Lib Dem Cons to destroy economy?
Re: Von Boy Von Boy Von Boy
1.3 million people thrown out of work means nothing, you need to factor in how many will get jobs again immediately, I imagine probably quite a large number, and how many will retire a couple of years early.
These cuts are very different to those that hit the miners, a miner is a miner and knows little else other than mining. A public sector worker is more skilled and should be able to find other employment.
The question should be out of the 1.3 million that will be made unemployed, how many of those wont find other jobs, and wont retire early, and actually end up in the dole line?
I am guessing a fraction of the scare mongering political point scoring 1.3 figure being bounded around.
However skilled and versatile those who loose their jobs are sadly I simply do not see the upsurge in demand from the private sector.
What jobs do you envisage being required in a couple of years that are not required now?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches
"First of all, you refer to Keynes without any links etc.
You said
"Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?"
Since you are obviously a keen student of economics, please refer to the following
"Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment"
Now does this sound similar to a policy carried out by our former Prime Minister fairly recently which resulted in praise from the G20 and Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugmann.
"So what you are saying is that even during one of the biggest economic booms ever, Labour never managed to balance the books. Isn't that what I said?"
No. What I am saying is what I said. Read my message again. The Labour government had valid reasons for running a deficit up to 2008 no bigger than the one they inherited from the Tories. IN the earlier part of the Labour government, revenue exceeded spend for approximately half of the period 1997-2007.
If you want to put your arguments in the text of my message, then don't expect me to take you particularly seriously.
"The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore fucked."
No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
Read the following link to understand why it is nonsense. If, having read the details below, you still think you are not spouting nonsense, perhaps you can explain why?
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_233457
I said
"And finally, since you are concerned about the deficit, how is
> throwing an estimated 1.3 million people out of work (the
> Treasury estimate) in both the public and private sectors over
> 5 years going to improve the deficit?
You said
"Frankly, I'd rather pay some of these diversity managers ?65 a week dole than ?65 grand a year. That's a decent saving in my book."
Attention to detail is clearly not your strong point. First your example is very much atypical. There are enormous numbers of public sector workers doing clerical jobs, care assistant jobs, meals on wheels etc which get paid little above the minimum wage. A low paid clerical worker would get not a whole lot more than unemployment benefit, housing benefit etc. And believe it or not, many of them provide a useful service.
Secondly I note in your reply you make absolutely no mention to my reference to the private sector workers which according to the Treasury will lose their jobs in greater numbers than the public sector workers. And what impact do you think this willl have on consumer confidence which is one of the key factors in economic growth?
And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector in the next 5 years as the government allege.
A simple how and where will suffice.
Cheers
D
You said
"Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?"
Since you are obviously a keen student of economics, please refer to the following
"Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment"
Now does this sound similar to a policy carried out by our former Prime Minister fairly recently which resulted in praise from the G20 and Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugmann.
"So what you are saying is that even during one of the biggest economic booms ever, Labour never managed to balance the books. Isn't that what I said?"
No. What I am saying is what I said. Read my message again. The Labour government had valid reasons for running a deficit up to 2008 no bigger than the one they inherited from the Tories. IN the earlier part of the Labour government, revenue exceeded spend for approximately half of the period 1997-2007.
If you want to put your arguments in the text of my message, then don't expect me to take you particularly seriously.
"The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore fucked."
No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
Read the following link to understand why it is nonsense. If, having read the details below, you still think you are not spouting nonsense, perhaps you can explain why?
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_233457
I said
"And finally, since you are concerned about the deficit, how is
> throwing an estimated 1.3 million people out of work (the
> Treasury estimate) in both the public and private sectors over
> 5 years going to improve the deficit?
You said
"Frankly, I'd rather pay some of these diversity managers ?65 a week dole than ?65 grand a year. That's a decent saving in my book."
