|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 19:16:12 GMT
Since this is a political thread it seems pertinent to reply as they used to in PMQs a little while back: I refer you to the answer I gave a little while ago. Or words to that effect. I appreciate the concern about the time I spent replying though I suspect you've fallen into the old habit of judging me by your own standards. So, while it might be a strain and a lengthy process for you to stick a series of coherent sentences down, it isn't for me. I actually enjoy the anticipation of the amusement generated by your upcoming bizarre pieces of analysis ;D. Talking of which, I've had a reply from Conservative Central Office re your, what shall we call it, Universal Tit/Bollock Theory of Statistical Analysis! Here it is: "Dear Mr Followyoudown
I am writing on behalf of the Party Co-Chairman, Baroness Warsi, to thank you for your recent email.
It is good of you to get in touch and make us aware of your thoughts. Your feedback is noted and I will be sure to pass your comments on.
Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Oliver
Oliver Wells
Office of the Party Co-Chairmen
Conservative Campaign Headquarters
www.conservatives.com"
I'm sure you'll think I made this up but I promise I didn't. I'd forward the email on but that wouldn't be very wise I suspect!
I must admit, I'm disappointed. An admirably professional response. I particularly like the phrase "make us aware of your thoughts" which almost drips with understated mockery! I suppose at best it's hardly a ringing endorsement of your analysis but you never know perhaps we will hear the PM or chancellor using it in the not so distant future! And no open ridicule so you're probably right it must just be me that finds your responses so risible. Unless they were simply being gentle ;D.
I might follow it up with another email missive and point out to the Tories that they could save further millions by avoiding commissioning any consultants to produce reports into the effectiveness or otherwise of their policies. After all "the wise understand by themselves, fools post the reports of others". Or is this another direct quote of yours which you'll claim I made up to try to save some face ;D
But credit where it's due, I have to concede it's so difficult to second guess you. Do you want me to answer so you can comment on the amount of time you imagine I spend replying or do you not want me to reply so you can imagine I'm avoiding your points? Tricky business! Perhaps you'd be kind enough to make this more obvious, or is that the point! ;D
Indulge me for a moment and allow me to spend an inordinate amount of time by replying to a point you made now you've explained it a bit more clearly. I'm afraid I have to ask a question by way of response though. If you struggle to understand the concept of measuring the size and manageability of debt as a % of GDP, why is this such a routinely used economic analytical tool when considering governmental performance? Why is it used much more widely than simply putting up the actual figures? Do take as long as you need to answer, old fruit, I'd be worried if you think this one of the more banal points .
Edit: just flicking through the paper this morning and came across this in an article about the Dutch economy: "...a budget deficit of 4.5% of GDP next year....national debt levels are also running in the wrong direction, from 65.4% of GDP last year...". You might want to drop the Dutch govt a line and put them right about how they're measuring their financial stats wrongly! ;D
Keep em coming
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 14, 2012 8:47:07 GMT
How many times do I have to answer the same questions.
Thatcher could have saved more but I think she was turning around a country in a bit of turmoil - care to tell us why and from which government this came from? I'm happy to take the point she could have done more though. By the time she was done the country was paying off its debts.
Of course individuals, banks and the government are all to blame. No one is saying any other. This is a direct comparion of the records of successive governments though.
The reality is that despite 10 years of good global conditions, Labour turned around an improving financial picture to one of deficts. They still spent racks of money in good times - they never had any intention of improving the financial picture. That is why is 13 years of ineptitude.
Major managed it well enough that within a minimal number of years of him leaving the country was brought back to a surplus. Do you honestly believe this was down to the magic of a Labour government in a few short years that unbelievably lost its way in the next 8-10 years?
Now, be honest, how long do you really think it would take any Tory, Labour or this coalition to take us to a surplus now?
Yep, rack up debt or a deficit in recession as long as you have the ability to return the country to good health before too long.
We were able to do this in the late 90's but we have no hope now and why?....because Labour racked up debt in the good times and what did they do straight after the crash? ...hire another splurge of people in the public sector?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 10:39:24 GMT
"She was turning round a country in a bit of turmoil". For eleven years? During the economic boomtimes of the 80s? Turmoil? Are you serious?
