Are we heading towards a third world Britain ?

245

Comments

  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    Cressers wrote:
    Third world britain? we've been there a long time. When countries like South Korea have better broadband coverage, higher wages, and get acess to hi-tech goods sooner than we in the UK it should give a reason to stop and ponder what we have become...

    As far as I am aware, the higher wages and so forth can be largely put down to an astonishing work ethic.

    My experience of our office in Korea was that they were still hard at work every night at 4am. That wasn't an attempt to be in line with European times, they just kept working throughout the day and night.

    I honestly don't know how that office does it.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • TheStone
    TheStone Posts: 2,291
    nolf wrote:
    However the point about printing money is wrong, quantitative easing is not printing money. While there are some similarities, it's a lot subtler and more complicated.
    The Bank of England uses cash to purchase govt. bonds from private investors, reducing the bond yield and encouraging investment in other finacial instruments, leading to a general reduction in yield on investments, this drives loan prices down to inividuals and businesses, and so indirectly encourages the creation of cheaper debt, while also driving up some liquid asset prices giving an extra bit of cash to those individuals with investments.

    The distinction between the 2 is that quantitiave easing is only short term, as when the market recovers you sell the purchased bonds back and delete the money you get for them, whereas printing money is blunt and difficult to reverse.

    Until you reverse the QE it's exactly the same as printing money.
    Do we believe they'll reverse all or some of it, or simply hold the gilts till maturity and
    effectively monetise the govt debt? The fact that the QE money has been used almost
    solely to buy gilts (rather than a mixture of assets as intended) makes it the same* as
    the start of the Zimbabwe model.

    * not quite the same, as that's not allowed, but they're getting round it by the central
    banks purchasing the debt from the secondary market. The outcome is identical
    (except the banks make a profit too).

    Agree, it's a global recession, but the UK were so poorly placed going into it. With a few
    smaller exceptions, we had the largest property bubble, the highest bank leverage and
    the highest overall debt. Gordon Brown was warned so many times by the IMF of the
    dangerous position the UK was in, but he laughed it off as he knew better. Turns out,
    he didn't.

    The state grew so large on the tax revenue from the debt bubble that we now have to
    borrow nearly 50% on top of the current govt revenue. Tiny parts of this are stimulus.
    Most of it is structural.
    exercise.png
  • markyboy2005
    markyboy2005 Posts: 465
    Cressers wrote:
    Third world britain? we've been there a long time. When countries like South Korea have better broadband coverage, higher wages, and get acess to hi-tech goods sooner than we in the UK it should give a reason to stop and ponder what we have become...

    Why would South Korea not have better technology and higher wages than Britain? Doesn't seem that unlikely a scenario to me or is it because they are "from the East" they should not be in our bracket?
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    teagar wrote:
    Some stuff

    You can keep your condescending tone, I'm pretty certain I never blamed the current government for the recession merely referenced the fact that we as a nation appear to be skint once again and Labour are in charge. A recession may not be avoidable but not having any money in the bank when it hits is down to those in charge as someone has already pointed out. There are countries who have had a surplus to ease the pain of recent events so why weren't we in that position?

    I'm well aware of the causes of the recent financial crisis thanks to an FT subscription for god know how many years so please stop assuming I need your lectures delivered with childish pfft remarks. Thanks.
  • nicensleazy
    nicensleazy Posts: 2,310
    nasahapley wrote:
    nicensleazy wrote:
    I think we are! Over the past few months etc, I have noticed the roads are not being repaired and resemble former east German roads before reunification. Street lights not being maintained and a sharp increase in cash point ram raiding. Whilst these are only a few points I have noted, they are extremely noticable. Sadly, perhaps we need to think about the situation at home before dishing out millions in overseas aid. I'm sorry to say that in a way, but I guess we need to get our own house in order!

    Best! Comment! Ever!!! A few streetlights out and a few potholes (after weeks of sub-zero temperatures...), well it's just like Mogadishu isn't it? Mind you, I did notice that the council haven't painted one of the zebra crossings in town for a few years - you can hardly see it now - next thing you know there'll be an illegal diamond mine where Bettys used to be, and I'll have to walk an hour to fetch a bucket of malarial water every morning. FFS get some perspective man.