Attention to detail is clearly not your strong point. First your example is very much atypical. There are enormous numbers of public sector workers doing clerical jobs, care assistant jobs, meals on wheels etc which get paid little above the minimum wage. A low paid clerical worker would get not a whole lot more than unemployment benefit, housing benefit etc. And believe it or not, many of them provide a useful service.
Secondly I note in your reply you make absolutely no mention to my reference to the private sector workers which according to the Treasury will lose their jobs in greater numbers than the public sector workers. And what impact do you think this willl have on consumer confidence which is one of the key factors in economic growth?
And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector in the next 5 years as the government allege.
A simple how and where will suffice.
Cheers
D
Re: Robches
David Johnson wrote:
> Since you are obviously a keen student of economics, please
> refer to the following
>
> "Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to
> stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some
> combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates
> and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by
> government injects income, which results in more spending in
> the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production
> and investment involving still more income and spending and so
> forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events,
> whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the
> original investment"
Yes I know what Keynsian theory is, and what I'm telling you is that NuLabor tested it to destruction. They did not, for whatever reason, run a surplus when they should have, enabling them to run a defecit when they needed to. And they ran up government spending as a % of GDP to about twice the level Keynes recommended, thus negating the multiplier effect which is one of the most important aspects of Keynes's theory.
Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it? It has to borrow so much because it lost its tax base from the banks. Losing those taxes meant that suddenly it had a defecit in the order of ?150 billion, which it had to borrow just to maintain its spending, not to start building the Hoover Dam.
> No. What I am saying is what I said. Read my message again.
> The Labour government had valid reasons for running a deficit
> up to 2008 no bigger than the one they inherited from the
> Tories. IN the earlier part of the Labour government, revenue
> exceeded spend for approximately half of the period 1997-2007.
In your opinion, clearly. In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted. NuLabor doubled government spending, and I doubt you would claim that every penny was well spent. Look at the NHS, it had money poured into it, but much of that went on salaries. GPs get over ?100k typically, the number of bureaucrats soared, and 1000 people died in hospital in Stafford becuase of CDiff and MRSA. Value for money?
> If you want to put your arguments in the text of my message,
> then don't expect me to take you particularly seriously.
Modesty isn't one of your failings is it?
> "The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that
> we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a
> quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore
> fucked."
>
> No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
It's the main reason. Our borrowing position is as bad as Greece or Spain, the difference is we have our own currency, which has depreciated to reflect NuLabor's piss poor handling of the economy. The PIGS are locked into the Euro and so can't do this.
> And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy
> of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to
> 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector
> in the next 5 years as the government allege.
Did a girl once tell you that she found supercilious gits attractive? Does the approach still work?
> Since you are obviously a keen student of economics, please
> refer to the following
>
> "Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to
> stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some
> combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates
> and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by
> government injects income, which results in more spending in
> the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production
> and investment involving still more income and spending and so
> forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events,
> whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the
> original investment"
Yes I know what Keynsian theory is, and what I'm telling you is that NuLabor tested it to destruction. They did not, for whatever reason, run a surplus when they should have, enabling them to run a defecit when they needed to. And they ran up government spending as a % of GDP to about twice the level Keynes recommended, thus negating the multiplier effect which is one of the most important aspects of Keynes's theory.
Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it? It has to borrow so much because it lost its tax base from the banks. Losing those taxes meant that suddenly it had a defecit in the order of ?150 billion, which it had to borrow just to maintain its spending, not to start building the Hoover Dam.
> No. What I am saying is what I said. Read my message again.
> The Labour government had valid reasons for running a deficit
> up to 2008 no bigger than the one they inherited from the
> Tories. IN the earlier part of the Labour government, revenue
> exceeded spend for approximately half of the period 1997-2007.
In your opinion, clearly. In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted. NuLabor doubled government spending, and I doubt you would claim that every penny was well spent. Look at the NHS, it had money poured into it, but much of that went on salaries. GPs get over ?100k typically, the number of bureaucrats soared, and 1000 people died in hospital in Stafford becuase of CDiff and MRSA. Value for money?
