October 6th 2009

Cressers

The day the Tories snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?

Pross

Why? The telling us that there'll have to be cuts to pay off the country's debts - didn't see that coming! :shock:

STEFANOS4784

Meh, nothing ever really changes..........

Smokin Joe

Doing what needs to be done. In case you haven't heard, we're skint.

Retirement age was always going to have to be raised as there are more old people and less younger ones, and why the hell were people earning over fifty grand a year getting tax credits anyway?

keef66

We've had New Labour lurch to the right, now we've got Modern Conservatives wobbling to the left. Soon be indistinguishable. Whoever gets in will have massive debts to manage, and tax increases with massive cuts in goverment spending will be inevitable.
Anyone standing up now and promising no tax rises or cuts in services will not be taken seriously.

I've had it with politicians / government. If they spent as much time and energy on running the country efficiently as they do slagging each other off, leaking information to the press, avoiding answering questions, and twisting the facts in an attempt to spin good from bad, we'd all be better off.

TheStone

keef66 wrote:

We've had New Labour lurch to the right, now we've got Modern Conservatives wobbling to the left. Soon be indistinguishable. Whoever gets in will have massive debts to manage, and tax increases with massive cuts in goverment spending will be inevitable.
Anyone standing up now and promising no tax rises or cuts in services will not be taken seriously.

I've had it with politicians / government. If they spent as much time and energy on running the country efficiently as they do slagging each other off, leaking information to the press, avoiding answering questions, and twisting the facts in an attempt to spin good from bad, we'd all be better off.

+1

People shouldn't underestimate the hole we're in. They'll raise taxes, but we're fairly
near limit where you end up getting less money back. Cuts, cuts and more cuts.

All this money we've spent on the NHS, welfare for people making 58k etc. Turns out
we couldn't afford it.

mingmong

keef66 wrote:

We've had New Labour lurch to the right, now we've got Modern Conservatives wobbling to the left. Soon be indistinguishable. Whoever gets in will have massive debts to manage, and tax increases with massive cuts in goverment spending will be inevitable.
Anyone standing up now and promising no tax rises or cuts in services will not be taken seriously.

I've had it with politicians / government. If they spent as much time and energy on running the country efficiently as they do slagging each other off, leaking information to the press, avoiding answering questions, and twisting the facts in an attempt to spin good from bad, we'd all be better off.

+2


My Nan (God rest her) always used to say, "they're all the same with their feet under the table"

Le Commentateur

"They're all the same, with their hand in your pocket"

skinson

Perhaps we should ask the people who got us in this mess, ie the banking community if they could see their way clear to bailing us out? Trident, 25-30 billion do we need it? NHS, 100 billion, isn't it time we stopped letting people who don't contribute to it using it? Benifits, I often see young kids pushing babies in prams. I feel like saying " could I please hold your baby, because as you or the father of it doesn't work, it must in some way be a little relative of mine because I clothe and feed it!!" I was stood in the post office the other morning 09:00. Every single person in front of me was drawing money!!!! Apart from the 3 OAP's whom I have the greatest of respect, I felt in some way that they were going off to spend my hard earned cash. For the last 27 years I have paid 11% of my income towards my pension, now I'm being told I may have to take a lesser pension or work longer! Fair? I'll tell you what's fair, no work....no money, no work.....no benefits, no work.........no treatment. I think it's time we had a revolution.... :evil:

Gotte

MingMong wrote:

My Nan (God rest her) always used to say, "they're all the same with their feet under the table"

That's a great one. Nice one, Nan.