    Well old chap.....this has been going on for a number of years and not just over a few days. Roads , lighting is all the usual infrastructure within a country. Having spent many years working in South Africa and watching the slow deterioration of a lovely country, I suggest I have a point. Although, I did find your witty comments somewaht amusing. I do feel this country is heading down a slippery slope and I don't think its going to be a pleasant journey
  • rrsodl
    rrsodl Posts: 486
    nicensleazy wrote:
    I think we are! Over the past few months etc, I have noticed the roads are not being repaired and resemble former east German roads before reunification. Street lights not being maintained and a sharp increase in cash point ram raiding. Whilst these are only a few points I have noted, they are extremely noticable. Sadly, perhaps we need to think about the situation at home before dishing out millions in overseas aid. I'm sorry to say that in a way, but I guess we need to get our own house in order!

    What can I say? I can only say this is a very ignorant question. Not worth discussing any further.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    verylonglegs wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    Some stuff

    You can keep your condescending tone, I'm pretty certain I never blamed the current government for the recession merely referenced the fact that we as a nation appear to be skint once again and Labour are in charge.

    Let's have a look at what you wrote.
    t was around 1995 and the lecturer said 'A Labour government always wrecks the economy'. He stated this with absolute confidence, an indisputable fact. We were all around 18-19 and had only ever known Conservative rule and didn't really question it at the time but what do you know, he was bang on!

    I think most people would say that the current global recession wrecked the economy. I think my assumption that you were talking about the recession was quite reasonable.

    I was not being condescending. I assumed someone who was blaming the current gov't for 'wrecking the economy', which I took, reasonably, to be synonymous with 'bringing on a recession', was clearly not familar with what caused the global recession. If they did, they'd understand that the Labour gov't has little to do with the global recession. Hence the explanation.


    'm well aware of the causes of the recent financial crisis thanks to an FT subscription for god know how many years so please stop assuming I need your lectures delivered with childish pfft remarks. Thanks.

    Given that I'm not familiar with your reading habbits or your subscriptions, I don't think you can hold that against me. If I did, then you should probably be worried. You're calling me childish, but also accuse me of being condescending? Pot calling the kettle black.
    A recession may not be avoidable but not having any money in the bank when it hits is down to those in charge as someone has already pointed out. There are countries who have had a surplus to ease the pain of recent events so why weren't we in that position?

    You cover a few points here. When you talk about "not having any money in the bank", do you mean people of the UK, or the UK gov't?

    If you mean the people of the UK, then I think you're wrong to blame the gov't for what the average punter does with his finances. It's well known, (at least, that's the stereotype of the British in the Netherlands), that the average person is much riskier with their personal finances, taking on more debt. I think the figures of the level at which the average Briton is in debt corroborates. I doubt the average man or women in the street had the thought process "now that Brown has abolished boom and bust, I can borrow more!". It was symptom of very cheap loans, from financers who got it wrong. Again, it's not the fault of the gov't.

    If you mean the UK gov't, then you must be using a figure of speech, since, last time I checked, the UK gov't had an awful lot of money in the banks, since they part own a lot of them!

    If you're refering to the level of national debt, then it's a bit grayer and more complicated. I'm of the Keynesian view, (as you are probably aware of, given your highbrow subscriptions :roll:) that you need to spend out of a recession. As far as I am concerned, as long as the credit rating isn't harmed too much, the gov't must borrow as much as it needs to, to force the UK economy out of recession. It's easy to service debt when the economy is in growth. You also then avoid all the social costs that recessions cause. They're more devestating than just hurting a few people's bank acounts.

    Cameron's obsession with the level of gov't debt to me, smacks entirely of easy political opportunism at the expense of what's needed; which is an honest, non-moral consideration, of what needs to be done. The closest party there as I understand it are the Lib-Dems, with their boy-wonder Vince Cable (who the tories seem to LOATH, though I'm not quite sure why? Abhorence to tax and spend perhaps?).

    It's easy to blame the gov't carte blanche for being part of a recession but it's not quite right.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • nolf
    nolf Posts: 1,287
    If you're refering to the level of national debt, then it's a bit grayer and more complicated. I'm of the Keynesian view, (as you are probably aware of, given your highbrow subscriptions Rolling Eyes) that you need to spend out of a recession. As far as I am concerned, as long as the credit rating isn't harmed too much, the gov't must borrow as much as it needs to, to force the UK economy out of recession. It's easy to service debt when the economy is in growth. You also then avoid all the social costs that recessions cause. They're more devestating than just hurting a few people's bank acounts.
    *Teagear*

    1. don't be messin wiv the FT.
    2. I'm always wary of anyone who says that 1 particular solution is always applicable in given circumstances. I think Thatcher was proven right with her tight fiscal approach to the financial woes in the 80's, but do agree that in this instance there was a necessity to boost cash flow, but that it was more to do with increasing liquidity than generally pushing up demand.