> If you want to put your arguments in the text of my message,
> then don't expect me to take you particularly seriously.
Modesty isn't one of your failings is it?
> "The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that
> we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a
> quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore
> fucked."
>
> No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
It's the main reason. Our borrowing position is as bad as Greece or Spain, the difference is we have our own currency, which has depreciated to reflect NuLabor's piss poor handling of the economy. The PIGS are locked into the Euro and so can't do this.
> And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy
> of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to
> 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector
> in the next 5 years as the government allege.
Did a girl once tell you that she found supercilious gits attractive? Does the approach still work?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches
"Yes I know what Keynsian theory is, and what I'm telling you is that NuLabor tested it to destruction. They did not, for whatever reason, run a surplus when they should have, enabling them to run a defecit when they needed to. And they ran up government spending as a % of GDP to about twice the level Keynes recommended, thus negating the multiplier effect which is one of the most important aspects of Keynes's theory."
Look you are the one who is hung up on Keynesian theory, not me.
The one thing you can guarantee about economists is that they disagree about everything apart from the need for economists. I will leave you to rabbit on about multipliers to your hearts content but it does not in any way undermine what I said in my original post and subsequent messages.
"Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it? It has to borrow so much because it lost its tax base from the banks. "
This is nonsense. If you had been following the news you would have noticed that two weeks ago, Danny Alexander cancelled 2 billion of projects including large construction projects. If you can prove otherwise give some facts not unsubstantiated opinions.
You said
""The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that
> we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a
> quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore
> fucked."
>
I replied
> No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
You repliedI
t's the main reason. Our borrowing position is as bad as Greece or Spain, the difference is we have our own currency, which has depreciated to reflect NuLabor's piss poor handling of the economy. The PIGS are locked into the Euro and so can't do this.
Glad to see you agree that you are talking nonsense and back track now to the unsubstantiated opinion that not being in the Euro is the main reason rather than the only reason.
"In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted"
Unsubstantiated opinion yet again. The independent King report stated that the NHS was close to collapse in 1997 and had seen huge improvements as a result of Labour gov. spending. This was done by a deficit prior to the global recession of no more than the deficit inherited from the Tories.
I said
"And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy
> of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to
> 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector
> in the next 5 years as the government allege.
YOu replied
Did a girl once tell you that she found supercilious gits attractive? Does the approach still work?
Well Robches, wasnt it you that stated in response to my comment, first of all, you refer to Keynes without any links etc.
with
Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?
Pot...kettle....black....possibly? I note that you run away from making any attempt at answering my question - where are 2.5 million jobs that the government say are going to be created in 5 years, going to come from - which sectors?
Cheers
D
Look you are the one who is hung up on Keynesian theory, not me.
The one thing you can guarantee about economists is that they disagree about everything apart from the need for economists. I will leave you to rabbit on about multipliers to your hearts content but it does not in any way undermine what I said in my original post and subsequent messages.
"Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it? It has to borrow so much because it lost its tax base from the banks. "
This is nonsense. If you had been following the news you would have noticed that two weeks ago, Danny Alexander cancelled 2 billion of projects including large construction projects. If you can prove otherwise give some facts not unsubstantiated opinions.
You said
""The only reason we are not in the position of the PIGS is that
> we have our own currency which has depreciated by about a
> quarter. The PIGS are locked into the Euro, and are therefore
> fucked."
>
I replied
> No. To say that this is the only reason is nonsense.
You repliedI
t's the main reason. Our borrowing position is as bad as Greece or Spain, the difference is we have our own currency, which has depreciated to reflect NuLabor's piss poor handling of the economy. The PIGS are locked into the Euro and so can't do this.
Glad to see you agree that you are talking nonsense and back track now to the unsubstantiated opinion that not being in the Euro is the main reason rather than the only reason.