The Prodigy

skinson wrote:

Perhaps we should ask the people who got us in this mess, ie the banking community if they could see their way clear to bailing us out? Trident, 25-30 billion do we need it? NHS, 100 billion, isn't it time we stopped letting people who don't contribute to it using it? Benifits, I often see young kids pushing babies in prams. I feel like saying " could I please hold your baby, because as you or the father of it doesn't work, it must in some way be a little relative of mine because I clothe and feed it!!" I was stood in the post office the other morning 09:00. Every single person in front of me was drawing money!!!! Apart from the 3 OAP's whom I have the greatest of respect, I felt in some way that they were going off to spend my hard earned cash. For the last 27 years I have paid 11% of my income towards my pension, now I'm being told I may have to take a lesser pension or work longer! Fair? I'll tell you what's fair, no work....no money, no work.....no benefits, no work.........no treatment. I think it's time we had a revolution.... :evil:

+1 you are not alone on this one

neilmacd

skinson wrote:

Perhaps we should ask the people who got us in this mess, ie the banking community if they could see their way clear to bailing us out? Trident, 25-30 billion do we need it? NHS, 100 billion, isn't it time we stopped letting people who don't contribute to it using it? Benifits, I often see young kids pushing babies in prams. I feel like saying " could I please hold your baby, because as you or the father of it doesn't work, it must in some way be a little relative of mine because I clothe and feed it!!" I was stood in the post office the other morning 09:00. Every single person in front of me was drawing money!!!! Apart from the 3 OAP's whom I have the greatest of respect, I felt in some way that they were going off to spend my hard earned cash. For the last 27 years I have paid 11% of my income towards my pension, now I'm being told I may have to take a lesser pension or work longer! Fair? I'll tell you what's fair, no work....no money, no work.....no benefits, no work.........no treatment. I think it's time we had a revolution.... :evil:

+1

I heard something on Radio Scotland recently that said that the entire Income Tax received in this country is basically used to fund the benefits system.
Which given thtat the bulk of it is spent on people with no intention of working is bloody typical of the mess this country is in.

teagar

In the short term, tax is about money in vs money out, like any bank account.

In the long term it isn't.

Recessions come about because people don't spend enough.

If the government stop spending as much too...

There is a danger that soft targets that don't win many votes, minority social supportetc, lose out on much needed cash. (Doncaster is a good example. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... c-services. Then again, I read an article on the same chap in the Mail saying he was a "breath of fresh air". :roll:)

A reduction in public sector wastage is important, but not that essential yet!


Tories will win though. No doubt. Question is whether it's a landslide or not. I suspect not.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

Recessions come about because people don't spend enough.
!

Recessions come about because people spent too much.
It's a natural readjustment of the economy, like a hangover.

The problem this time, is the idiot in charge wouldn't accept this, because he'd changed
the economic fundamentals forever.

So now he's thrown a load more debt on top to try to get people to keep spending too much.

... except no-one will lend him the money, so the BoE are printing it for him like Zimbabwe.
It won't end well.

teagar

neilmacd wrote:

skinson wrote:

Perhaps we should ask the people who got us in this mess, ie the banking community if they could see their way clear to bailing us out? Trident, 25-30 billion do we need it? NHS, 100 billion, isn't it time we stopped letting people who don't contribute to it using it? Benifits, I often see young kids pushing babies in prams. I feel like saying " could I please hold your baby, because as you or the father of it doesn't work, it must in some way be a little relative of mine because I clothe and feed it!!" I was stood in the post office the other morning 09:00. Every single person in front of me was drawing money!!!! Apart from the 3 OAP's whom I have the greatest of respect, I felt in some way that they were going off to spend my hard earned cash. For the last 27 years I have paid 11% of my income towards my pension, now I'm being told I may have to take a lesser pension or work longer! Fair? I'll tell you what's fair, no work....no money, no work.....no benefits, no work.........no treatment. I think it's time we had a revolution.... :evil:

+1

I heard something on Radio Scotland recently that said that the entire Income Tax received in this country is basically used to fund the benefits system.
Which given thtat the bulk of it is spent on people with no intention of working is bloody typical of the mess this country is in.

There's some basic economic theory (Keynes), who said that to get out of a recession, you might as well pay people to dig holes and fill them up again.

As long as people on benefits are spending, then it's all good for the moment - they're doing their economic duty.

If they start saving like everyone else is, then it's wasted money.

Harry B

teagar wrote:

As long as people on benefits are spending, then it's all good for the moment - they're doing their economic duty.

Oh dear, you're going to get some stick for that

skinson

If they start saving like everyone else is, then it's wasted money.

fair comment, but......Start saving? how the hell can they afford to save when they are in receipt of benefits? In fact they shouldn't get benefits as money, but as vouchers that way they have to trade their vouchers for food, clothes, and other ESSENTIALS, and not beer, fags, drugs......