    Demand comes into it as well, but the restoration of liquidity to the market was really what helped the banks get through the very dark times (that and having the mother of all underwriters), rather than demand boosting measures immediately affecting Consumption.

    I think theres an inherent risk in just spending and assuming that positive growth in the future will pay for it. I think now would be a great opportunity to slim down the civil service an economise. The health service, for eample, is in radical need of reform and a really tight fiscal situation such as this seems a great opportunity to force reform on a burgeoning beauracracy.

    I think fiscal control is important, if you ae going to spend, make it capital investment that adds long term value, making the most of current depressed building costs (no demand for builders), ather than simply on wages in an attempt to boost demand.
    "I hold it true, what'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better to have loved and lost;
    Than never to have loved at all."

    Alfred Tennyson
  • nolf
    nolf Posts: 1,287
    As an aside it's interesting that the root of much of this is overinflated house prices and negative equity. Theres more to it than that, but houses are dispraportionately expensive.

    When looking for a long term solution I think the huuuge house pices is possibly something woth considering, in that vein perhaps we need to free up planning regulations so that the housing supply can increase, lowering prices a bit.

    I think you know planing regulations are rubbish when a bit of land with them is worth many multiples of the same peice of land without them!
    "I hold it true, what'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better to have loved and lost;
    Than never to have loved at all."

    Alfred Tennyson
  • bikey2009
    bikey2009 Posts: 121
    teagar, nolf,

    what do you two do for a living? (you seen to be very well informed.)

    I do not have much understanding of world or goverments debts, but if i was able to run my house by just printing money (using a credit card for us mortals), i would be in a much worse state when the payments and interest are due.

    is this not what has got us into this position in the first place with the mortgage shortfall in the usa due to un-sound lending?
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    nolf wrote:

    1. don't be messin wiv the FT.
    2. I'm always wary of anyone who says that 1 particular solution is always applicable in given circumstances. I think Thatcher was proven right with her tight fiscal approach to the financial woes in the 80's, but do agree that in this instance there was a necessity to boost cash flow, but that it was more to do with increasing liquidity than generally pushing up demand.

    Demand comes into it as well, but the restoration of liquidity to the market was really what helped the banks get through the very dark times (that and having the mother of all underwriters), rather than demand boosting measures immediately affecting Consumption.

    I think theres an inherent risk in just spending and assuming that positive growth in the future will pay for it. I think now would be a great opportunity to slim down the civil service an economise. The health service, for eample, is in radical need of reform and a really tight fiscal situation such as this seems a great opportunity to force reform on a burgeoning beauracracy.

    I think fiscal control is important, if you ae going to spend, make it capital investment that adds long term value, making the most of current depressed building costs (no demand for builders), ather than simply on wages in an attempt to boost demand.

    What can I say, I prefer the economist over the FT....

    Agreed about restoring liquidity in the financial markets. Surely, you'd agree though, that financial markets lubricate growth, rather than stimulating? It's a two pronged approach. Solving the cause of the initial panic, the financial markets (to which the answer is tricky. Perhaps exposing investors more personally to the risks, rather than their busineses?), is certainly important. But once an economy is in recession, it's beyond finance, and there are few instruments that can help beyond massive gov't spending - to make up for the fact everyone else isn't!

    Personally, i'd rather pay more in the future if it meant we'd get out of this recession now. I've been exposed to quite a few nasty stories from people hit by this recession, and it's really not pretty. So what if growth 5 years from now is curbed by a few tenths of percentiles? The key is that an economy should never have to shrink - that's what causes all the socio/economic problems. Slow growth doesn't have remotely the same effect.

    I think most people are agreed that public spending should be carefully considered. I think the NHS is a bit of a red herring because, from what I've heard, the bureacracy 'costs' pale into insignificance against the accelerating costs of new treatments etc. Desperate times do call for desperate measures however, so perhaps paying people to dig holes and fill them up again is necessary if it gets people spending.