"Of course individuals, banks and the government are all to blame. No one is saying any other." Well that's good to see finally, although most of you rightwingers, redstriper, Salop, Squareball etc, have most definitely not been adopting this approach and prefer to come out with stuff like "13 years of continual fucking financial ineptitude" which at the very least is nowhere near as balanced as what you have just written.
You'll have to forgive me but I'm going to ask more questions simply because I think you apply different standards to different governments. I'd be grateful if you could answer again for me.
"The reality is that despite 10 years of good global conditions, Labour turned around an improving financial picture to one of deficts. They still spent racks of money in good times - they never had any intention of improving the financial picture. That is why is 13 years of ineptitude."
Is your conclusion that the entire 11 years Thatcher was in power, this country and global conditions were in turmoil so she was simply unable to 'improve the financial picture' as you put it until she managed a small budget surplus in the final 2 years of her tenure? Do you remember the booming 80s? If this is your conclusion, then I suppose your argument stacks up. However I'm confident you'll find that most analysts would not describe the country or global conditions as being in turmoil throughout those 11 years, in which case where's the difference between what Thatcher managed and what Labour managed? And where's your criticism of both? Is your assessment of whether a government has been a success in financial terms whether or not they managed a budget surplus so they could put money aside for a rainy day? If so, neither Thatcher nor Labour did that to any extent that may have headed off the debts and deficits of the next few years. Yet, I don't see any labelling of the Thatcher administration as 11 years of fucking ineptitude.
"Major managed it well enough that within a minimal number of years of him leaving the country was brought back to a surplus. Do you honestly believe this was down to the magic of a Labour government in a few short years that unbelievably lost its way in the next 8-10 years?"
OK, let's accept your way of thinking. The reduction in the enormous debt and deficit left by Major, the paying off of the huge amounts of interest those debts left us with were, according to you, simply a lucky inheritance from Major's government thanks to an upswing in the economy. Presumably you get this from the deficit/surplus direction of travel. Nothing to do with Labour. Now, if you are consistent, don't you also have to first of all note the "turmoil" that the previous government left us with which required turning round (ie Major's large debt and deficit). Also, shouldn't you also think, based on your reluctance to credit the Labour government with any positive influence in that period of "turmoil", that the mess that Major had to deal with was as a result of the previous government's policies? Or was it down to external factors such as recessions brought about by financial crises?
So, does it work selectively? Thatcher operated a deficit for the vast majority of her tenure during the boom years of the 80s because she was sorting out the turmoil of the previous government, then didn't put enough aside for a rainy day recession which came along and resulted in the largest deficit (until the recent crash) and huge debts for Major. Labour operated a deficit during the boom years while they sorted out the mess from the Major administration, then didn't put enough aside for a rainy day financial crash which came along and resulted in etc etc. Yet only one of those govts gets your criticism?
Two more questions if you can bear it:
If Thatcher was operating a deficit throughout the booming 80s but not spending any money on hospitals, schools etc where was the money going?
Also, why do you think Major ranks so low in the list of British 20th century PMs?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 14, 2012 12:38:47 GMT
Major managed it well enough that within a minimal number of years of him leaving the country was brought back to a surplus. Do you honestly believe this was down to the magic of a Labour government in a few short years that unbelievably lost its way in the next 8-10 years?
Now, be honest, how long do you really think it would take any Tory, Labour or this coalition to take us to a surplus now?
Answer these properly first. Be clear about what suddenly changed for Labour to start building the deficits back up.....prior to the crash.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 14, 2012 13:12:14 GMT
left wingers must be thick beyond redemption if they expect me to swallow this bollocks from ken livingstone
"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle,"
"No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in our parliament, unless they are paying their full share of tax."