"In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted"
Unsubstantiated opinion yet again. The independent King report stated that the NHS was close to collapse in 1997 and had seen huge improvements as a result of Labour gov. spending. This was done by a deficit prior to the global recession of no more than the deficit inherited from the Tories.
I said
"And if you like a challenge, perhaps you can dip into your copy
> of Economics for Dummies and tell us all exactly how 2 to
> 2.5million jobs are going to be created in the private sector
> in the next 5 years as the government allege.
YOu replied
Did a girl once tell you that she found supercilious gits attractive? Does the approach still work?
Well Robches, wasnt it you that stated in response to my comment, first of all, you refer to Keynes without any links etc.
with
Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?
Pot...kettle....black....possibly? I note that you run away from making any attempt at answering my question - where are 2.5 million jobs that the government say are going to be created in 5 years, going to come from - which sectors?
Cheers
D
Re: Robches
David Johnson wrote:
>
> Look you are the one who is hung up on Keynesian theory, not
> me.
You are the one defending the neo-Keynsian policies of the last Labour government , not me.
> The one thing you can guarantee about economists is that they
> disagree about everything apart from the need for economists.
> I will leave you to rabbit on about multipliers to your hearts
> content but it does not in any way undermine what I said in my
> original post and subsequent messages.
Well it does, because you don't seem to get the point that the last government seemed to be trying to operate a Keynsian policy without the vital elements, namely running a surplus in the good times, and having a low enough % of government spending to GDP for the multiplier effect to work.
> This is nonsense. If you had been following the news you would
> have noticed that two weeks ago, Danny Alexander cancelled 2
> billion of projects including large construction projects. If
> you can prove otherwise give some facts not unsubstantiated
> opinions.
Yes, the government cancelled a few projects like the Stonehenge visitor centre and a super hospital in the north east. But the last Labour government had not set up the sort of major public works programme which is inherent in Keynsian thought. We are in a ?150 billion hole, so ?2 billion is a start, but not much more than that.
> Glad to see you agree that you are talking nonsense and back
> track now to the unsubstantiated opinion that not being in the
> Euro is the main reason rather than the only reason.
Do try not to be so fucking snide why don't you? It really doesn't work.
> "In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted"
>
> Unsubstantiated opinion yet again.
Actually no. It is a fact that productivity in the public sector is much lower than in the private sector. ?1 spent in the public sector does not give you ?1 if benefit.
> Pot...kettle....black....possibly? I note that you run away
> from making any attempt at answering my question - where are
> 2.5 million jobs that the government say are going to be
> created in 5 years, going to come from - which sectors?
I don't know. I do know that planned economies don't work. So long as they are not crushed by taxes, businesses which generate profits will employ people. If you want me to list them then you are being remarkably stupid, but I suspect that you are actually patting yourself on the back for coming up with such an ace debating point. Well done indeed.
>
> Look you are the one who is hung up on Keynesian theory, not
> me.
You are the one defending the neo-Keynsian policies of the last Labour government , not me.
> The one thing you can guarantee about economists is that they
> disagree about everything apart from the need for economists.
> I will leave you to rabbit on about multipliers to your hearts
> content but it does not in any way undermine what I said in my
> original post and subsequent messages.
Well it does, because you don't seem to get the point that the last government seemed to be trying to operate a Keynsian policy without the vital elements, namely running a surplus in the good times, and having a low enough % of government spending to GDP for the multiplier effect to work.
> This is nonsense. If you had been following the news you would
> have noticed that two weeks ago, Danny Alexander cancelled 2
> billion of projects including large construction projects. If
> you can prove otherwise give some facts not unsubstantiated
> opinions.
Yes, the government cancelled a few projects like the Stonehenge visitor centre and a super hospital in the north east. But the last Labour government had not set up the sort of major public works programme which is inherent in Keynsian thought. We are in a ?150 billion hole, so ?2 billion is a start, but not much more than that.
> Glad to see you agree that you are talking nonsense and back
> track now to the unsubstantiated opinion that not being in the
> Euro is the main reason rather than the only reason.
