LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…2930323435…1133

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Great words, but the money isn't coming from his pocket and he will be retiring with all the bells and whistles. At the end of the day that debt has to be serviced.

    I don't know what the answer is, just that I don't like where this is going if it continues much longer.

    The point is right though. Either lots of firms rack up lots of debt and/or go bust or the govt does.

    It’s different sides of the same balance sheet.

    Difference is, gov’t has massive economies of scale to do the borrowing much more efficiently.
    How do you manage to compartmentalise total Govt spending so that they only borrow for stuff that aids the economy?

    How come this borrowing is not for a train line, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, foreign aid, funding benefit fraud or winter fuel allowance for mulit-millionaire pensioners?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Great words, but the money isn't coming from his pocket and he will be retiring with all the bells and whistles. At the end of the day that debt has to be serviced.

    I don't know what the answer is, just that I don't like where this is going if it continues much longer.

    The point is right though. Either lots of firms rack up lots of debt and/or go bust or the govt does.

    It’s different sides of the same balance sheet.

    Difference is, gov’t has massive economies of scale to do the borrowing much more efficiently.
    How do you manage to compartmentalise total Govt spending so that they only borrow for stuff that aids the economy?

    How come this borrowing is not for a train line, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, foreign aid, funding benefit fraud or winter fuel allowance for mulit-millionaire pensioners?
    Sure I don’t disagree with you re inefficient allocation.

    If the state was so wonderful the brightest and best in soviet Russia who were responsible for allocation would have saved the day.

    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    *stimulus* - is all it is. The argument really should be how to do it, and possibly around the amount.

    I argue that it should be roughly the size of the expected downturn (so if you’re seeing -5% growth, I’d say the stimulus should be equivalent to 5% of gdp).

    You could chose to do helicopter money (just give everyone x amount of money - like what the US did), you could use it to upgrade public infrastructure (the kind of things gov’ts are better at running) blah blah you could give monster tax breaks.

    They all have advantages and drawbacks. The state of the nation and economy in question has an effect on the effectiveness too. An obvious example but Estonia already has an outrageously good broadband infrastructure whereas the U.K. has some of the worst of Europe so a big state investment would be a waste of time in one but not the other.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,491
    rick_chasey said:



    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    As I pointed out a while ago, while the going is good then capitalism is king but when the proverbial hit the fan socialism takes over.
    Much as some may hate to admit it but we currently have a socialist government.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Great words, but the money isn't coming from his pocket and he will be retiring with all the bells and whistles. At the end of the day that debt has to be serviced.

    I don't know what the answer is, just that I don't like where this is going if it continues much longer.

    The point is right though. Either lots of firms rack up lots of debt and/or go bust or the govt does.

    It’s different sides of the same balance sheet.

    Difference is, gov’t has massive economies of scale to do the borrowing much more efficiently.
    How do you manage to compartmentalise total Govt spending so that they only borrow for stuff that aids the economy?

    How come this borrowing is not for a train line, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, foreign aid, funding benefit fraud or winter fuel allowance for mulit-millionaire pensioners?
    Sure I don’t disagree with you re inefficient allocation.

    If the state was so wonderful the brightest and best in soviet Russia who were responsible for allocation would have saved the day.

    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    *stimulus* - is all it is. The argument really should be how to do it, and possibly around the amount.

    I argue that it should be roughly the size of the expected downturn (so if you’re seeing -5% growth, I’d say the stimulus should be equivalent to 5% of gdp).

    You could chose to do helicopter money (just give everyone x amount of money - like what the US did), you could use it to upgrade public infrastructure (the kind of things gov’ts are better at running) blah blah you could give monster tax breaks.

    They all have advantages and drawbacks. The state of the nation and economy in question has an effect on the effectiveness too. An obvious example but Estonia already has an outrageously good broadband infrastructure whereas the U.K. has some of the worst of Europe so a big state investment would be a waste of time in one but not the other.
    I guess our point of difference is that I do not believe the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. This might be because many schemes are presented as fiscal stimulus as a means of getting pet projects over the line.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:



    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    As I pointed out a while ago, while the going is good then capitalism is king but when the proverbial hit the fan socialism takes over.
    Much as some may hate to admit it but we currently have a socialist government.
    Stimulus in a recession is not a socialist thing.

    US does it more than most.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Great words, but the money isn't coming from his pocket and he will be retiring with all the bells and whistles. At the end of the day that debt has to be serviced.

    I don't know what the answer is, just that I don't like where this is going if it continues much longer.

