Double-dip!

[gordondaviesmoustache]

driven by an ideological case for smaller stae.

Whereas the previous governments's policies were driven by an ideological case for a larger (and unaffordable) state.

The 'Welfare State' which has served to provide a minimum standard of living for the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. which prides itself on equal opportunity, equitable redistribution of income and post WWII to the thatcher saw the greatest economic advances this country has ever made. The larger state role is a by product of increasing social mobility and social cohesion. The downside which I take you loathe is the unneeded bureaucracy and red tape, however this is a sacrifice I'm willing to pay and previous governments were willing to pay to secure not only an increase in economic welfare for its citizens but a fair and even increase in economic welfare for all its citizens.

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point, namely that you criticise the current government's policies for being driven by ideology and yet it was ideology that drove public spending policies throughout the last Labour government.

What you appear to be saying is that: I don't believe in ideology based policies unless I agree with the ideology.

This, to me, displays a complete lack of balance and fairness in your perspective on this matter.

For the record I do not "loathe" the bureaucracy that is attendant in the public sector. I see it as an inevitable and acceptable part of any large organisation up to a point.

What I do loathe is a lack of fiscal responsibility from governments and the complete inabilty of some people to accept the economic reality that Western Europe is now facing. The halcyon post-war days, to which you refer, were a time when the hegemony of developed nations remained largely unchallenged and the demographic landscape was considerably more benign than is the case today.

The party's over, I'm afraid.

 

[ultimateharold]

Officially the longest recession for over 50 years with no end in sight.

We told you so SWP, we told you ;-)

This was in motion long before SWP's preference came into power.

 

[ElanJo]

Strangely Rascal i agree with you about a lot on that. Not the renationalising thing though. As much as that would be great in those sectors because they are ruined anyway what it would do is scare international investors and companies away in certain sectors due to fears you could just buy them out at any given time

I do believe the tide against rampant capitalism is turning. I dont think capitalism is bad per se as obviously it isnt. But people are becoming more and more appaled at corporate greed. I personally have always considered the UK to be a fair country where people pretty much get what they deserve from life, perhaps it swung to far one way and now its swinging to far the other. We have to rebalance our economy of that there is no doubt, but austerity is not working and balancing the books should never be a priority as the country is not a household.

As for nationalisation i would only do it when i believed it was in the nations interest. Its ludicrous that a company can own a national resource, a resource is all of ours by default and we all should share in that resource not just greedy fatcats. I wouldnt for instance create a British Leyland like company, but the nations oil, gas, railways should not be held by corporate entities.

"the nations oil, gas"

Surely it should be "the world's oil, gas" if "a resource is all of ours by default"

Don't be so selfish! I'm not sure if this greediness makes you a fatcat but it certainly makes you on the chubby side

BTW, why is it all of ours by default? Is everything all of ours by default? SUrely whatever premise you use to determine the ownership of resources must apply to everything else aswell?

 

[el blue]

Whereas the previous governments's policies were driven by an ideological case for a larger (and unaffordable) state.

The 'Welfare State' which has served to provide a minimum standard of living for the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. which prides itself on equal opportunity, equitable redistribution of income and post WWII to the thatcher saw the greatest economic advances this country has ever made. The larger state role is a by product of increasing social mobility and social cohesion. The downside which I take you loathe is the unneeded bureaucracy and red tape, however this is a sacrifice I'm willing to pay and previous governments were willing to pay to secure not only an increase in economic welfare for its citizens but a fair and even increase in economic welfare for all its citizens.

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point, namely that you criticise the current government's policies for being driven by ideology and yet it was ideology that drove public spending policies throughout the last Labour government.

What you appear to be saying is that: I don't believe in ideology based policies unless I agree with the ideology.

This, to me, displays a complete lack of balance and fairness in your perspective on this matter.

For the record I do not "loathe" the bureaucracy that is attendant in the public sector. I see it as an inevitable and acceptable part of any large organisation up to a point.

What I do loathe is a lack of fiscal responsibility from governments and the complete inabilty of some people to accept the economic reality that Western Europe is now facing. The halcyon post-war days, to which you refer, were a time when the hegemony of developed nations remained largely unchallenged and the demographic landscape was considerably more benign than is the case today.

The party's over, I'm afraid.

