Time for a quick reprise?

Don't say you weren't warned!

Time for a quick reprise?

RPRT, I think – regardless of political standing – all can agree on the brilliance of that video.

To answer the original question (IMO):

No. I believe (as do some others on here) that we are returning to the lost era that was the 1980's in the UK, which I believe is being done largely due to the dogma of those who now have their noses happily in the trough with no intentions of taking them out.

(That's possibly my longest sentence on STW!).

having seen the breakdown of how the torries plan to cut the deficit by 2013 im starting to think the budget is a big gamble

the condem plan is to cut 11bn from welfare, 80bn from government spending, and 8bn by raising taxes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10390823.stm

balancing the books is dependent on a doubling of private investment, i think that means pfis, privatisation etc
and our export market rising from 2% to 25%

this is modeled on the experience taht canada had a few years ago and it worked for them
the obvious problem is how you magic up a 25% increase in exports, when a) countries like china make plenty of stiuff on their own
b) we dont have many factories left! (and we will need these factories to employ all the public sector workers about to hit the dole)

it worked in canada but its a huge country with masses of natural resources

a better example would be japan
when they tried to cut their deficit quickly in a similar fashion in the 90s it led to a 15 year recession and a house price crash of 87% average accross the country

lets hope gideons expensive education has given him the insight he needs to take us down the right path

And IIRC japans debt is about 2 or 3 times ours as a % of GDP

house price crash of 87% average accross the country

and that would be a bad thing?

from wikipedia

Economist Richard C. Koo wrote that Japan's "Great Recession" that began in 1990 was a "balance sheet recession." It was triggered by a collapse in land and stock prices, which caused Japanese firms to become insolvent, meaning their assets were worth less than their liabilities. Despite zero interest rates and expansion of the money supply to encourage borrowing, Japanese corporations in aggregate opted to pay down their debts from their own business earnings rather than borrow to invest as firms typically do. Corporate investment, a key demand component of GDP, fell enormously (22% of GDP) between 1990 and its peak decline in 2003. Japanese firms overall became net savers after 1998, as opposed to borrowers. Koo argues that it was massive fiscal stimulus (borrowing and spending by the government) that offset this decline and enabled Japan to maintain its level of GDP. In his view, this avoided a U.S. type Great Depression, in which U.S. GDP fell by 46%. He argued that monetary policy was ineffective because there was limited demand for funds while firms paid down their liabilities. In a balance sheet recession, GDP declines by the amount of debt repayment and un-borrowed individual savings, leaving government stimulus spending as the primary remedy

A comment that was made yesterday on 5Live, was Labour had 13yrs to sort out the countrys overdraft but decided not to.

A comment that was made yesterday on 5Live, was Labour had 13yrs to sort out the countrys overdraft but decided not to.

instead they decided to rebuild the shattered nhs and education systems bring in a minimum wage, foi act and ban fox hunting 😉

A comparison with Japan is not entirely appropriate as their economy is very different to ours, they are a nation of savers and succeeding governments (and many foreign governments) have been keen for them to encourage more consumption to generate growth but they have been singularly unsuccessful. As a result, foreign ownership of Japanese government bonds is very low and their debt markets are arguably less exposed to the risk of capital flight, hence their ability to finance such high levels (200% of gdp) of debt.

Likewise a comparison with Canada is not entirely appropriate because, as noted already they achieved export led growth in an environment where their primary export markets were growing substantially.

So when you say the government are taking a risk you are right, the real question whether it is the least risky option when faced with the realistic (though not certain) prospect of a debt crisis. You will find economists who support both sides of the argument, there is no longer any consensus and you can be pretty sure that the media will pick those with the most fervent views to either support their position or provide the most entertaining arguments.

So when you say the government are taking a risk you are right, the real question whether it is the least risky option when faced with the realistic (though not certain) prospect of a debt crisis. You will find economists who support both sides of the argument, there is no longer any consensus and you can be pretty sure that the media will pick those with the most fervent views to either support their position or provide the most entertaining arguments.

Bloody hell – I have to agree with mefty altho I personally am convinced its a not the least risky its suicidally risky.

Please can someone just answer how we are going to increase our exports to 25%?

