egafd.com

Heard Vince Cable go through a series of well-rehearsed lies on the Andrew Marr show. Being interviewed by Marr is like being savaged by a toothless 15 year old poodle.

Two of Cable's lies: the budget is fair (bollocks, read the graphs produced in your own Budget Book, Vince); the G20 supports the Tory approach.

Even some of the Tories don't believe these lies. A dyed in the wool Tory, Tapsell pointed out to Cameron. Surely what President Obama had really said was that if you cut public spending too fast you might precipitate a slump. This was the opposite of what Cameron and Cable have been telling us. Even the IMF states that the G20 countries need to concentrate on stimulating growth.

So today, the FTSE100 lost 3% of its value. Maybe the bankers know something Cameron, Cable and Osborne don't.

So as the Lib Dem Cons plan to take ?90 billion from the UK economy over the next 5 years, what is going to happen?

Seems clear really - The main result of this budget tightening will be to hammer consumer demand, cause a fresh recession, collapse tax revenues from all these public sector workers who will be made unemployed, together with the 1 million private sector workers who depend on public service contracts in construction and IT projects etc. , increase benefit spending and enlarge the part of the budget deficit related to the recession.

Meanwhile in return for the banks ?800 billion bailout, Cable and Osborne introduce a ?2.5 billion bank levy. Nice business if you can get away with it.

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Cheers
D

Can I remind you Labor lost the election. You have dry bummed the British economy and it will take 20 years of stiff financial measures to get us out the hole McBroon and US lapdog Blair have dug.

If you have an overdraft, credit card debts and forget to pay your taxes you get into deep crap. Same with the UK budget. Unless of course you are happy scrounging incapacity with a strained earlobe.....and fathering 5 illegitimate sprogs who are brought up to see benefits as a career path, not honest graft.

"If you have an overdraft, credit card debts and forget to pay your taxes you get into deep crap. "

You are, not for the first time, I fear, missing the point. No-one including Labour nor myself, is saying that the deficit should not be reduced.

Got that?

Good. What Labour did say is that the recovery is very, very fragile which is why they were in favour of holding off substantial cuts in spending for at least a year for the recovery to strengthen. The Lib Dems said they agreed with this but found the lure of power too much to avoid them changing their opinion. Rather support Lib Dem jobs in government than defending their voters jobs.

Instead of that, what the Lib Dem Cons have done is put together a package of cuts which far exceeds anything that the City boys requested which may well be one of the reasons that the FTSE has been diving since.

So Arginald, what do you expect to be the result of the following:

1. Trying to terrify the population as the Lib Dem COns have been doing by saying that their lives will be changed perhaps for a generation.
2. Introducing cuts that will throw hundreds of thousands of public service workers out of a job.

Correct, a consumer collapse in confidence. Who is going to make substantial purchases when they are terrified of losing their job, having their pension cut, taking a wage cut etc etc. Of course, people will concenttrate more on doing exactly what the Lib Dem Cons are doing slashing spending and saving money.

So that leaves the export market. But hey the majority of our exports go to Europe and they are doing similar shit to us. Uh Oh, Duh can't export much there.

What are we left with? Another recession.

CHeers
D

And it aint just me that thinks there is going to be a jobs bloodbath. The Treasury agrees but surprise, surprise hasn't got around to publishing it.

The Treasury estimates that there could be 1.3 million job losses in the next 5 years. The job losses in the public sector will result from the 25% inflation-adjusted reduction in Whitehall spending over the next five years, while the private sector will be affected both through the loss of government contracts and from the knock-on impact of lower public spending.

The Treasury is hoping that the private sector will create 2.5 million jobs in the next five years to take up all the slack. It doesnt outline what the bloody hell these new jobs will actually be for.

Err, I can't see it myself. This questions what all these unemployed people such as single mothers, the disabled, long term unemployed, having been forced back to work by IDS and his welfare state changes, are actually going to be doing!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/2 ... -austerity

Anybody got any gold they want to sell?

Cheers
D

If you spend ?700 billion a year, and only take in ?550 billion in tax, you are fucked. End of story. The government either has to jack up taxes to unprecedented levels, or cut its coat according to its cloth.

From around 2000 Gordon Brown started massively to increase state spending, much of which has been wasted on projects like the NHS super computer: ?12 billion and it doesn't work, not to mention legions of nappy advisers and five a day co-ordinators. He roughly doubled public spending, which meant that even in the good times, the government ran a defecit. Keynsian theory is that in the good times the government should run a surplus, so that in the bad times it can afford to borrow, to spend and keep the economy going. Keynes also thought that government spending should not exceed 25% of GDP; ours is getting close to 50%. Keynsian theory might work, but what NuLabor was doing was not Keynsian, it was just mental.

The problem we have now is largely down to Gordon Brown's profligate and irresponsible spending in the good times. You can't blame the Coalition for the fact that Gordon Brown fucked up, and we now have to live with the consequences.