    As for buildings/property - that's about a tricky political issue you could have in the UK. It's not for nothing the ' Mail is the second biggest national paper in the UK. There are many, many, barriers beyond economic to any significant national property development, or anything along those lines.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    teagar wrote:

    The '92 recession is more telling, since it was only the UK that suffered.

    Wrong, so very wrong.

    The USA and Canada in particular suffered at the same time. I know from personal experience as I had to bail out of Canada and come back.
    Things were a lot worse there then than I have ever seen here and I remember back to the early '70s.

    Things may have been bad here in '92 but I still managed to come back and get a job.
    Is it shear coincidence that the last time the UK went into meltdown it happened to be during the previous Labour Government? :evil:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    daviesee wrote:
    teagar wrote:

    The '92 recession is more telling, since it was only the UK that suffered.

    Wrong, so very wrong.

    The USA and Canada in particular suffered at the same time. I know from personal experience as I had to bail out of Canada and come back.
    Things were a lot worse there then than I have ever seen here and I remember back to the early '70s.

    Things may have been bad here in '92 but I still managed to come back and get a job.
    Is it shear coincidence that the last time the UK went into meltdown it happened to be during the previous Labour Government? :evil:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday


    See in particular the "aftermath" section.

    The point I was making was that the recesion the UK experienced was a direct result of the Tory policy on currency.

    That's pretty much a given.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • alan_sherman
    alan_sherman Posts: 1,157
    What do we mean by third world here? For example I spend a fair bit of time in Brazil. many think of it as a thrird world country. Certainly it is a developing country but it is not all that different than life in Europe for most normal people. Of course there are some levels below "working class" like the slum dwellers and the natives that still live in teh amazon. But otherwise it is like teh west in teh 70's. A lot of people have cars, everyone wants one. Everyone has TV, there are busses and infrastructure, fast internet is available in major centres. There are a few who own a lot, and a lot who own a little.

    The major diference is the earnings to price of good ratio for average people. Stuff is so much more expensive there. I think the same will happen here, relatively our wages will drop and the cost of goods will go up as the value of the pound continues to lower against other cureencies.

    If that is "third world britain", then yes we are heading that way. We are not however heading to subsistance farming in a desert.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    If you lose your home in a 3rd world country will your Local Authority house you if you can prove that you have a priority need? I dont think they will. However, this and many other services are available to you here so no, I dont think we are anywhere near 3rd world, yet :wink: I dont know anyone in Britain who lives day to day which is my definition of 3rd World.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    If you lose your home in a 3rd world country will your Local Authority house you if you can prove that you have a priority need? I dont think they will. However, this and many other services are available to you here so no, I dont think we are anywhere near 3rd world, yet :wink: I dont know anyone in Britain who lives day to day which is my definition of 3rd World.

    Not seen any homeless people recently?
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    teagar wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    If you lose your home in a 3rd world country will your Local Authority house you if you can prove that you have a priority need? I dont think they will. However, this and many other services are available to you here so no, I dont think we are anywhere near 3rd world, yet :wink: I dont know anyone in Britain who lives day to day which is my definition of 3rd World.

    Not seen any homeless people recently?

    Yes, of course, I work in Social Housing, its what I do for a living. Once they prove that they have a priority need and they are homeless or under the threat of homelessness within the next 28 days then we, under the Housing Act, will owe them a duty.

    Yes there are people who are still homeless, largely single people who fall foul of the priority need part of it and the Mentally ill (which is of course a priority need) who are unable to make use of services. Figures are available from the link below, because the Government as part of its drive to reduce homelessness insist that we go out and count them.

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... eeping2009
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    If you lose your home in a 3rd world country will your Local Authority house you if you can prove that you have a priority need? I dont think they will. However, this and many other services are available to you here so no, I dont think we are anywhere near 3rd world, yet :wink: I dont know anyone in Britain who lives day to day which is my definition of 3rd World.

    Not seen any homeless people recently?

    Yes, of course, I work in Social Housing, its what I do for a living. Once they prove that they have a priority need and they are homeless or under the threat of homelessness within the next 28 days then we, under the Housing Act, will owe them a duty.

    Yes there are people who are still homeless, largely single people who fall foul of the priority need part of it and the Mentally ill (which is of course a priority need) who are unable to make use of services. Figures are available from the link below, because the Government as part of its drive to reduce homelessness insist that we go out and count them.