Do try not to be so fucking snide why don't you? It really doesn't work.
> "In my opinion, much of government spending is wasted"
>
> Unsubstantiated opinion yet again.
Actually no. It is a fact that productivity in the public sector is much lower than in the private sector. ?1 spent in the public sector does not give you ?1 if benefit.
> Pot...kettle....black....possibly? I note that you run away
> from making any attempt at answering my question - where are
> 2.5 million jobs that the government say are going to be
> created in 5 years, going to come from - which sectors?
I don't know. I do know that planned economies don't work. So long as they are not crushed by taxes, businesses which generate profits will employ people. If you want me to list them then you are being remarkably stupid, but I suspect that you are actually patting yourself on the back for coming up with such an ace debating point. Well done indeed.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches
You said
"Well it does, because you don't seem to get the point that the last government seemed to be trying to operate a Keynsian policy without the vital elements, namely running a surplus in the good times, and having a low enough % of government spending to GDP for the multiplier effect to work. "
Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes of Keynsian economic theory.?
If you can't then it is yet more unsubstantiated opiinion which is all you have to add to this debate. It is you who is inserted this Keynesian stuff which I suspect you have got from the back of a Weetabix box.
What the Labour party did say is that it intended to rebuild key parts of the state infrastructure which the Tories had left to rack and ruin e.g. the NHS and school buildings. What it didnt say is that in doing so we will adhere to the main teachngs of Keynes.
"Yes, the government cancelled a few projects like the Stonehenge visitor centre and a super hospital in the north east. But the last Labour government had not set up the sort of major public works programme which is inherent in Keynsian thought. We are in a ?150 billion hole, so ?2 billion is a start, but not much more than that."
First of all, glad to see you accept that you are talking more nonsense. To correct your nonsense even further, in Alexander's statement he scrapped 2 billion of Labour projects and SUSPENDED 8.5 billions worth of projects. The decision followed a review of ALL 217 government projects approved since the START OF THE YEAR at a TOTAL COST OF 34 billion pounds. This does not, obviously include those capital infrastructure projects approved earlier in the period 2007-10 which had completed.
Ok? Feel free to apologise in your own time for spouting total nonsense by saying "Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it?" earlier in the thread.
"It is a fact that productivity in the public sector is much lower than in the private sector. ?1 spent in the public sector does not give you ?1 if benefit."
Yet more nonsense. Explain to me how you measure a care assistant who visits elderly people at home to see that a ?1 spent on their wages produces a ?1 in benefit.
And as for your final comment "I do know that planned economies don't work"
Then move to the Sudan then, sunshine, you're living in the wrong part of the world.
Cheers
D
"Well it does, because you don't seem to get the point that the last government seemed to be trying to operate a Keynsian policy without the vital elements, namely running a surplus in the good times, and having a low enough % of government spending to GDP for the multiplier effect to work. "
Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes of Keynsian economic theory.?
If you can't then it is yet more unsubstantiated opiinion which is all you have to add to this debate. It is you who is inserted this Keynesian stuff which I suspect you have got from the back of a Weetabix box.
What the Labour party did say is that it intended to rebuild key parts of the state infrastructure which the Tories had left to rack and ruin e.g. the NHS and school buildings. What it didnt say is that in doing so we will adhere to the main teachngs of Keynes.
"Yes, the government cancelled a few projects like the Stonehenge visitor centre and a super hospital in the north east. But the last Labour government had not set up the sort of major public works programme which is inherent in Keynsian thought. We are in a ?150 billion hole, so ?2 billion is a start, but not much more than that."
First of all, glad to see you accept that you are talking more nonsense. To correct your nonsense even further, in Alexander's statement he scrapped 2 billion of Labour projects and SUSPENDED 8.5 billions worth of projects. The decision followed a review of ALL 217 government projects approved since the START OF THE YEAR at a TOTAL COST OF 34 billion pounds. This does not, obviously include those capital infrastructure projects approved earlier in the period 2007-10 which had completed.