what a cunt, i would expect this from the likes of cameron, boris and gideon but not from ken tsk tsk
ken livingstone is not poor
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 15:59:06 GMT
Major managed it well enough that within a minimal number of years of him leaving the country was brought back to a surplus. Do you honestly believe this was down to the magic of a Labour government in a few short years that unbelievably lost its way in the next 8-10 years? Now, be honest, how long do you really think it would take any Tory, Labour or this coalition to take us to a surplus now? Answer these properly first. Be clear about what suddenly changed for Labour to start building the deficits back up.....prior to the crash. In all seriousness, mcf, how can I possibly answer that? I don't have a crystal ball to gaze into? The time it takes to get to a budget surplus will depend on a large number of factors not least on whether the coalition manages to avoid a double dip recession, have a clear vision for growth, achieve growth, the rate of taxation for revenue, welfare bills through unemployment etc etc . If you are suggesting that we are in a deeper recession than for a long time I wouldn't disagree and would suggest that that is a result of the effects of the financial crisis. The graph I posted (what a fool ) shows that the debt and deficit are at such high levels because we borrowed money (debt) to give to the banks and the financial collapse triggered a recession which as you presumably understand affects the budget surplus or deficit (deficit). For somebody who sets such store by the budget surplus or deficit figures, I just find it weird that a government which managed four years of surplus out of 11 (pre-crash) during a period of prosperity is judged as financially inept compared to one which managed just two years of much smaller surpluses during similar times. How is that a balanced appraisal? I also think you set too much store by whether a government is in surplus or deficit. Many governments run at a deficit even during boom years - it's not unusual. Thatcher did it as you can see. Blair and Brown did it too. The point is whether the deficit is manageable or not. Up until the crash, it was as a result of the revenue that was coming in. That's what % of GDP shows, regardless of what Followyoudown would try and confuse you with. If the crash had been foreseen then you're absolutely right, it would have been much more sensible to have stopped replacing our Victorian hospitals and schools and squirrelled away the tax revenue to prepare for the bump. But Thatch didn't do that and nor did Blair/Brown so why the criticism of just the one government? I suppose you could also argue if everyone knows a crash is coming, why don't you take steps to prevent it? I don't have a problem with any criticism of Labour for failing to regulate properly. Now answer my questions please.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 16:05:03 GMT
left wingers must be thick beyond redemption if they expect me to swallow this bollocks from ken livingstone "Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle," " No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in our parliament, unless they are paying their full share of tax." what a cunt, i would expect this from the likes of cameron, boris and gideon but not from ken tsk tsk ken livingstone is not poor What's wrong with that (the highlighted bit)?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 14, 2012 16:28:27 GMT
left wingers must be thick beyond redemption if they expect me to swallow this bollocks from ken livingstone "Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle," " No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in our parliament, unless they are paying their full share of tax." what a cunt, i would expect this from the likes of cameron, boris and gideon but not from ken tsk tsk ken livingstone is not poor What's wrong with that (the highlighted bit)? ken livingstone said it but does not adhere to it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 18:12:47 GMT
Then he's as bad as the chancellor having a £4m offshore trust fund.
There'll be well off individuals on both left and right who seek to avoid paying tax.
The problem is there are so many loopholes in the tax system it's easy to avoid paying it.
I can never understand why the comfortably well off seek to avoid paying tax which, at the most, will simply leave them slightly less comfortably well off - but I'm not a greedy selfish individual so it's probably not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 14, 2012 18:25:48 GMT
I appreciate the concern about the time I spent replying though I suspect you've fallen into the old habit of judging me by your own standards.Yes I have spending time on Friday and Sunday evenings replying to someone you don’t take seriously is bordering on the obsessive ;D Talking of which, I've had a reply from Conservative Central Office re your, what shall we call it, Universal Tit/Bollock Theory of Statistical Analysis!Fantastic, thoroughly chuffed you wasted your time composing this, I sincerely hope you did e-mail it in be nice to know it wasn’t just the Oatcake fruit loops list you’re on ;D If you struggle to understand the concept of measuring the size and manageability of debt as a % of GDP, why is this such a routinely used economic analytical tool when considering governmental performance? Why is it used much more widely than simply putting up the actual figures? Do take as long as you need to answer, old fruit, I'd be worried if you think this one of the more banal points.Who has actually suggested putting up actual figures, I think you’ll find I merely pointed out that percentages are no more meaningful than what you deemed “meaningless absolute numbers” ;D What do you imagine your precious percentages were made up from if not a “meaningless absolute number” divided by a “meaningless absolute number” quite a mathematics theory there champ ;D, up with your Lukeconomics theory that bailing out the banks damaged the economy ;D, might have to have a cheeky pound on you as an outsider for the next Bank of England governor or maybe not.... I think I've already explained this but here goes again expanded in the hope I won't have to go through it again, It’s pretty universally acknowledged that you measure an ability to pay YOUR debts by the amount of money YOU earn. That's quite hard to determine for a country and pretty much impossible for a single government - how do you allocate current year spending on say PFI ;D would be a bit harsh to put it against the current government. Unless like Gordon Brown ;D you think the government is the economy, you must see why it makes no sense to include the 60% the government doesn't control on this basis nevermind the fact you say there are multinational companies who might not be that keen on bailing out the UK if it came to it so including them as part of your ability to repay debt (within GDP) seems a little odd ;D For any sort of fair comparison you’d need to have similar conditions to draw any valid conclusions but hey this is Lukeconomics anything goes, so if we ignore the impact of wars, recessions (except if Labour is in power hey champ), population growth and other economic factors like commodity prices you could try and put forward an argument for this graph of percentages based on dividing one “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” being a measure of economic performance but it would seem a little strange ;D PS any chance of those graphs or figures showing where Major increased the public net debt by 10 times otherwise I might have to conclude you did indeed make these numbers up ;D Don't stay up too late champ, I'm off home now ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 18:31:26 GMT
I'll ask again since you didn't or couldn't answer it first time around: "If you struggle to understand the concept of measuring the size and manageability of debt as a % of GDP, why is this such a routinely used economic analytical tool when considering governmental performance? Why is it used much more widely than simply putting up the actual figures? Do take as long as you need to answer, old fruit, I'd be worried if you think this one of the more banal points".