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

Recessions come about because people don't spend enough.
!

Recessions come about because people spent too much.
It's a natural readjustment of the economy, like a hangover.

The problem this time, is the idiot in charge wouldn't accept this, because he'd changed
the economic fundamentals forever.

So now he's thrown a load more debt on top to try to get people to keep spending too much.

... except no-one will lend him the money, so the BoE are printing it for him like Zimbabwe.
It won't end well.

lol!

No, this particular recession came because people now feel they spent too much, and so arn't spending so much any more.

It's pretty simple. GDP is basically measured by the entire nation's income minus imports.

The less people buy stuff, the less companies make money, the more people they lay off, the less people have money to spend, the less they buy.......

finchy

My Mum and step-dad (both teachers) can tell the Tories or Labour where to start with cuts in the education sector - my Mum's school has an executive headteacher, several deputy heads, a few associate heads, and then several other senior managers.

A few years ago it was just a head and a deputy, and they did a much better job by all accounts.

The funny thing is, the voters are going to punish Labour for their disastrous economic policies and reward the Tories who had.... more or less exactly the same policies :roll:

It wouldn't have mattered whether the people of the UK had voted red or blue in '97, '01 and '05, we would have had the same old mess.

disgruntledgoat

Anybody read Peter Oborne's "The Triumph of the Political Class"?

Brilliant synopsis of how career politicians with no sense of duty who've never done a days real work screwed us all with short termism and lust for power.

Pross

fair comment, but......Start saving? how the hell can they afford to save when they are in receipt of benefits? In fact they shouldn't get benefits as money, but as vouchers that way they have to trade their vouchers for food, clothes, and other ESSENTIALS, and not beer, fags, drugs......

Spot on, an American friend was saying that is how their system works. I've got no objection to helping those less well off and genuinely in need of support but when I see these people smoking and drinking with the money given when I can't afford a decent night out it really annoys me. If they were only getting support in the basics such as food then I suspect they would soon be out earning their beer money.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

lol!

No, this particular recession came because people now feel they spent too much, and so arn't spending so much any more.

It's pretty simple. GDP is basically measured by the entire nation's income minus imports.

The less people buy stuff, the less companies make money, the more people they lay off, the less people have money to spend, the less they buy.......

It's one way of looking at it, but implies it's all sentiment. To an extent it is, but the change
in sentiment is caused by the huge debts. The broad money supply has been inflating at
an incredible rate over the last 10 years, but wages have not. There comes a point
when so much is borrowed against the future, it can't be paid back.

I also wouldn't take too much notice of GDP at the moment. They'll report a rise of 1% this
quarter or next, but when the govt is borrowing and spending 20% of GDP is this really
a rise of 1%, or a fall of 19%, or somewhere in between?

2Phat4Rapha

Woman went to court to have her marriage annulled because after 12 years it hadn't been consummated. The judge asked what was wrong with her husband. "He's New Labour" she said. What's that got to do with it asked the judge. "Well, he just sits on the edge of the bed and tells me how good it's going to be"!

Boom boom!

finchy

Pross wrote:

fair comment, but......Start saving? how the hell can they afford to save when they are in receipt of benefits? In fact they shouldn't get benefits as money, but as vouchers that way they have to trade their vouchers for food, clothes, and other ESSENTIALS, and not beer, fags, drugs......

Spot on, an American friend was saying that is how their system works. I've got no objection to helping those less well off and genuinely in need of support but when I see these people smoking and drinking with the money given when I can't afford a decent night out it really annoys me. If they were only getting support in the basics such as food then I suspect they would soon be out earning their beer money.

Correction. They'd be shoplifting beer. Or sending their kids to shoplift it for them.

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

lol!

No, this particular recession came because people now feel they spent too much, and so arn't spending so much any more.

It's pretty simple. GDP is basically measured by the entire nation's income minus imports.

The less people buy stuff, the less companies make money, the more people they lay off, the less people have money to spend, the less they buy.......