I agree with your post, but I do loathe the bureaucracy in the public sector. Every year, government just gets bigger and bigger and costs more and more and employs more and more people. Government is subtractive, it is not additive. It is a liability not an asset. It is an expense not a source of income.

People use GDP as a measure of economic growth but government spending is (bizarrely) included in those figures. How can you possibly measure a country’s growth if you consider government spending to be part of that growth? It's gone on for decades and now we are approaching the point of saturation and the bloated public sector cannot reduce benefits for fear of civil unrest or losing voter support and it cannot increase its income through taxes because the top of the yield curve has probably already been reached.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The 'Welfare State' which has served to provide a minimum standard of living for the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. which prides itself on equal opportunity, equitable redistribution of income and post WWII to the thatcher saw the greatest economic advances this country has ever made. The larger state role is a by product of increasing social mobility and social cohesion. The downside which I take you loathe is the unneeded bureaucracy and red tape, however this is a sacrifice I'm willing to pay and previous governments were willing to pay to secure not only an increase in economic welfare for its citizens but a fair and even increase in economic welfare for all its citizens.

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point, namely that you criticise the current government's policies for being driven by ideology and yet it was ideology that drove public spending policies throughout the last Labour government.

What you appear to be saying is that: I don't believe in ideology based policies unless I agree with the ideology.

This, to me, displays a complete lack of balance and fairness in your perspective on this matter.

For the record I do not "loathe" the bureaucracy that is attendant in the public sector. I see it as an inevitable and acceptable part of any large organisation up to a point.

What I do loathe is a lack of fiscal responsibility from governments and the complete inabilty of some people to accept the economic reality that Western Europe is now facing. The halcyon post-war days, to which you refer, were a time when the hegemony of developed nations remained largely unchallenged and the demographic landscape was considerably more benign than is the case today.

The party's over, I'm afraid.

I agree with your post, but I do loathe the bureaucracy in the public sector. Every year, government just gets bigger and bigger and costs more and more and employs more and more people. Government is subtractive, it is not additive. It is a liability not an asset. It is an expense not a source of income.

People use GDP as a measure of economic growth but government spending is (bizarrely) included in those figures. How can you possibly measure a country’s growth if you consider government spending to be part of that growth? It's gone on for decades and now we are approaching the point of saturation and the bloated public sector cannot reduce benefits for fear of civil unrest or losing voter support and it cannot increase its income through taxes because the top of the yield curve has probably already been reached.

I think to describe the public sector as subtractive ignores the social benefits that are derived from certain things being in state control.

An example of this is transport. Whilst I am under no illusions about the shortcomings of British Rail, the cost of rail transport in this country today is nothing short of a national disgrace. It is clear to me that in that industry, capitalism has failed to weave its competitive magic, possible because it is not compatible with such an undertaking. Other European countries operate cheap, clean and efficient train systems within the public sector, so this is not some crypto-communist utopian ideal, but rather an example of a mixed economy working effectively for wider society.

It is true that many parts of the public sector require reform and the state is too big, but to dismiss the whole of the public sector as a liability is simplistic at best imo.

What I imagine that we both agree on is that the role of the state should be limited. I personally believe a level of over 40-45% of GDP is completely unhealthy. It's quite possible that you may have a lower threshold :-)

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

The issue here with debt cancellation is most countries dont have the means to get back on a decent economy and the BRIC plus some others countries will leave us for dead. We would become the new 3rd world and thats why debt cancellation has never even entered discussions
The other strange thing is the BRIC countries plus others need our stupid economies and debts as it enables them to be rich

IIRC, and don't quote me on it, but I'm sure I recall reading a piece where it states that one of the US's biggest creditors is Japan and vice versa.

How's that work?

Isn't it China??

Talking of whom, their economy is slowing down (most likely cos of what is happening to the rest of the world, of course), so what happens when they start to call in the debts? There will be no point in printing money as it brings the value down, doesn't it?

Well, this is all very interesting and I'm glad the Tories are going to fook themselves over with their stupid and worthless policies.

Re-routing money to London for the Olympics, thinking trade will pick up because of it. How and when, when there is no money to spend??

Fooking chancers, the lot of them!

While China holds the most foreign debt here is a breakdown of the debt
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns ... 011-7?op=1</a>
China holding most countries debts is another boogeyman story

 

[Rammy Blue]

IIRC, and don't quote me on it, but I'm sure I recall reading a piece where it states that one of the US's biggest creditors is Japan and vice versa.