The Major deficit figures are in the graph I posted ;D. But I'll struggle to show you any "of those graphs or figures showing where Major increased the public net debt by 10 times otherwise I might have to conclude you did indeed make these numbers up" because I said this in relation to the deficit not the debt ;D.
Gets depressingly easier this. At least mcf makes some decent points ;D
Although to be fair to you, if I'd put up something along the lines of the Universal One Tit/One Bollock Theory of Statistical Analysis, claimed "only fools post the reports of others" and desperately struggled to undermine an almost universally used routine way of assessing debt and deficit levels, I'd probably spend my time trying to avoid attempting anything sensible too! Can't say I blame you ;D
I'm wondering if the 6 or 12 months, whatever it is today, you spent working in a bank might actually have something to do with the shit the country's in ;D. I can't say I'm surprised you didn't last any longer! Especially since you struggle, not just to formulate coherent english sentences, but apparently to discern the difference between the debt and the deficit, even when in the process of accusing someone of making numbers up! ;D And I'll bet you wonder why I laugh at you ;D.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 14, 2012 19:57:13 GMT
But the chancellor isn't condemning legal tax avoiders
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 15, 2012 8:27:00 GMT
Luke Not all of the 80s were booming. Thatcher had her rainy day too. I think the one major difference that sets Thatcher and Major and then the New Labour administration apart (and this is the reason for my differing opinion on this) is that every single one of them suffered a recession. The Tory ones came at the beginning of their reigns...but the Labour one right at the end. These are probably 3 of the 4 worst recessions in the last 100 or so years. The minute that you come into boom/growth times doesn't instantly mean that you can turn it around when there are clear commitments that governments are into. It can take time. It can take time to improve things (like now where it will take years and years regardless of who is in) and time to fuck it up (like Labour did) Once they got on to the ramming of jobs in the public sector in the early 2000s as well as outsourcing to the private sector...they were well on the way to fucking it up. Part of the reason why Major's position improved dramatically was that the number of private sector jobs far outstripped the public sector jobs - it was to late by then for the voters though as they didn't like stories of MPs being bummed with an orange in their mouths above what was actually going on economically. That is why I think it can be argued that Labour did have 'major' (boom boom help in those early years. I'm not surprised that you won't take a stab at how long it will take us to get to a surplus because we all know it will take a long, long time. Part of me wishes that the Labour government had stayed in to see them sort out their own sorry mess. Thing is, they didn't even want to stay in government did they? They would rather write 'we've spent all the money' love letters and knew it would be easier for them in opposition where they could just chirp away without actually telling us they would achieve this growth they keep banging on about. First things first for the coalition though eh - reversing all those bribe public sector jobs that Brown gave outafter the crash (which rather negated and then some the more placid 2-3 years leading up to the crash)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 11:13:36 GMT
I see Sifu still can't see the woods for the trees. He's a Labour stooge so there isn't much point in trying to argue economics in any context. He can't accept that the Britain inherited by Thatcher was a sorry mess. He can't accept that Thatcher's political bravery ensured that we didn't end up in the arms of the EMF, the unions and worse of all, stuck with inefficient nationalised industries that were driving us into the gutter. He can't accept that the expansion of a debt based economy was core to Labour's growth since 1997 which played a significant part in the crash along with bad banking practices. He doesn't appear to believe that the Labour government, the BoE and the FSA were responsible for allowing the UK banking industry to go bananas. They were all out on a fishing trip the day that happened. He can't accept that virtually every economic stat inherited by Labour in 1997 was going in the 