It's one way of looking at it, but implies it's all sentiment. To an extent it is, but the change
in sentiment is caused by the huge debts. The broad money supply has been inflating at
an incredible rate over the last 10 years, but wages have not. There comes a point
when so much is borrowed against the future, it can't be paid back.

I also wouldn't take too much notice of GDP at the moment. They'll report a rise of 1% this
quarter or next, but when the govt is borrowing and spending 20% of GDP is this really
a rise of 1%, or a fall of 19%, or somewhere in between?

That's not how loans work.

A recession or economic depression is most often defined a a fall in real (i.e. inflation/currency adjucted) GDP.

Loans do not have the effect on figures as you suggest



A loan is just a form of credit. It's a lubricant for any economy. When economies are doing badly, you need more of them. Unfortunately, credit is harder to come by, so companies can't send as much etc. At least, that's what I remember when i studied economics.

I'd pay an awful lot of attention to GDP.

Edit: There are ways of representing GDP differnetly, such as year on year, or as indexed etc, which naturally do affect the figures. Loans don't however.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

lol!

No, this particular recession came because people now feel they spent too much, and so arn't spending so much any more.

It's pretty simple. GDP is basically measured by the entire nation's income minus imports.

The less people buy stuff, the less companies make money, the more people they lay off, the less people have money to spend, the less they buy.......

It's one way of looking at it, but implies it's all sentiment. To an extent it is, but the change
in sentiment is caused by the huge debts. The broad money supply has been inflating at
an incredible rate over the last 10 years, but wages have not. There comes a point
when so much is borrowed against the future, it can't be paid back.

I also wouldn't take too much notice of GDP at the moment. They'll report a rise of 1% this
quarter or next, but when the govt is borrowing and spending 20% of GDP is this really
a rise of 1%, or a fall of 19%, or somewhere in between?

That's not how loans work.

A recession or economic depression is most often defined a a fall in real (i.e. inflation/currency adjucted) GDP.

Loans do not have the effect on figures as you suggest



A loan is just a form of credit. It's a lubricant for any economy. When economies are doing badly, you need more of them. Unfortunately, credit is harder to come by, so companies can't send as much etc. At least, that's what I remember when i studied economics.

I'd pay an awful lot of attention to GDP.

Edit: There are ways of representing GDP differnetly, such as year on year, or as indexed etc, which naturally do affect the figures. Loans don't however.

But nearly all our spending is based on debt. The more debt the more spending.

In theory the expanding of the money supply caused by the increase of debt would
cause inflation, which is negated from the increase in spending to calc GDP, but if you
measure inflation by a basket full of ever changing, mostly imported goods you count
the debt as growth.

The debt/growth goes away, so the govt take on the debt and spending for us, so it
looks like there is no problem .... but this is just pushing it back a year or two.

hopper1

skinson wrote:

If they start saving like everyone else is, then it's wasted money.

fair comment, but......Start saving? how the hell can they afford to save when they are in receipt of benefits? In fact they shouldn't get benefits as money, but as vouchers that way they have to trade their vouchers for food, clothes, and other ESSENTIALS, and not beer, fags, drugs......

They started using vouchers for the immigrants in my area years ago... The immigrants would then stand outside Sainsbury's, offering cheap food vouchers to shoppers.
On occasion, people rfused to buy the voucher and were beaten up!

Should be like Spain, if you ain't Spanish... P1ss off!

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

lol!

No, this particular recession came because people now feel they spent too much, and so arn't spending so much any more.

It's pretty simple. GDP is basically measured by the entire nation's income minus imports.

The less people buy stuff, the less companies make money, the more people they lay off, the less people have money to spend, the less they buy.......

It's one way of looking at it, but implies it's all sentiment. To an extent it is, but the change
in sentiment is caused by the huge debts. The broad money supply has been inflating at
an incredible rate over the last 10 years, but wages have not. There comes a point
when so much is borrowed against the future, it can't be paid back.

I also wouldn't take too much notice of GDP at the moment. They'll report a rise of 1% this
quarter or next, but when the govt is borrowing and spending 20% of GDP is this really
a rise of 1%, or a fall of 19%, or somewhere in between?

That's not how loans work.