First of all, you refer to Keynes without any links etc. Personally, I doubt if Keynes was in favour of introducing 25% cuts in government spending in a recession. Do you?

Secondly you state
"The problem we have now is largely down to Gordon Brown's profligate and irresponsible spending in the good times. You can't blame the Coalition for the fact that Gordon Brown fucked up, and we now have to live with the consequences."

This is incorrect. Lets get down to some facts, shall we, rather than opinion?

Look at the graph Figure 2.1. displayed in this link.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/06/ ... overnment/

You will see that under the Tories in 96-97 there was a 4% gap between revenues (the lower figure represented by a black line and total spending (the higher dark green line). In 1997 according to the independent King Commission, the NHS was close to complete collapse. School buildings were generally in a poor state of repair.

During the years 1997 to 2008, as you can see the discrepancy between total spend and revenues did not increase above the 4% gap inherited from the Tories even though the Labour party introduced an enormous program to stop the NHS collapsing and the school system falling apart.

Where the gap between total revenue and spend has greatly increased is during the global recession which was only foreseen by a handful of people and certainly not the Chairman of the Bank of England, Mervyn King who has been given many additional responsibilities by the Lib Dem COns. In return for failure, give him promotion. Great!

As you know Brown took the action to quickly support the banking system from complete collapse with an enormous bailout. His actions have been widely supported by leaders throughout the world and economists including Nobel prize winner Paul Krugmann.

Because of his action, Britain has been affected much less than the likes of Greece, Spain, Portugal, many other EU countries etc. Now you could argue that Brown could have let the NHS collapse, cut back on public spending and saved the money for future, yet to happen, crises. He chose not to. I am pleased he did.

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?

Cheers
D

Calm down my dear boy... the cuts do need to made, the cuts will increase umemployment.... BUT the sooner the pain is taken the sooner the country starts to ... slowly recover...

I think its disgraceful that labour allows whole areas of the country to be employed in the publc sector... some parts of your lovely UK are almost like the USSR in the 50s... how can anyone forgive that fact...

So come on don't be selfish and think of the country in 10 years time... lets wait and see... new labour failed... maybe the Lib Cons will.... but lets see...

pull yer pants up high and relax..

Off for a coffee by the lake in sunny Lausanne... Bis nachher

Robches wrote:

> If you spend ?700 billion a year, and only take in ?550 billion
> in tax, you are fucked. End of story. The government either has
> to jack up taxes to unprecedented levels, or cut its coat
> according to its cloth.
>
> From around 2000 Gordon Brown started massively to increase
> state spending, much of which has been wasted on projects like
> the NHS super computer: ?12 billion and it doesn't work, not to
> mention legions of nappy advisers and five a day co-ordinators.
> He roughly doubled public spending, which meant that even in
> the good times, the government ran a defecit. Keynsian theory
> is that in the good times the government should run a surplus,
> so that in the bad times it can afford to borrow, to spend and
> keep the economy going. Keynes also thought that government
> spending should not exceed 25% of GDP; ours is getting close to
> 50%. Keynsian theory might work, but what NuLabor was doing was
> not Keynsian, it was just mental.
>
> The problem we have now is largely down to Gordon Brown's
> profligate and irresponsible spending in the good times. You
> can't blame the Coalition for the fact that Gordon Brown fucked
> up, and we now have to live with the consequences.



Robches, I think you'll find that every government this country has had since the middle of the 18th century has borrowed more than it has received in tax... it's not all Gordon's fault you know!

In 1816 the government debt was running at a little over 250% of national income (see J F Wrights article "British Government Borrowing in Wartime 1750-1815" in the Economic History Review of 1999) at about ?790 million. I'll let you work out what that might be in today's money, but it's a hell of a lot more than the debt causing our current crisis, and was 100% self inflicted rather than being caused by a collapse in the global financial system (have you not noticed that Britain isn't the only country going through a recession?)

May I suggest that before you comment on subjects on which you patently have no knowledge, other than whatever you pick up in The Sun or Sky News, you refrain from posting until such time as you do!

"the cuts do need to made,"

Wrong. Not at the level they are proposing which far exceeds that which even the City boys requested.

" the cuts will increase umemployment.... "

Correct. Perhaps you could explain how 1.3 million thrown out of work in the next five years from the public and private sector (The Treasury forecast) improves the deficit?

"BUT the sooner the pain is taken the sooner the country starts to ... slowly recover..."

Wrong. 1 out of 3 for you is an improvement on your usual performance. If I hit you too hard over the head with a very large Weissbier, do you slowly recover. I think not!

"Off for a coffee by the lake in sunny Lausanne... "

And here's me thinking that you were a Mail reading, Millwall supporter. Don't go talking to any Nazis mind?

CHeers
D

These tory cuts which the libs are supporting are as bad if not worse than that thatcher cuts in the 80s. Did those workers in the northern towns and mining communities ever recover? No,their lives were ruined. And the effect of thatcherism is all too obvious today.