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... eeping2009

    I must confess I know little about homelessness policy - my knowledge lies more on the homeless experience (or at least in my case, the family experience). Proving you yo have priority need to get a roof over your head smacks slightly of catch 22 - but I'm hppy to concede i know little of the matter. Most people would agree that the homeless by and large live in absolute poverty.


    For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    teagar wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    teagar wrote:

    The '92 recession is more telling, since it was only the UK that suffered.

    Wrong, so very wrong.

    The USA and Canada in particular suffered at the same time. I know from personal experience as I had to bail out of Canada and come back.
    Things were a lot worse there then than I have ever seen here and I remember back to the early '70s.

    Things may have been bad here in '92 but I still managed to come back and get a job.
    Is it shear coincidence that the last time the UK went into meltdown it happened to be during the previous Labour Government? :evil:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday


    See in particular the "aftermath" section.

    The point I was making was that the recesion the UK experienced was a direct result of the Tory policy on currency.

    That's pretty much a given.

    If you want to use Wikipedia then it actually started in 1987 in the US and then spread here. That the Government did not respond appropriately comes as no surprise to me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    daviesee wrote:

    If you want to use Wikipedia then it actually started in 1987 in the US and then spread here. That the Government did not respond appropriately comes as no surprise to me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession

    Let me put it this way.

    In '92, the UK economy was growing, along the same lines as Europe - its closest counterparts right?

    Then black wednesday happened, and the UK economy, literally from that day, was in recession untill recovery much later.

    Sure there was a bigger recession happening over in the states which affected the UK - but that misses the point of the whole inclusion in the first place - that it was poor Tory policy, fixing the pound to the DM, that lurched the UK economy back into recession.

    Sure dispute whether things were going wrong already, - i'm not too interested in that - but that much is true.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    I have spent quite a lot of time in "Developing Countries", mainly in the role of UN peacekeeping/humanitarian aid and in no way is the UK comparable as regards to networks, services and amenities to "developing countries". Poverty does exist in the UK, so does social deprivation but only at a small scale in comparison.

    Just my 5 pence worth. :wink:
  • Slow1972
    Slow1972 Posts: 362
    teagar wrote:
    For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession

    The same George Soros who made $1 billion betting against the pound in the 1992 crash. Don't recall him being too concerned about the effect that had at the time.

    I agree that spending will help us come out of the recession (and has already minimised the depth of the recession), but that doesn't avoid the fact that Brown sold himself and labour as seeing the end of a "tax and spend economy", and that's exactly where we've ended up. It's simple to say it's easy to service debt when the economy is growing. But in the prolonged period of growth that labout inherited they didnt reduce the level of national debt when they had opportunity to. That's why he kept reinventing his "fiscal rules". The upshot seems to be that ultimately, public spending cuts and/or taxation are going to be more noticeable than they otherwise would have been.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    That recession was worse than this recession.
    Whatsisname is to blame for that one.
    Thingimybob is to blame for this one.

    Who cares?

    What matters is that we are broken now and we need it sorted.
    We need someone to fix it but who is up to the job?

    Little or no manufacturing, farming or fishing. What do we have left to create growth?
    We can't go back as other Countries are now doing what we did as well, if not better, for less money.
    Green technology? Sure, we may develop it but it will be manufactured abroad by foriegn owned companies.
    Given where we are now in the world is recovery even possible?

    I severely doubt it :cry:

    Not Third World, but not a major player either.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    teagar wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    If you lose your home in a 3rd world country will your Local Authority house you if you can prove that you have a priority need? I dont think they will. However, this and many other services are available to you here so no, I dont think we are anywhere near 3rd world, yet :wink: I dont know anyone in Britain who lives day to day which is my definition of 3rd World.

    Not seen any homeless people recently?

    Yes, of course, I work in Social Housing, its what I do for a living. Once they prove that they have a priority need and they are homeless or under the threat of homelessness within the next 28 days then we, under the Housing Act, will owe them a duty.

    Yes there are people who are still homeless, largely single people who fall foul of the priority need part of it and the Mentally ill (which is of course a priority need) who are unable to make use of services. Figures are available from the link below, because the Government as part of its drive to reduce homelessness insist that we go out and count them.

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... eeping2009

    I must confess I know little about homelessness policy - my knowledge lies more on the homeless experience (or at least in my case, the family experience). Proving you yo have priority need to get a roof over your head smacks slightly of catch 22 - but I'm hppy to concede i know little of the matter. Most people would agree that the homeless by and large live in absolute poverty.


