BoyBlue_1985 said: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
I really dont think the UK's problem is that big. We are practically in the same boat as Germany without the efficiency in industry or the industry. Seen as a safe bet by most in the world and we have the ability to save ourselves. When Spain and Italy go it will hurt like fuck though so I may go and do 2 years in Aus until the dust settles<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:00 am --<br /><br />blueinsa said:Like a nuclear reaction that cant be stopped, the Euro will fail.
The question is, when will the politicians say enough is enough, time to stop spunking billions on the problem?
brand blue heavies said:BoyBlue_1985 said: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
His intentions are good but it smacks of a leader who came to power on a wave of anti austerity measures and a promise of return to growth by buying his way out of the problems. I just dont think he has the political nouse or the financial know how to do it.
I actually agree with his principles but he`s going too far too soon.
Greece is the catalyst in all this. By xmas i can see them exiting the euro with a package of measures controlled by the ECB to aid there transition back to the Drachma. They are not helping themselves having such a large public sector workforce relying on the moneyless government to pay there wages and this is crucifying them. Some of them still retire at 55 regardless of position which is ludicrous!!
gordondaviesmoustache said:city diehard said:gordondaviesmoustache said: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.
BoyBlue_1985 said:I really dont think the UK's problem is that big. We are practically in the same boat as Germany without the efficiency in industry or the industry. Seen as a safe bet by most in the world and we have the ability to save ourselves. When Spain and Italy go it will hurt like fuck though so I may go and do 2 years in Aus until the dust settlesblueinsa said:Like a nuclear reaction that cant be stopped, the Euro will fail.
The question is, when will the politicians say enough is enough, time to stop spunking billions on the problem?
gordondaviesmoustache said:el blue said:gordondaviesmoustache said: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 :-)
blueinsa said:BoyBlue_1985 said:I really dont think the UK's problem is that big. We are practically in the same boat as Germany without the efficiency in industry or the industry. Seen as a safe bet by most in the world and we have the ability to save ourselves. When Spain and Italy go it will hurt like fuck though so I may go and do 2 years in Aus until the dust settlesblueinsa said:Like a nuclear reaction that cant be stopped, the Euro will fail.
The question is, when will the politicians say enough is enough, time to stop spunking billions on the problem?
Rasc has this spot on in that we print our own money. There is no cash crises other than the one invented by the politicians. Every move is made with a view to appeasing the markets, throwing money at them and the banks because they demand it.
The whole fucking system is rotten to the core and until we say enough is enough, it is never going to end and it will only get worse.
lloyds this morning have announced another near £500m loss, no doubt due to losses on the casino side of the business, desperately gambling money away in the hope of making huge profits. That loss is someone else's gain, it hasn't disappeared! No doubt the begging bowl will be round again soon with any money pumped in, gambled away again in the same fashion.
Certain individuals and hedge funds are making billions out of the suffering of millions and it has got to stop.
Tell the banks to go fuck themselves, wipe the debts clean and start again with a financial banking system fit for purpose. I couldn't give a fuck if a bank then wants to gamble its own money, but when it goes tits up, it goes and that side of the business has to be allowed to fail, separate from its public operations.
Economies are stimulated by spending. People need money in their pockets to buy houses, cars and to spend in stores. It isn't a difficult thing to get your head round and years and years of self and wrongly imposed austerity is only ever going to end one way!
brand blue heavies said:blueinsa said:BoyBlue_1985 said:I really dont think the UK's problem is that big. We are practically in the same boat as Germany without the efficiency in industry or the industry. Seen as a safe bet by most in the world and we have the ability to save ourselves. When Spain and Italy go it will hurt like fuck though so I may go and do 2 years in Aus until the dust settles
Rasc has this spot on in that we print our own money. There is no cash crises other than the one invented by the politicians. Every move is made with a view to appeasing the markets, throwing money at them and the banks because they demand it.
The whole fucking system is rotten to the core and until we say enough is enough, it is never going to end and it will only get worse.
lloyds this morning have announced another near £500m loss, no doubt due to losses on the casino side of the business, desperately gambling money away in the hope of making huge profits. That loss is someone else's gain, it hasn't disappeared! No doubt the begging bowl will be round again soon with any money pumped in, gambled away again in the same fashion.
Certain individuals and hedge funds are making billions out of the suffering of millions and it has got to stop.
Tell the banks to go fuck themselves, wipe the debts clean and start again with a financial banking system fit for purpose. I couldn't give a fuck if a bank then wants to gamble its own money, but when it goes tits up, it goes and that side of the business has to be allowed to fail, separate from its public operations.
Economies are stimulated by spending. People need money in their pockets to buy houses, cars and to spend in stores. It isn't a difficult thing to get your head round and years and years of self and wrongly imposed austerity is only ever going to end one way!
Lloyds have put aside £700m for PPI claims hence the loss. Thats not to say i dont agree with you view on Banks in principle. Its a monster thats been out of control and needs to be reigned in by Governemnt. Im not going to blame Labour for this but them and the following coalition have are not doing enough to regulate whats goes on. I always insist that a good,sound economy is built on solid banking and this needs to continue but the greedy bankers playing with our money need to be held accountable and i think this is slowly happening.
Putting money in peoples pockets means banks lending to businesses to employ and help firms compete,this inturn puts money in peoples pockets. If the banks do this and dont get a return then the whole thing starts again. Its basic banking principles that have gone to pot and this needs sorting.
Rascal does have a point and thankfully we do print our own cash and dont need to be bailed out by the Germans(thankfully) but you cant just give cash to firms and people. It has to be filtered down and distributed accordingly as if not this just increases inflation and prices for everything rise..including mortgage rates. This is the thing that needs looking at Quicker,more readily available funding needs to be distributed.
city diehard said:gordondaviesmoustache said:city diehard said: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.
You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point that we are on the brink or even in a depression as Krugman states; which ultimately means that the luxury of pursuing ideological aims of a smaller state is not the time nor the place, whereas the economic conditions under New Labour allowed for as you put it for the ideological aim of a larger state. In essence, appreciate this point; choose your moments.
city diehard said:gordondaviesmoustache said:el blue said: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 :-)
Since government spending is a component of Aggregate Demand and in turn the taxation and benefits received by the populace has a direct impact on the GDP. For example the US found it's recovery from the Great depression by expanding it's military in response to conflicts, this in turn led to 60 years of growth which saw the US become the largest economy in the world. To say that Government spending should not be part of GDP and hence AD is frankly pathetic but eh why don't you go on and rewrite the fcukin textbooks.