'right' direction. He can't accept that Labour maintained a Tory economy between 1997 and 2002 before deciding to go all 'Labour' on us again ie: increase taxes, increase borrowing and increase public spending. He still can't tell us when Labour's rising borrowing (pre-crash) was going to tail off or when they were going to start paying some of the rising debt off. He still can't accept that despite the massive tax income and rising GDP that Brown enjoyed we still haven't paid for our new schools and hospitals thanks to incorrect use of PFI. He seems to forget that even Blair\Brown agreed that they had been left with a sound economy in 1997. His version of events is that Labour inherited 'turmoil'. He seems to have forgotten that Thatcher did spend more money on schools and hospitals during the 80s but not on the 'things' that Labour would have liked which were probably linked to wages and potential future votes. I'm sure that the local Labour party plant people like Sifu on this board to keep the red flag flying. We had Jay who magically appeared before the election and then again, magically, fucked off shortly after. Now we have Sifu. He's appeared from nowhere and, assuming he's not Jay, ploughs on with the same old pro-Labour retoric that most sane people see through in an instant. Arguing the toss around statistics but quietly ignoring the context around those statistics. Anyway, that's me finished on this as, as is usually the case, the thread's going nowhere. All we can say for certain is that we're in yet another post-Labour fuck up and the those Labour types are throwing bricks at the fire engine - again.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 15, 2012 13:52:59 GMT
Wow you actually came back over 3 hours later after 10pm to edit your post, you really are becoming obsessive ;D Have yourself a point ;D because I couldn’t be bothered to put your whole quote up again as I did in the previous post which you of course ignored, the fact is the "figures" you are quoting are both wrong and disingenuous. Wrong as 3,883 to 29,240 is about 6.5 times increase champ ;D (PLEASE NO ONE GIVE HIM SHIT ABOUT HIS MATHS HE GETS VERY PRECIOUS ABOUT IT ;D), so you are making up figures as you seem to have added a what 50+% exaggeration factor and disingenuous as Major actually left power in May 1997 but of course the fall in deficit at the end of 1997 was entirely down to the 8 months Labour had in power wasn’t it champ ;D. I’m sure it does get depressingly easy if you just resort to making stuff up, but hey you’re winning Lukey . Who is struggling to undermine anything ? I’ve told you why percentages are just as unreliable as “meaningless absolute numbers”, I’ve pointed out reasons why GDP isn’t really that good an indicator – if you really don’t understand this that’s not really down to me It is hilarious though that you continue with this argument when you’ve completely undermined it yourself , Debt/ GDP is the be all and end all in measuring debt manageability and government performance according to you yet at the very start you choose to select the period you’re going to evaluate by leaving out anything post 2008 as that doesn’t give you the answer you like and it apparently doesn’t really give a good measure of debt manageability or government performance if labour are in charge and stuff things up ;D Carry on laughing at me if you want but just know every fucker is laughing at you ;D, I honestly didn’t even think you’d be dense enough to continue down the road you’ve gone in for so long ;D Anything anybody comes back at you with its “oh but the graph shows this”, yet mention post 2008 and the graph doesn’t count ;D. Ignoring all of the above which you probably will, can you just clear up how dividing a “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” makes the percentage meaningful*** – is it like multiplying a negative number by another negative number to give a positive number ? *** this doesn’t apply if Sif does the maths as it’s clearly not his strong point ;D Now don't stay up too late worrying and editing your reply, it's only a messageboard after all ;D
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Mar 15, 2012 18:12:17 GMT
This thread seems to be getting off of the original point ........there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as it's already scientifically proven that right wingers are considerably less intelligent than left wingers . It's now just a matter of accepting then moving on, I'm afraid ;D ooops I modified the text ....phew that's okay it's only just gone 6pm .