How's that work?

Isn't it China??

Talking of whom, their economy is slowing down (most likely cos of what is happening to the rest of the world, of course), so what happens when they start to call in the debts? There will be no point in printing money as it brings the value down, doesn't it?

Well, this is all very interesting and I'm glad the Tories are going to fook themselves over with their stupid and worthless policies.

Re-routing money to London for the Olympics, thinking trade will pick up because of it. How and when, when there is no money to spend??

Fooking chancers, the lot of them!

While China holds the most foreign debt here is a breakdown of the debt
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns ... 011-7?op=1</a>
China holding most countries debts is another boogeyman story

Shows I was correct though with my point that Japan is one of the largest US creditors, only just behind China.

Seeing as the vice versa part is correct as well then it still baffles me.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Isn't it China??

Talking of whom, their economy is slowing down (most likely cos of what is happening to the rest of the world, of course), so what happens when they start to call in the debts? There will be no point in printing money as it brings the value down, doesn't it?

Well, this is all very interesting and I'm glad the Tories are going to fook themselves over with their stupid and worthless policies.

Re-routing money to London for the Olympics, thinking trade will pick up because of it. How and when, when there is no money to spend??

Fooking chancers, the lot of them!

While China holds the most foreign debt here is a breakdown of the debt
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns ... 011-7?op=1</a>
China holding most countries debts is another boogeyman story

Shows I was correct though with my point that Japan is one of the largest US creditors, only just behind China.

Seeing as the vice versa part is correct as well then it still baffles me.

Did you know that Japan's debt is 200% GDP while ours is 63% i think. We are also owed more than we owe both Japan and America

 

[brand blue heavies]

Citi Bank now saying that theres a 90% chance that Greece will pull out of the euro. Both Spain and Italy will then get the substantial bailouts that they need but tough measures will be needed if they are to stave off further problems.

That leaves the French. They have been a bit quiet in all this considering they are Germany`s lap dogs...but they are fooooked and Hollande is not helping..

The debt levels which the country has are as unsustainable as Britain’s, yet its policies are more irresponsible and its remedies more restricted. Although it is considered a core country in the eurozone, France’s economic profile now bears more resemblance to Greece’s the Germany’s.

Public debt in France is at 86.1pc of GDP (146pc if ECB liabilities and bank guarantees are included). The projected budget deficit this year is 4.5pc, with France having exempted itself from the EU’s instruction to bring deficits down to 3pct by the end of the year.

These numbers are not unusual in the context of eurozone economies in general. What distinguishes France is the lack of political will to address them and, as a consequence, a projected debt to GDP ratio which would place it firmly amongst the PIIGS grouping...

But Mr François Hollande doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing the situation in a reasonable way. The Telegraph describes his efforts so far:

• Lowering the pension age from 62 to 60.

• Increasing the minimum wage above inflation (albeit not much above inflation).

• Demanding that the EU take even more money from the national governments than was planned, violating a prior agreement and potentially adding £3bn to Britain’s annual tribute.

• Introducing a top rate of income tax at 75pc for those earning €1m or more – a move which gives a marginal rate of tax of 90.5pct on certain types of income.

• Introducing a tax on anyone owning assets in France but living abroad which will see 15.5pc of the rent or capital gain on property transferred to the state.

• Introducing a one off wealth tax at double the rate which had been previously trailed.

Yesterday, a lunch companion explained how the French are reacting: "France is finished. We’re leaving! Well, of course, I’m exaggerating. Young people with talent, brains and ambition are leaving. And old people with money are leaving. That leaves the middle classes... and what you call the ‘zombies’. And there are more and more of them.

"France is becoming a divided place. But it’s not divided between those with money and those without... it’s divided between those who work and those who don’t. Those who do honest work have to work harder and harder to support those who don’t work.”

France is going to go into meltdown and Hollandes priority to tax the rich and well off rather than bring in policies that actually provide growth are going to prove his downfall.

We are not at this point yet but we will be if this government doesnt reduce taxes and develop growth through investment in infrastructure,maufacturing,building and green technology. They are doing it but not quick enough. Taxing the super rich isn`t always the answer.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

France's debt to GDP is far worse than the UK's

bbh I read about that the other day this Hollande guy could single handily ruin France