Ok? Feel free to apologise in your own time for spouting total nonsense by saying "Futhermore, the government in the period 2007-9 was hardly investing in infrastructure was it?" earlier in the thread.
"It is a fact that productivity in the public sector is much lower than in the private sector. ?1 spent in the public sector does not give you ?1 if benefit."
Yet more nonsense. Explain to me how you measure a care assistant who visits elderly people at home to see that a ?1 spent on their wages produces a ?1 in benefit.
And as for your final comment "I do know that planned economies don't work"
Then move to the Sudan then, sunshine, you're living in the wrong part of the world.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
An odd man out question Robches
You said "I do know that planned economies don't work."
Your little test for the weekend is to pick out the odd man out in the following list.
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Kingdom, North Korea, and Burma.
Which is it and why?
Ok I will make it easier for you. The answer is the United Kingdom. All the other countries are examples of planned economies in the most pure sense of the word ie. it is an economic system in which the central government controls industry such that it makes all decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods and services
Given there are so few real planned economies in the world a looser description of the term, planned economy is sometimes used to refer to what can more sensibly be called, mixed economies which attempt to maintain a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, public welfare and public services by using state intervention.
On the first definition ie. total control of the means of production and distribution, to suggest the UK was moving to a planned economy under Labour is obviously crap.
On the broader definition of the planned economy i.e. one more accurately described as a mixed economy, you would need to include just about all European countries, not just Gordon Brown's UK.
So on any definition, your use of the term, planned economy is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION about the UK.
Cheers
D
Re: Robches
David Johnson wrote:
> Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by
> Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a
> Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes
> of Keynsian economic theory.?
How about everything they did? I recall Brown at a budget saying he could afford to cut taxes, but preferred to "invest" the money in public projects. However, my point is that even if you accept Keynes, the last Labour government was not carrying out a Keynsian programme, because Brown thought he had abolished the economic cycle. So he ran a defecit even when he should have had a surplus, and grew government spending so much it is over 40% of GDP. Now, we have an annual defecit of ?150 billion, and the national debt is headed over ?1 trillion. There is simply no way the government can borrow more money to "invest" in public services. The Labour government tested that policy to destuction.
> If you can't then it is yet more unsubstantiated opiinion which
> is all you have to add to this debate. It is you who is
> inserted this Keynesian stuff which I suspect you have got from
> the back of a Weetabix box.
Oh more of your bullshit insults. There is no point trying to be civil to someone who behaves like a cock, so I shall respectfully invite you to go and fuck yourself, and waste someone else's time.
> Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by
> Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a
> Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes
> of Keynsian economic theory.?
How about everything they did? I recall Brown at a budget saying he could afford to cut taxes, but preferred to "invest" the money in public projects. However, my point is that even if you accept Keynes, the last Labour government was not carrying out a Keynsian programme, because Brown thought he had abolished the economic cycle. So he ran a defecit even when he should have had a surplus, and grew government spending so much it is over 40% of GDP. Now, we have an annual defecit of ?150 billion, and the national debt is headed over ?1 trillion. There is simply no way the government can borrow more money to "invest" in public services. The Labour government tested that policy to destuction.
> If you can't then it is yet more unsubstantiated opiinion which
> is all you have to add to this debate. It is you who is
> inserted this Keynesian stuff which I suspect you have got from
> the back of a Weetabix box.
Oh more of your bullshit insults. There is no point trying to be civil to someone who behaves like a cock, so I shall respectfully invite you to go and fuck yourself, and waste someone else's time.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
In summary Robches
I said
"Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by
> Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a
> Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes
> of Keynsian economic theory.?
Your reply "How about everything they did?"
Look at the question. Look at the answer. There is no connection. The point is that Brown CHOSE to run that deficit of 4%. You are welcome to disagree with the fact that he did that, but as I have already stated the Labour government decided they wanted to invest in an NHS on the brink of collapse and a school infrastructure in a very bad way. You are criticising the Labour government for doing something (ie not keep to Keynesian multipliers) which they never said they would do.