    The point is right though. Either lots of firms rack up lots of debt and/or go bust or the govt does.

    It’s different sides of the same balance sheet.

    Difference is, gov’t has massive economies of scale to do the borrowing much more efficiently.
    How do you manage to compartmentalise total Govt spending so that they only borrow for stuff that aids the economy?

    How come this borrowing is not for a train line, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, foreign aid, funding benefit fraud or winter fuel allowance for mulit-millionaire pensioners?
    Sure I don’t disagree with you re inefficient allocation.

    If the state was so wonderful the brightest and best in soviet Russia who were responsible for allocation would have saved the day.

    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    *stimulus* - is all it is. The argument really should be how to do it, and possibly around the amount.

    I argue that it should be roughly the size of the expected downturn (so if you’re seeing -5% growth, I’d say the stimulus should be equivalent to 5% of gdp).

    You could chose to do helicopter money (just give everyone x amount of money - like what the US did), you could use it to upgrade public infrastructure (the kind of things gov’ts are better at running) blah blah you could give monster tax breaks.

    They all have advantages and drawbacks. The state of the nation and economy in question has an effect on the effectiveness too. An obvious example but Estonia already has an outrageously good broadband infrastructure whereas the U.K. has some of the worst of Europe so a big state investment would be a waste of time in one but not the other.
    I guess our point of difference is that I do not believe the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. This might be because many schemes are presented as fiscal stimulus as a means of getting pet projects over the line.
    So what was it about the 2008 US stimulus packages that was a problem?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited July 2020
    Would you be in favour of helicopter money, SC? Either by printing or literally the gov't borrowing the money and putting it in everyone's bank account?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    If Johnson isn't already nervously looking over his shoulder, he should be.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    Would you be in favour of helicopter money, SC? Either by printing or literally the gov't borrowing the money and putting it in everyone's bank account?

    i do not think it would solve our current problem
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Great words, but the money isn't coming from his pocket and he will be retiring with all the bells and whistles. At the end of the day that debt has to be serviced.

    I don't know what the answer is, just that I don't like where this is going if it continues much longer.

    The point is right though. Either lots of firms rack up lots of debt and/or go bust or the govt does.

    It’s different sides of the same balance sheet.

    Difference is, gov’t has massive economies of scale to do the borrowing much more efficiently.
    How do you manage to compartmentalise total Govt spending so that they only borrow for stuff that aids the economy?

    How come this borrowing is not for a train line, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, foreign aid, funding benefit fraud or winter fuel allowance for mulit-millionaire pensioners?
    Sure I don’t disagree with you re inefficient allocation.

    If the state was so wonderful the brightest and best in soviet Russia who were responsible for allocation would have saved the day.

    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    *stimulus* - is all it is. The argument really should be how to do it, and possibly around the amount.

    I argue that it should be roughly the size of the expected downturn (so if you’re seeing -5% growth, I’d say the stimulus should be equivalent to 5% of gdp).

    You could chose to do helicopter money (just give everyone x amount of money - like what the US did), you could use it to upgrade public infrastructure (the kind of things gov’ts are better at running) blah blah you could give monster tax breaks.

    They all have advantages and drawbacks. The state of the nation and economy in question has an effect on the effectiveness too. An obvious example but Estonia already has an outrageously good broadband infrastructure whereas the U.K. has some of the worst of Europe so a big state investment would be a waste of time in one but not the other.
    I guess our point of difference is that I do not believe the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. This might be because many schemes are presented as fiscal stimulus as a means of getting pet projects over the line.
    So what was it about the 2008 US stimulus packages that was a problem?
    The fact that 12 years later there is no end in sight
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Would you be in favour of helicopter money, SC? Either by printing or literally the gov't borrowing the money and putting it in everyone's bank account?

    i do not think it would solve our current problem
    What is the (economic) problem? I mean, assuming that corona is done in 6 months - we'll still be left with a battered economy.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited July 2020
    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Would you be in favour of helicopter money, SC? Either by printing or literally the gov't borrowing the money and putting it in everyone's bank account?

    i do not think it would solve our current problem
    What is the (economic) problem? I mean, assuming that corona is done in 6 months - we'll still be left with a battered economy.
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Would you be in favour of helicopter money, SC? Either by printing or literally the gov't borrowing the money and putting it in everyone's bank account?

    i do not think it would solve our current problem
    What is the (economic) problem? I mean, assuming that corona is done in 6 months - we'll still be left with a battered economy.
    To all intents and purposes the country is still in lockdown- they need to get a safe return towards normality.