A recession or economic depression is most often defined a a fall in real (i.e. inflation/currency adjucted) GDP.

Loans do not have the effect on figures as you suggest



A loan is just a form of credit. It's a lubricant for any economy. When economies are doing badly, you need more of them. Unfortunately, credit is harder to come by, so companies can't send as much etc. At least, that's what I remember when i studied economics.

I'd pay an awful lot of attention to GDP.

Edit: There are ways of representing GDP differnetly, such as year on year, or as indexed etc, which naturally do affect the figures. Loans don't however.

But nearly all our spending is based on debt. The more debt the more spending.

In theory the expanding of the money supply caused by the increase of debt would
cause inflation, which is negated from the increase in spending to calc GDP, but if you
measure inflation by a basket full of ever changing, mostly imported goods you count
the debt as growth.

The debt/growth goes away, so the govt take on the debt and spending for us, so it
looks like there is no problem .... but this is just pushing it back a year or two.

Real GDP is inflation adjusted so your concerns about the money supply don't have an affect on the GDP figure.

The large amount of loans does naturally have an effect on real interests rates, since government borrowing off the public (government bonds), have to be competitiive, so interest rates naturally creep up. As we know, high interest rates slow down economic growth so there is a risk there.

If anything, borrowing when there is rampant inflation ( I don't necessarily agree with you that that is actually the case!!!), which is what you're suggesting makes a lot of sense, since as the value of the currency decreases, so does the real value of the loan you have to service.

A loan 100 years ago of £10,000 is worth considerably more than now!

The economy needs loans to lubricate it and get it going again. Once GDP starts growing again, the loans will become more easy to service.

The economy is shrinking, so it needs the money now!!

There are plenty of smart economists in the gov't and BoE who know what they're doing. Certainly better than a public who is largely, (and I include myself in this) ignorant and ill-educated to economics.

finchy

teagar wrote:

There are plenty of smart economists in the gov't and BoE who know what they're doing. Certainly better than a public who is largely, (and I include myself in this) ignorant and ill-educated to economics.

Really? Pity they didn't recognise a market bubble and debt crisis when they saw one then, because even I saw that one coming, and my knowledge of economics is extremely rudimentary to say the least.

N.B. I'm sure that some of them did see it coming, but I guess then their warnings would have been ignored in the name of political expediency.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

Real GDP is inflation adjusted so your concerns about the money supply don't have an affect on the GDP figure.

Yes, if they used money supply inflation, but they don't. They use a price index.
(which includes a very small part of house costs - the current asset bubble)

teagar wrote:

The large amount of loans does naturally have an effect on real interests rates, since government borrowing off the public (government bonds), have to be competitiive, so interest rates naturally creep up. As we know, high interest rates slow down economic growth so there is a risk there.

This is the point I think you're having a laugh with me? The govt is no longer borrowing
off the public. It's borrowing from the BoE* who are printing the money.

* via the banks who take a nice cut

teagar wrote:

If anything, borrowing when there is rampant inflation ( I don't necessarily agree with you that that is actually the case!!!), which is what you're suggesting makes a lot of sense, since as the value of the currency decreases, so does the real value of the loan you have to service.

The relationship is the other way round. The increase in debt, increases the broad
money supply

teagar wrote:

There are plenty of smart economists in the gov't and BoE who know what they're doing. Certainly better than a public who is largely, (and I include myself in this) ignorant and ill-educated to economics.

Ok, now I know you're having a laugh!. Let me know if you're not and I'll dig out the govt
and BoE predictions, which are always way out. These are the same people who didn't
spot the crash. Gordon, still doesn't realise there were any problems in the UK.

teagar

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

There are plenty of smart economists in the gov't and BoE who know what they're doing. Certainly better than a public who is largely, (and I include myself in this) ignorant and ill-educated to economics.

Really? Pity they didn't recognise a market bubble and debt crisis when they saw one then, because even I saw that one coming, and my knowledge of economics is extremely rudimentary to say the least.

N.B. I'm sure that some of them did see it coming, but I guess then their warnings would have been ignored in the name of political expediency.

It's an international recession! Not a UK one.

It's just a storm you have to steer.