You seem to have completely lost track of the purpose of this thread. I started off with the statement that the Lib Dem Cons run the risk of destroying the economy with the savagery of the cuts planned and the speed of their introduction.
You replied with "You can't blame the Coalition for the fact that Gordon Brown fucked up, and we now have to live with the consequences."
This implies that you agree with the Lib Dem Con nonsense spouted ad nauseum by Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander about there being no alternative to the details of the budget introduced by the Lib Dem Con government.
I have provided you with a link that shows that we are the next Greece as Cameron and Clegg said is total nonsense.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_233457 which you were completely unable to counter.
I have provided a link which graphed income against spend which shows that even with large expenditure on infrastructure, up to the great global recession the Labour government had no more of a gap than the one inherited from the Tories in 1997.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/06/ ... overnment/
I have trashed your argument that the Labour government didnt spend money on infrastructure between 2007 and 2009 to help buoy up the economy. I have rejected your argument that it is all Gordon Brown's fault.
If you read the following link you can see that in 2010 debt as a percentage of GDP in the UK was better than the likes of Japan, Italy, Greece, Iceland, France, Portugal, Hungary, Canada, Germany, Austria etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt
The Tories would have us believe that we are facing a 1932 situation. We are not. The budget red book from the Lib Dem COns put UK debt at 61.9% of gross domestic product in 2010-2011 against 177% in 1932.
I suggest you also refer to the work of the Bank of International Settlements based in Basel. In there you will see that the average maturity of the UK's debt (when it has to be refinanced) is 14 years which is pretty much top of class, whereas other leading countries such as US and Germany it is 9 years.
I repeat, there is absolutely NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION for the Lib Dem Con government taking ?90 billion out of the UK economy in the next 5 years. That is far above what is required to get rid of the deficit. The Labour deficit reduction plans were feasible and would not have smashed the economy to the extent that these cuts suggest will happen. The question you should really be asking yourself is why are they doing this and causing all the damage that 25%+ spending cuts in the public sector will cause.
The reason for this seems to me that they are on an ideological mission to take this once in a lifetime opportunity by talking down the state of the UK economy so that they can reduce the public sector with cuts never before seen in British society. This will have a huge impact on the economy but it is largely for idealogical reasons such as Cameron's Big Society of volunteering.
I knew, of course, that you would have no idea where the 2.5 million new jobs which the government say will be created in the next 5 years are coming from. I was just teasing you. But if I said, Robches what is the likelihood of you being struck by lightning tomorrow you would look at the history of lightning strikes in the UK to help get some idea. Perhaps then you can tell me when the UK last created 2.5 million jobs in 5 years at a time of 25% spending cuts in the public sector. SInce you appear to be in a sulk I will give you the answer, as far as I know, it has never ever happened.
So what we are left with is 1.3 million job losses, a creaky private sector struggling to get finance, a government pulling the plug on grants to manufacturing and car makers etc and Euroland in a terrible state.
I repeat the savagery of these cuts is unnecessary and will lead to huge problems if implemented. And there IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
I realise that I took the piss out of you in this thread, but if all you can come up with against all of the above is a bleat about Keynesian multipliers, maybe you are a teeny bit out of your depth? Hence I assume the "fuck" and " cock" etc in your emails as you search for swearing as an alternative for facts to back up your unsubstantiated opinions.
Cheers
D
"Provide me with any statement made in the last 13 years by
> Gordon Brown to say that the government is operating a
> Keynesian policy and it plans to adhere to the key attributes
> of Keynsian economic theory.?
Your reply "How about everything they did?"
Look at the question. Look at the answer. There is no connection. The point is that Brown CHOSE to run that deficit of 4%. You are welcome to disagree with the fact that he did that, but as I have already stated the Labour government decided they wanted to invest in an NHS on the brink of collapse and a school infrastructure in a very bad way. You are criticising the Labour government for doing something (ie not keep to Keynesian multipliers) which they never said they would do.