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 15, 2012 18:28:13 GMT
This thread seems to be getting off of the original point ........there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as it's already scientifically proven that right wingers are considerably less intelligent than left wingers . It's now just a matter of accepting then moving on, I'm afraid ;D ooops I modified the text ....phew that's okay it's only just gone 6pm . Ahhhh so sweet, Sif has got a little friend ;D
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Mar 15, 2012 19:03:39 GMT
Yes, indeed . I do find that less intelligent individuals usually resort to patronising statements . So well done you ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 19:44:37 GMT
Thanks for replying in a decent way, mcf, nice to see that some people are happy to debate in a rational way. " Not all of the 80s were booming. Thatcher had her rainy day too". I think that is pushing it a bit, mcf, to be honest. She had two years of recession, 1980 and 1981, with negative growth figures, thereafter it was positive growth all the way, yet she still operated a deficit through those boom times, clearly didn't do what irks you most about Labour's apparent inepetitude ie put enough money aside for a rainy day recession and this led to the huge deficit and debts under Major. Same as what happened under Labour, but you don't criticise Thatcher like you do Labour? (I'd post a link to the site I got that info from but I'd be called a fool by our resident statistician - if you do want to see them by all means pm me). "The minute that you come into boom/growth times doesn't instantly mean that you can turn it around when there are clear commitments that governments are into. It can take time". Yes I agree. Which is why Labour spent the first term and beyond paying off the interest and capital on the debt that Major had racked up during the recession which wasn't catered for by the previous government during the eight years of economic growth they enjoyed. You mention the public sector a lot. I'm sure you may think I'm just being awkward but I'm not when I ask this. Can you please show me the impact this massive public sector expansion had on government finances? Also, isn't outsourcing to the private sector a rightwing philosophy? How can this have fucked things up? I won't take a stab at guessing how long it'll take to get to a surplus because I genuinely don't know so don't want to have a punt, simple as that. There's no dodging the question, I simply don't know because it depends on so many factors as I have said. "Part of me wishes that the Labour government had stayed in to see them sort out their own sorry mess. Thing is, they didn't even want to stay in government did they? They would rather write 'we've spent all the money' love letters and knew it would be easier for them in opposition where they could just chirp away without actually telling us they would achieve this growth they keep banging on about."Apart from blaming them entirely for the mess, which we appear to agree on now, I agree with this point. But the UK public generally gets fed up with the same old faces after about a decade or so irrespective of the policies and simply wants change for change's sake. Finally, you never answered these questions, so I'll ask again: If Thatcher was operating a deficit throughout the booming 80s but not spending any money on hospitals, schools etc where was the money going? Also, why do you think Major ranks so low in the list of British 20th century PMs? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 15, 2012 19:58:57 GMT
Watching FYD's "you and your precious percentages" defence reminds me of that scene in the Mayoral debates in The Wire where Carcetti nails Royce by saying that he wrote a letter to the mayor registering his concerns about drug crime in Baltimore, which Royce ignored. Royce is badly on the ropes and mumbles some bluster about how you don't address social problems by "writing letters" - but everyone on his campaign team knows he's lost.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 20:25:26 GMT
I see Sifu still can't see the woods for the trees. He's a Labour stooge so there isn't much point in trying to argue economics in any context. He can't accept that the Britain inherited by Thatcher was a sorry mess. He can't accept that Thatcher's political bravery ensured that we didn't end up in the arms of the EMF, the unions and worse of all, stuck with inefficient nationalised industries that were driving us into the gutter. He can't accept that the expansion of a debt based economy was core to Labour's growth since 1997 which played a significant part in the crash along with bad banking practices. He doesn't appear to believe that the Labour government, the BoE and the FSA were responsible for allowing the UK banking industry to go bananas. They were all out on a fishing trip the day that happened. He can't accept that virtually every economic stat inherited by Labour in 1997 was going in the 'right' direction. He can't accept that Labour maintained a Tory economy between 1997 and 2002 before deciding to go all 'Labour' on us again ie: increase taxes, increase borrowing and increase public spending. He still can't tell us when Labour's rising borrowing (pre-crash) was going to tail off or when they were going to start paying some of the rising debt off. He still can't accept that despite the massive tax income and rising GDP that Brown enjoyed we still haven't paid for our new schools and hospitals thanks to incorrect use of