? All governments are idealogically motivated. It's just that your ideaology is different from the current one.
[i]Hardly suggests the apocalypse we are being sold does it? [/i]
Er... I don't think anyone is saying things are anywhere near as bad as they were in the post war periods, just the worst they have been since.
Shame they have a higher suicide rate than the UK.
The frequently very fine line between deciding to record 'death by misadventure', 'open verdict' and 'suicide' in the UK (and quite possibly overseas too) makes that a very unreliable comparison.
Sorry.
julianwilson - Member
Shame they have a higher suicide rate than the UK.
The frequently very fine line between deciding to record 'death by misadventure', 'open verdict' and 'suicide' in the UK (and quite possibly overseas too) makes that a very unreliable comparison.
Better to rely on an unsubstantiated assertion then?
Kimbers - you do like spouting rubbish about exports, if you had bothered to read the Red Book (paragraph C.18 onwards) by now you would have realised that the 25% (not 40%, even you admitted this - see [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/osbornes-budget-yes-or-no/page/6#post-1548527 ]here[/url]) of growth from exports is actually a 25% growth due to the reduction in the trade deficit. Is this impossible, of course not, even before the supply side effects of the budget have any effect, year on year growth in exports was 15.5% at the end of the second quarter and increasing, while growth in imports was 14.6% and slowing.
Did you see me taking sides there druidh? Just trying to raise the bar for people evidencing their aguments, innit.
[edit] If we want to start comparing tax vs gdp vs value for money public service vs quality of life, I would start with average lifespan, infant mortality (they don't generally commit suicide), percentage above/below poverty line (if you can find a reliable one), some kind of reliable indicator of literacy age 12 and general educational level at age 18. You never know, some of all that money we have spent on the EU mnight have gone into researching some of it...
thing is even if you did that julian, someone would claim that successive governments have continually moved the goalposts to massage that sort of data.
he sad truth is we need some very stringent cuts to be made and sooner rather than later; there is a huge public sector employment bubble in the UK right now and it simply isn't sustainable. We need to trim the public sector back so that it only provides essential services and tighter limits on efficiency and spending need to be put in place.Why? Justify that statement.
Look at the accounts of any local authority and you will see evidence of massive overspending and debt. For example Somerset County Council is over £300m in debt. For an organisation that should only be delivering essential local services and taking a risk averse approach to it's activities that seems pretty scandalous to me.
In the last few years I have worked for companies serving local authorities, in councils and, more recently, for a quango. I have also worked alongside a range of publicly funded support bodies. Maybe its because I work to support private sector companies that are struggling to survive, maybe I'm just being cycnical, but I see very little in the public sector (outside of education, health and defence) that should be spared from severe cuts. Personally I'm looking forward to getting back to the private sector.
The current government is trying to do what should have been done a long time ago which is to establish a new baseline for the economy. It won't be easy or pretty but it needs to be done.
Anyway, I shall leave you old women to bitch and moan. I still, for the moment, have a job to be getting on with.
I'm particularly Enjoying your viewpoint on this one TJ - as its akin to the chicken little viewpoint you held on the London mayor - "run run, the sky is falling" the way you (and others) told it at the time, the conquest of big bad boris would see everything slashed to the core and the end of society and public services as we knew them.
It would seem that if you listen to some on here, the inevitable outcome of the ideological passion of the evil Tories to reign in the excesses of "big statism" will see the country turned to something from the last half of Threads 🙄
In fact, I think its even interesting to consider this ideological demand to cut back the state - I'd say that yes, it is part of the conservative ideology to minimise the involvement of the state in peoples lives, however that is a libertatian argument not purely due to economic left/right conservatism, and a counter to the "ideology" under Neue Arbeit where we have watched the state creep further and further into people’s homes and their private lives under the cover of pretending to act in our best interest. The eternal ideology whereby socialists despise freedom and independence, as only by holding power over the people can a socialist government impose its will.
What TJ also chooses to ignore is that by constantly banging on about the proportion of GDP spent on "vital public services" he's shooting his own fox - GDP has shrunk in during the recession, therefore the inevitable result is that Public services must also shrink in cash terms to reflect the reduced income!
An inconvenient truth - public spending will rise in fiscal terms this Parliament according to existing government budget plans
2009-10 (Last Labour year) £669bn
2010-11 £697bn
2011-12 £700bn
2012-13 £711bn
2013-14 £722bn
2014-15 £737bn (£68bn or 10% above Labour level)
Read that again - 10% increase in total government spending during the life of this parliament.