    No point in putting money in people’s pockets if they aren’t going to spend it
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.


    And you are fine with them opening pubs and leaving schools shut?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,491
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:



    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    As I pointed out a while ago, while the going is good then capitalism is king but when the proverbial hit the fan socialism takes over.
    Much as some may hate to admit it but we currently have a socialist government.
    Stimulus in a recession is not a socialist thing.

    US does it more than most.
    Are you suggesting that the US is incapable of using socialist policies during a recession/depression?
    I read it as the stimulus is to help the country as a whole, not for the few. Sounds socialist to me.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:



    That’s why when everything’s tikatyboo, you have the state stick to things it does best like infrastructure, natural monopolies etc.

    But things aren’t so tikatyboo then the state has to step in.

    As I pointed out a while ago, while the going is good then capitalism is king but when the proverbial hit the fan socialism takes over.
    Much as some may hate to admit it but we currently have a socialist government.
    Stimulus in a recession is not a socialist thing.

    US does it more than most.
    Are you suggesting that the US is incapable of using socialist policies during a recession/depression?
    I read it as the stimulus is to help the country as a whole, not for the few. Sounds socialist to me.
    Entirely depends how you structure your stimulus.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.


    And you are fine with them opening pubs and leaving schools shut?
    No it's f*cking stupid.
    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    And this folks is a great example of the mental damage you get from reading too much Guardian.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    coopster_the_1st said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    And this folks is a great example of the mental damage you get from reading too much Guardian.
    I haven't read the guardian in any detail for about three years.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    But you're one of them wokists! You *must* read the Guardian. I bet you have a poster of Owen Jones on your wall as well. 😁
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,814
    rjsterry said:

    But you're one of them wokists! You *must* read the Guardian. I bet you have a poster of Owen Jones on your wall as well. 😁

    It has been suggested on here before that Rick is Owen Jones :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    No, OJ is too tall.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Anyway, looks like Rishi will be bumping up taxes before too long.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Haha, I think coopster would have a hernia if I actually started posting things that Owen Jones would agree with.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    rjsterry said:

    Anyway, looks like Rishi will be bumping up taxes before too long.

    Entirely sensible, but it is a matter of timing.
    _
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    It is weird when it's put in to that context.

    Waiting to see what resturants actually join in the plan before I make a judgement. If it's just Spoons, Nandos, and the dross chains that are often attached to retail parks, I think I'll pass.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Jeremy.89 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    It is weird when it's put in to that context.

    Waiting to see what resturants actually join in the plan before I make a judgement. If it's just Spoons, Nandos, and the dross chains that are often attached to retail parks, I think I'll pass.
    It cuts out for mains over £10 doesn't it?
    _
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    rick_chasey said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    It is weird when it's put in to that context.

    Waiting to see what resturants actually join in the plan before I make a judgement. If it's just Spoons, Nandos, and the dross chains that are often attached to retail parks, I think I'll pass.
    It cuts out for mains over £10 doesn't it?
    I think it's a maximum discount of £10 per person.


    It's a gimmick. Not hugely helpful but won't do any harm.
    The VAT decrease is far more help.

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    tailwindhome said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    It is weird when it's put in to that context.

    Waiting to see what resturants actually join in the plan before I make a judgement. If it's just Spoons, Nandos, and the dross chains that are often attached to retail parks, I think I'll pass.
    It cuts out for mains over £10 doesn't it?
    I think it's a maximum discount of £10 per person.


    It's a gimmick. Not hugely helpful but won't do any harm.
    The VAT decrease is far more help.

    I imagine the socially appropriate thing to do would be to give the discount as a tip to the staff, if you can afford it.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,491
    edited July 2020
    tailwindhome said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    To be a bit more on topic, it is quite weird that if you eat out as a family you'll get more government funding towards that meal than a family living in poverty get to help feed their kid for a week.

    It is weird when it's put in to that context.

    Waiting to see what resturants actually join in the plan before I make a judgement. If it's just Spoons, Nandos, and the dross chains that are often attached to retail parks, I think I'll pass.
    It cuts out for mains over £10 doesn't it?
    I think it's a maximum discount of £10 per person.


    It's a gimmick. Not hugely helpful but won't do any harm.
    The VAT decrease is far more help.

    Only Monday to Wednesday too.
    And a few other restrictions which further commit it to a gimmick.
    Treat all these announcements like the Budget. A few headline grabbers but the devil is in the detail.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories