490,000 public sector jobs expected to go by cuts by 2015

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

... *facepalm*

It's not a zero sum game.


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

So you cannot explain where the money is to come from?

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

... *facepalm*

It's not a zero sum game.


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

So you cannot explain where the money is to come from?

Is this just a big c*ck off?

That article explains how gov'ts borrow money. Either through securities, bonds, etc.

That's where the gov't defict spending (beyond the tax revenue) comes from. From people/firms purchasing them.

Make sense?

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

... *facepalm*

It's not a zero sum game.


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

So you cannot explain where the money is to come from?

Is this just a big c*ck off?

That article explains how gov'ts borrow money. Either through securities, bonds, etc.

That's where the gov't defict spending (beyond the tax revenue) comes from. From people/firms purchasing them.

Make sense?

And how exactly is this money to be paid back?


So as I said where is the money to come from.
The more you borrow, the more you pay back. We were already spending more than we had in revenue before the credit crunch hit.

There is no realistic prospect of us being able to repay ever increasing sums of money

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

... *facepalm*

It's not a zero sum game.


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

So you cannot explain where the money is to come from?

Is this just a big c*ck off?

That article explains how gov'ts borrow money. Either through securities, bonds, etc.

That's where the gov't defict spending (beyond the tax revenue) comes from. From people/firms purchasing them.

Make sense?

And how exactly is this money to be paid back?


So as I said where is the money to come from.
The more you borrow, the more you pay back. We were already spending more than we had in revenue before the credit crunch hit.

There is no realistic prospect of us being able to repay ever increasing sums of money

Not if economies aren't growing now. But if they are, then tax revenue will also grow in the same proportion, and it's all good. That's why you must make sure the economy keeps gorwing, and not let it lurch back again... It becomes even worse then.

spen666

Rick

you are living in fantasy economy land.

Tax revenue may grow if the economy grows, but there is no real ability to tell if or when the economy will grow or by how much

The borrowing has to be repaid now and in future, not just when the economy grows.

it is stupid and naive to keep borrowing indefinitely in the hope the economy will pick up at some time enough to enable the repayment of any debts.

You fail to explain how your theory fits with the fact that in the good times before the credit crunch, borrowing was still increasing. So even then we were not able to pay off our debt.

Borrowing more money that you cannot pay back is the way to bankruptcy

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick

you are living in fantasy economy land.

Tax revenue may grow if the economy grows, but there is no real ability to tell if or when the economy will grow or by how much

The borrowing has to be repaid now and in future, not just when the economy grows.

it is stupid and naive to keep borrowing indefinitely in the hope the economy will pick up at some time enough to enable the repayment of any debts.

You fail to explain how your theory fits with the fact that in the good times before the credit crunch, borrowing was still increasing. So even then we were not able to pay off our debt.

Borrowing more money that you cannot pay back is the way to bankruptcy

Look, borrowing will continue even with the cuts - especially if the economy goes back into recession again.

The borrowing in the 'good times' was poor fiscal discipline. You should work against the cycle - i.e. save when things are going well, and spend when things are going bad. Working with the cycle only makes it all extreme, which is what people don't want.

Obviously you can't borrow indefinitely - but if the cuts are so strong that it will shrink the economy, then the deficit will continue to grow anyway. Spend as much as the credit rating will allow you - and keep as much cash going in as you can get away with; untill things perk up.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

... *facepalm*

It's not a zero sum game.


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

So you cannot explain where the money is to come from?

Is this just a big c*ck off?

That article explains how gov'ts borrow money. Either through securities, bonds, etc.

That's where the gov't defict spending (beyond the tax revenue) comes from. From people/firms purchasing them.

Make sense?

Sounds like a giant Ponsi scam to me

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

....

Look, borrowing will continue even with the cuts - especially if the economy goes back into recession again.

The borrowing in the 'good times' was poor fiscal discipline. You should work against the cycle - i.e. save when things are going well, and spend when things are going bad. Working with the cycle only makes it all extreme, which is what people don't want.

Obviously you can't borrow indefinitely - but if the cuts are so strong that it will shrink the economy, then the deficit will continue to grow anyway. Spend as much as the credit rating will allow you - and keep as much cash going in as you can get away with; untill things perk up.

You seem to want to keep borrowing indefinitely

You also seem to ignore the fact we need to repay the debt we already have.

So I presume you work on your personal life in getting every credit card and loan you possible can, maxing out those credit cards and spending all the money borrowed.

Then when you can get no more credit and cannot pay your existing debts.........
Oh yes, that's right- bankruptcy, lose all your "possessions" etc.


More prudent people would look to trim their expenditure to try to balance the books or at least make it take a lot longer to max out those borrowings

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

You seem to want to keep borrowing indefinitely

You also seem to ignore the fact we need to repay the debt we already have.

So I presume you work on your personal life in getting every credit card and loan you possible can, maxing out those credit cards and spending all the money borrowed.

Then when you can get no more credit and cannot pay your existing debts.........
Oh yes, that's right- bankruptcy, lose all your "possessions" etc.


More prudent people would look to trim their expenditure to try to balance the books or at least make it take a lot longer to max out those borrowings

I don't know how many times I've said this to you, but if you think of this using micro individual analogies, the very simple, well understood, well worn theories which are at the heart of marco economics will never make sense to you.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick

you are living in fantasy economy land.

Tax revenue may grow if the economy grows, but there is no real ability to tell if or when the economy will grow or by how much

The borrowing has to be repaid now and in future, not just when the economy grows.

it is stupid and naive to keep borrowing indefinitely in the hope the economy will pick up at some time enough to enable the repayment of any debts.

You fail to explain how your theory fits with the fact that in the good times before the credit crunch, borrowing was still increasing. So even then we were not able to pay off our debt.

Borrowing more money that you cannot pay back is the way to bankruptcy

Look, borrowing will continue even with the cuts - especially if the economy goes back into recession again.

The borrowing in the 'good times' was poor fiscal discipline. You should work against the cycle - i.e. save when things are going well, and spend when things are going bad. Working with the cycle only makes it all extreme, which is what people don't want.

Obviously you can't borrow indefinitely - but if the cuts are so strong that it will shrink the economy, then the deficit will continue to grow anyway. Spend as much as the credit rating will allow you - and keep as much cash going in as you can get away with; untill things perk up.

Many think we are at that stage already. What next?

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You seem to want to keep borrowing indefinitely

You also seem to ignore the fact we need to repay the debt we already have.

So I presume you work on your personal life in getting every credit card and loan you possible can, maxing out those credit cards and spending all the money borrowed.

Then when you can get no more credit and cannot pay your existing debts.........
Oh yes, that's right- bankruptcy, lose all your "possessions" etc.


More prudent people would look to trim their expenditure to try to balance the books or at least make it take a lot longer to max out those borrowings

I don't know how many times I've said this to you, but if you think of this using micro individual analogies, the very simple, well understood, well worn theories which are at the heart of marco economics will never make sense to you.

Well tell me exactly where that analogy falls down


alternatively, it could of course be that the analogy is actually very accurate - as whether an individual, a company or a country- all debt has to be repaid and there comes a point when you cannot borrow any more


So why and how is the analogy wrong?