Now, TJ will clearly come back and say that a 10% increase reflects a 25% or more cut [b]in real terms[/b] - however the problem there, is that this presupposes an inflationary factor of about 4%. Again, TJ shoots his own fox, since if the effect of these huge "cuts" is to lengthen the recession, then that consequentially reduces inflation... no inflation, no "real terms" cuts...
mefty you are right
- 40% is what weve been told to expect in funding cuts at my institution as such im kind of preoccupied with that figure
however after this report in the ft yesterday
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0510fc78-bbfb-11df-a972-00144feab49a.html
Trade deficit rises to postwar record
I cant share your optimism
Zulu - just your usual piffle - not even worth answering. Your usual trick of stating I say/ have said / will say things I simply don't believe in. Your use of "Neue Arbeit" means you just failed godwins law. Thus you can safely be ignored
Big Dave - the thing is the budgets [i]could be[/i] increased hence there is no "force of nature" that means we MUST cut - there are other answers to the issues than cuts on the scale proposed. Budgets in public services are an artificial construct that is politically set. Cuts is one answer, increased revenue is another. Promoting growth is another. Other countries of similar size spend an awful lot more of their GDP on services
And [url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7638b892-a462-11df-abf7-00144feabdc0.html ]this[/url] was the commentary on the previous month, highlighting the danger of putting too much weight in any one month's figures. There is also some anecdotal evidence that some of the import growth is partly due to capital investment which will have long term benefit to the economy. However, the Government's forecast did assume a worse trading position this year - see para C.28 of the Red Book
C.28 Net trade is forecast to subtract from growth in 2010, as relatively
robust import growth outweighs still-sluggish exports. As the recovery in UK
export markets strengthens and sterling’s past depreciation boosts UK export
volumes, net trade is forecast to contribute positively to growth.
Godwin's law doesn't actually mean other points can be ignored TJ - that's just lazy or a convenient way to avoid answering questions that you don't want to... (in fact Godwin's Law pertains only to the fact that Nazis will eventually be raised in an internet discussion, not to the veracity of any points held in connection with it)
As to your assertion that everyone is being conned, that is of course startlingly arrogant - suggesting that everyone apart from you and a select few others (who undoubtedly generally agree with your general political stance) understand the situation fully. Many people do believe that cuts are necessary because of their own experiences of waste in the NHS, councils, etc - that doesn't necessarily mean that cuts will really improve that situation as such but it's a perfectly valid position to hold if you're not just taking it as verbatim from the media.
Clubber - is there anything in Zulus drivel worh answring? I think not.
I will have a go at answering yours tho.
If you understand the position and believe cuts are right then maybe you haven't been conned. The people who have been conned are the ones who believe:-
1) we are a high tax high spend economy when we are not
2) that there is no alternative to cuts - clearly there are alternative
3) that Cameron is not doing this massive and unprecedented cutting out of an ideological drive
4) that we cannot afford our current level of public spending.
The only reason for cuts on this scale is ideological - there is no other reason. Its far harsher than anything Thatcher did.
Yes, I think there is though I don't necessarily agree with his points - explain at least why they're not worth answering - Godwin's is insufficient.
As to the points about idealogy I think you're missing the point. Many people who have experienced the public services first hand can see massive waste. As a result many of them believe that cuts are necessary. For many I reckon that's why they voted Tory. Idealogy is irrelevant - many people simply want to see cuts and though many may lack the real world understanding to see why it's nigh on impossible to really get the 'efficiency savings' that are always touted, it's not inherently an unreasonable position.
I see nothing worth answering in Zulus post. Not a single point worth debating. Claiming I would say this and that is just nonsense - the rest of it is obvious and beside the point.
Which as usual is the problem with debate by the extremes on each side. You strongly disagree so you shut up shop and refuse to debate it. If that's what it comes to then frankly you may as well both just stick to backing up your convictions by only talking to people who agree with you.
Its far harsher than anything Thatcher did.
There must be a Thatcher version of Godwin's law. TJ's law?
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher ]"Thursday 25 March 2010 21.40 GMT. Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances."[/url]
Clubber - I am quite happy to debate with someone worth debating with - even you in this case 😉
Don't damn me with your faint praise 😉
Just stating that someone isn't worth debating with leaves you open to accusations that you just can't give a decent response, especially for people who are happy to post reams at all other times...
Appears that TJ's had his @rse kicked and has performed the intellectual equivalent of taking his ball home with him.
Hardly. Its just run its course. I don't think there is owt more to say - the various positions have been outlined, explanations sought and proffered, a few gratuitous insults swapped - that about it really.
He won't have done that. He'll be back with some reason why it's all Lady T's fault after he's had his dinner.