    For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession

    Proving a priority need isnt the difficult bit, have children, be or have elderly people in the family, be or have a mentally ill or physically disabled person in the family, the obvious stuff. The not so obvious; be under 21 and having been a child in care, just been released from Prison, lost your housing due to it having been provided as you were serving in the Military or fleeing violence.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022051.htm

    The harder bit is proving that it wasnt your fault that you are now homeless, Intentional Homelessness. Thats were most applications are refused. You dont have to be poor to be homeless, there are more BMW's in our Customer Car park than there ever were in the staff car park. No, Im not joking.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum.......... :wink:
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2010
    Slow1972 wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession

    The same George Soros who made $1 billion betting against the pound in the 1992 crash. Don't recall him being too concerned about the effect that had at the time.
    If he made that much he probably knows what he's talking about when it comes to recessions. ;) Perhaps another case of tories helping those who can already help themselves?
    I agree that spending will help us come out of the recession (and has already minimised the depth of the recession), but that doesn't avoid the fact that Brown sold himself and labour as seeing the end of a "tax and spend economy", and that's exactly where we've ended up. It's simple to say it's easy to service debt when the economy is growing. But in the prolonged period of growth that labout inherited they didnt reduce the level of national debt when they had opportunity to. That's why he kept reinventing his "fiscal rules". The upshot seems to be that ultimately, public spending cuts and/or taxation are going to be more noticeable than they otherwise would have been.

    I don't think it's quite that simple either! The labour gov't inherrited a public spending system that, from years of Thatcharism, was completely inedequate, unable to invest in infrastructure and public services - the effects of wich we're steill feeling today. People seem to forget how incapable the NHS was of handling the smallest of flu outbreaks in '97 and '98.

    You have to spend money to invest in failing public services. Granted, a lot of that well meant money has not been used as effectively as it should have, and increasing labour appeals to a nation creeping further and further right certainly shot themsleves in the foot with regard to fiscal discipline. But I honestly think that, on balance, labour management of the economy, and all that comes wit that, has been better than my memory of tory plans.

    Brown's handing over of the base interest rate to the BoE was a shrewd move - it's unforunate he can't still learn from mistakes like he did then.

    Either way, i don't support the labour party. It's just I loath the tories. They'd be made more palateable if they showed some evidence that they were able governors, political persuasion asude, but that's been thrown out of the window by Cameron.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    dmclite wrote:
    BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum.......... :wink:

    *yawn* another uncessary attempt to wind someone up on a forum. We've got a reasonable discussion going here.

    Didn't you call me a child once on here? Go figure :roll:
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    Stewie Griffin wrote:

    Proving a priority need isnt the difficult bit, have children, be or have elderly people in the family, be or have a mentally ill or physically disabled person in the family, the obvious stuff. The not so obvious; be under 21 and having been a child in care, just been released from Prison, lost your housing due to it having been provided as you were serving in the Military or fleeing violence.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022051.htm

    The harder bit is proving that it wasnt your fault that you are now homeless, Intentional Homelessness. Thats were most applications are refused. You dont have to be poor to be homeless, there are more BMW's in our Customer Car park than there ever were in the staff car park. No, Im not joking.
    Oh dear. That must be difficult to deal with day in day out. Must be frustrating.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    teagar wrote:

    Brown's handing over of the base interest rate to the BoE was a shrewd move - it's unforunate he can't still learn from mistakes like he did then.

    I don't support any political party (in fact I think it is party politics and whips that get us into a lot of trouble) but I find that Gordon Brown's best decision was to let someone else do his job quite funny actually.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • TheStone
    TheStone Posts: 2,291
    teagar wrote:

    For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession

    This really is the question and tends to split people along political lines. I'm not really one
    side or the other, but do see a lot of issues with the print-borrow-spend method.

    On one side, it has reduced unemployment, repossessions and bankruptcy, but on the
    other side, it's likely to prolong the recession (much like Japan's lost generation). It's
    possible that it will also encourage an even bigger bubble next time. As everyone
    is being bailed out by the (future) taxpayer, there's a danger that there's no downside
    to their poor decisions.

    If they'd avoided printing, a lot of the bankers, buy-to-let 'investors' etc would have been
    wiped out. We'd be much closer to a lower bottom and would have less debt burden
    going forward. Instead, those that caused the problems through short term gambling and
    greed, are the same people who are already making serious money again !!!
    exercise.png

Categories