You seem to have completely lost track of the purpose of this thread. I started off with the statement that the Lib Dem Cons run the risk of destroying the economy with the savagery of the cuts planned and the speed of their introduction.
You replied with "You can't blame the Coalition for the fact that Gordon Brown fucked up, and we now have to live with the consequences."
This implies that you agree with the Lib Dem Con nonsense spouted ad nauseum by Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander about there being no alternative to the details of the budget introduced by the Lib Dem Con government.
I have provided you with a link that shows that we are the next Greece as Cameron and Clegg said is total nonsense.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_233457 which you were completely unable to counter.
I have provided a link which graphed income against spend which shows that even with large expenditure on infrastructure, up to the great global recession the Labour government had no more of a gap than the one inherited from the Tories in 1997.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/06/ ... overnment/
I have trashed your argument that the Labour government didnt spend money on infrastructure between 2007 and 2009 to help buoy up the economy. I have rejected your argument that it is all Gordon Brown's fault.
If you read the following link you can see that in 2010 debt as a percentage of GDP in the UK was better than the likes of Japan, Italy, Greece, Iceland, France, Portugal, Hungary, Canada, Germany, Austria etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt
The Tories would have us believe that we are facing a 1932 situation. We are not. The budget red book from the Lib Dem COns put UK debt at 61.9% of gross domestic product in 2010-2011 against 177% in 1932.
I suggest you also refer to the work of the Bank of International Settlements based in Basel. In there you will see that the average maturity of the UK's debt (when it has to be refinanced) is 14 years which is pretty much top of class, whereas other leading countries such as US and Germany it is 9 years.
I repeat, there is absolutely NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION for the Lib Dem Con government taking ?90 billion out of the UK economy in the next 5 years. That is far above what is required to get rid of the deficit. The Labour deficit reduction plans were feasible and would not have smashed the economy to the extent that these cuts suggest will happen. The question you should really be asking yourself is why are they doing this and causing all the damage that 25%+ spending cuts in the public sector will cause.
The reason for this seems to me that they are on an ideological mission to take this once in a lifetime opportunity by talking down the state of the UK economy so that they can reduce the public sector with cuts never before seen in British society. This will have a huge impact on the economy but it is largely for idealogical reasons such as Cameron's Big Society of volunteering.
I knew, of course, that you would have no idea where the 2.5 million new jobs which the government say will be created in the next 5 years are coming from. I was just teasing you. But if I said, Robches what is the likelihood of you being struck by lightning tomorrow you would look at the history of lightning strikes in the UK to help get some idea. Perhaps then you can tell me when the UK last created 2.5 million jobs in 5 years at a time of 25% spending cuts in the public sector. SInce you appear to be in a sulk I will give you the answer, as far as I know, it has never ever happened.
So what we are left with is 1.3 million job losses, a creaky private sector struggling to get finance, a government pulling the plug on grants to manufacturing and car makers etc and Euroland in a terrible state.
I repeat the savagery of these cuts is unnecessary and will lead to huge problems if implemented. And there IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
I realise that I took the piss out of you in this thread, but if all you can come up with against all of the above is a bleat about Keynesian multipliers, maybe you are a teeny bit out of your depth? Hence I assume the "fuck" and " cock" etc in your emails as you search for swearing as an alternative for facts to back up your unsubstantiated opinions.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Forgot to mention
Hi
I have re-read my messages and although you started the sarcasm with "Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?" in response to my message re links to Keynes, I overreacted in taking the piss in my responses to you.
I apologise to you.
Cheers
David
I have re-read my messages and although you started the sarcasm with "Sorry, have you not heard of this obscure economist?" in response to my message re links to Keynes, I overreacted in taking the piss in my responses to you.
I apologise to you.
Cheers
David