General Election 2017
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 11 May 17 10.46pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I do like it on Newsnight when Emily Maitliss is sat there interviewing someone on serious politics/economics in those above knee high boots and short dress showing plenty of thigh, almost showing her &ss. She's dressed as someone might do a few dates in to give that message over.
COYP |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 12 May 17 5.07am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Two questions... What is socialists' obsession with railways? How much would it cost the taxpayer to renationalise?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 7.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Two questions... What is socialists' obsession with railways? How much would it cost the taxpayer to renationalise? 1. It gives them the horn(by)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 8.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Yes, that's why it's called a debt spiral. If you wanted the debt cut or to worsen slower then you'd have needed deeper cuts and a budget surplus, or big increases in government spending but with less global demand than the time you mention under Labour. The world was in economic recession. For how long and how much do you think that increase in government spending would've worked? The multiplier effect of building public facilities isn't as beneficial as trade. This is completely wrong, and has been widely discredited, other than by UK press and UK politicians. Austerity caused the increase in the deficit, it didn't help it. Worse austerity would have been completely destabilising and would have caused the debt spiral you mention. You don't need "global demand" to increase government spending. Government spending is of itself a contributor to aggregate demand. The world did and is still experiencing a savings glut, with savings frustrated by the lack of opportunity to invest. Increasing government spending would improve this and in fact lead to reduced deficits thanks to economic stimulus, a move towards full employment and improved productivity. Furthermore investing in infrastructure, human and social capital would have long term benefits. Increasing public spending works as long as interest rates are at virtually zero. This has now been the case since 2009. Interest rates will only rise once the economy is back on track. You can also use monetary policy to boost fiscal policy (QE) while the economy is below full employment. Given the structural inefficiencies we have there is plenty of scope for this. The Tories haven't bothered. They used QE to prop up asset prices (benefits owners of assets who are invariably the better off).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 9.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Despite the pound being cheap our trade deficit widens. The economy is clearly unfit for Brexit and May's plans will not address the fundamental issues. Recession may not be too far away (within 2 years is my guess).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 9.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Despite the pound being cheap our trade deficit widens. The economy is clearly unfit for Brexit and May's plans will not address the fundamental issues. Recession may not be too far away (within 2 years is my guess). No doubt it'll be labour's fault.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 12 May 17 9.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am)
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 May 17 9.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
This is completely wrong, and has been widely discredited, other than by UK press and UK politicians. Austerity caused the increase in the deficit, it didn't help it. Worse austerity would have been completely destabilising and would have caused the debt spiral you mention. You don't need "global demand" to increase government spending. Government spending is of itself a contributor to aggregate demand. The world did and is still experiencing a savings glut, with savings frustrated by the lack of opportunity to invest. Increasing government spending would improve this and in fact lead to reduced deficits thanks to economic stimulus, a move towards full employment and improved productivity. Furthermore investing in infrastructure, human and social capital would have long term benefits. Increasing public spending works as long as interest rates are at virtually zero. This has now been the case since 2009. Interest rates will only rise once the economy is back on track. You can also use monetary policy to boost fiscal policy (QE) while the economy is below full employment. Given the structural inefficiencies we have there is plenty of scope for this. The Tories haven't bothered. They used QE to prop up asset prices (benefits owners of assets who are invariably the better off). I know you don't need global demand to increase government spending. I don't need demand in products to hire a gardener or decorator or more relevant, a private carer for a relative. The problem with large increases in government spending is that the effects wear off if it's increasing supply of public amenities only. They don't increase economic growth for very long. I agree with investment and government spending now and going back a few years, but not in 2008, 2010, and for a handful of years after. And what would you or Ed Balls have done if there was another global economic crisis? Claim theory was right and it's not your fault? Edited by Rudi Hedman (12 May 2017 10.17am)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 May 17 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am) Did we start talking about Labour wanting to do too many things close together on the day or the day before the manifesto link? You could see it coming. And it wouldn't stop there. There'd be more and more issues they'd address immediately regardless of cost. They'd be better off offering a few policies rather than lots, but this is a popularity manifesto rather than one for an election. He's used the Lib Dem classic. Offer what you know you'll never have to.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 10.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am) I got as far as Julian Jessop, chief economist at the Thatcherite think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs..... before I took it with a pinch of salt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 12 May 17 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I got as far as Julian Jessop, chief economist at the Thatcherite think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs..... before I took it with a pinch of salt. If I may use your own tactic - which figures specifically do you disagree with?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 12 May 17 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am) That's the Labour story always has been..spend spend spend and get the country into mega debt.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.