SS20 – I have not looked at the details so my basic answer is no but I would imagine encouraging foreign investment through competitive corporation tax rates would be one plank of the strategy.

In addition, and the real reason for posting, is to correct the misconception that only manufacturers export, it is possible to export services as well and we already do a fair bit of this. I should also point out while 25% looks a huge number it is actually the net of two very big numbers, exports less imports so it can be achieved by a combination of an increase in exports and a decrease in imports, not just an increase in the former.

we are going to sell "benefit scroungers" to left wing ccuntries with full employment.
Or private finance will fill the vacum left by the reducing public sector make something , export it and rescue us from this situation if you believe the view of Osborne..it seems highly unlikely to me. Even the most right wing person who complained about the optimistic growth figures of the previous govt must accept that this a highly contentious view. Remember you, me and the multi millionaire estate inheriting Gideon are all in this together and he is also taking some of the tough pain apparently

RPRT – that is genius.

so mefty our way out of this pickle is too encourage foreign companies selling services to come to our rescue by giving them tax breaks whilst cutting benefits slashing jobs and all paying more tax … when you put it like that I cant think why anyone would not support it. I for one long for the return of foreign banks selling their services abroad and exporting their profits…cant see what could possibly go wrong
PS Kimbers said our export market you have described the balance of payments [exports-imports]

RPTP dont have access to you tube I feel cheated what is it?

Cheers Mefty I thought that was the case we have doing this exercise all day in the office and no one has been able to answer just like yourself.

Posted again because its apt;

SUPERMARKET giant Tesco has created an elaborate corporate structure involving offshore tax havens which enables it to avoid paying what could be up to £1 billion of tax on profits from the sale of its UK properties, it was claimed today.

The complex structures are said to include a string of Cayman Island companies, each named after a different colour from aqua to violet.

Tesco has begun a programme of selling and leasing back UK stores, providing the company with a gain of up to £6bn, which would normally be liable to tax.

But the first two deals – worth £445 million and £650m – are said to have used the companies set up in the Cayman Islands, where the rate of corporation tax is zero, allowing Tesco to avoid tax on £500m profit.

The supermarket chain is not alone in such arrangements. Nearly a third of the UK's 700 largest businesses paid no corporation tax in 2005-06, and another third paid less than £10m each.

Lucy Neville, Tesco's executive director of corporate and legal affairs, defended the offshore structures, saying it was the company's duty to shareholders and customers to operate tax-efficiently.

She added: "Tesco is one of the UK's largest taxpayers."

Even the companies based here, already doing business here, don't pay what they ought to, so these foreign companies are going to make a huge difference, right?

Junkyard – I thought I better look at the details, you need to read paras C28 onwards of the red book. You will see the figures are based a growth of exports of 3/4% over the pre budget report and a decrease in imports of 0.5%. These are non oil numbers, I could go on but I think it illustrates my analysis is correct. To be fair my analysis was cribbed from Newsnight, but they concentrated on manufacturing and failed to make the point about services so I thought it was worth making.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/23/budget-welfare-poor-ifs-report

To be fair my analysis was cribbed from Newsnight

i just went off what Kimbers said still quite optomistic thoiugh I am sure the recession will reduce imports but growth seems unlikely IMHO

Noting that Britain was facing the "longest, deepest, sustained cuts in public spending since the second world war, Robert Chote, the IFS director, said: "Osborne and Clegg have been keen to describe yesterday's measures as progressive in the sense that the rich will feel more pain than the poor. That is a debatable claim. The budget looks less progressive – indeed somewhat regressive – when you take out the effect of measures that were inherited from the previous government, when you look further into the future than 2012-13, and when you include some other measures that the Treasury has chosen not to model."……
The IFS found that the richest 10% would be 7.5% worse off by 2014-15 because of measures coming into force during the current parliament but that almost seven percentage points of that was due to Labour changes.

The poorest 10% were left almost untouched by Labour's plans but would see their incomes cut by more than 2.5% over the next five years.

I am amazed to se the multi millionairre Tory punishing the poor and not the rich it is a real surprise that but remember we are all in this together

I decree today that life is simply taking and not giving, England is mine and owes me a living.