PFI. He seems to forget that even Blair\Brown agreed that they had been left with a sound economy in 1997. His version of events is that Labour inherited 'turmoil'. He seems to have forgotten that Thatcher did spend more money on schools and hospitals during the 80s but not on the 'things' that Labour would have liked which were probably linked to wages and potential future votes. I'm sure that the local Labour party plant people like Sifu on this board to keep the red flag flying. We had Jay who magically appeared before the election and then again, magically, fucked off shortly after. Now we have Sifu. He's appeared from nowhere and, assuming he's not Jay, ploughs on with the same old pro-Labour retoric that most sane people see through in an instant. Arguing the toss around statistics but quietly ignoring the context around those statistics. Anyway, that's me finished on this as, as is usually the case, the thread's going nowhere. All we can say for certain is that we're in yet another post-Labour fuck up and the those Labour types are throwing bricks at the fire engine - again. I guess when someone forms so many assumptions I'd better address them: I don't vote Labour but apparently I'm a Labour stooge because (like the overwhelming majority of political and economic analysts) I don't think the majority of the blame for where we are lies with the previous government but with the banks and their deregulated drive for profits since the mid 80s Big Bang. The consequences of which we are now 'enjoying'. I'm quite happy to accept that Thatcher's government did do some things (such as controlling the Unions) which helped the UK economy. Well we did enjoy the fiasco of the ERM, the unions I agree with your point and the super-efficient private sector work of the financial sector has just driven us into a much deeper gutter than we've seen for a long long time. Most independent political and financial analysts lay the majority of the blame at the banks you know! I can wholeheartedly accept that - it's central to my argument that the continuation of the right wing ideologies of the previous Tory administration helped land us in this mess. Deregulating the financial sector in 1980's, then expecting them to regulate themselves, has got us where we are. No, wrong again, I've consistently blamed Labour for inadequate regulation, perhaps you were out fishing on the several occasions I've said this! I guess if you include having a massive public net debt which took 6 years to bring back to more manageable levels by paying off interest and capital at a higher rate than previously and a deficit much larger than the one he inherited as signs of success, then yes things were indeed moving in the right direction. So, can I say that when Labour were voted out in 2010, the economy had moved out of recession, only for it to slip back into negative growth under the Tories? Presumably not! No idea - you tell me when they were going to do it! You appear to have the crystal ball! I'm guessing you'll say never! Although it's interesting, isn't it, that neither were the Tories making any plans pre crash to do this right up until 2011. They were happily committing themselves to matching Labour's spending plans with not an inkling that a financial crisis was on the horizon. How strange! Unless you genuinely believe that that was all bullshit to get elected which strangely seems to trouble you not one jot! I wonder whether similar levels of bullshit from Labour trouble you at all - WMD for instance? "It's ok that they lied about WMD as it was just to get to war with Iraq. There were too many fuckwitts [sic] around opposing the war to do otherwise." Or something similar?! I'd be perfectly happy if PFI were never used again, which Osborne and his 61 new PFI projects appears to disagree with. My point here was always with Followyoudown's obsession that it affected government finances more than the borrowing we took on to bail out the banks. Yes, a sound operating economy, a phrase we've heard before somewhere, which enabled them to pay off the massive debts over about six years that Major left them with. Check out the debt and interest payment figures if you like, not quite the rosy scenario you imagine. And that sound operating economy continued until when exactly? 2007 or so? What happened then? But hang on, I thought your sound economy was built on debt and therefore not sound. Let me guess, it was sound under Major cos it was moving in the right direction and not built on debt but not sound under Labour because it was built on debt despite continuing the rightwing policies initiated in the 80s? Sounds like you want it both ways! So Thatch did spend money on hospitals and schools during the boomtimes of the 80s and operated with a deficit as a result presumably? Not so very different to what Labour were doing is it, right up to the point the financial sector went pop and landed us right in it. Still, "the sooner we privatise this shit the better" eh, cos look where the financial services private sector took us. Heaven help us if we allow a similar free market approach in the health service.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 20:28:38 GMT
Watching FYD's "you and your precious percentages" defence reminds me of that scene in the Mayoral debates in The Wire where Carcetti nails Royce by saying that he wrote a letter to the mayor registering his concerns about drug crime in Baltimore, which Royce ignored. Royce is badly on the ropes and mumbles some bluster about how you don't address social problems by "writing letters" - but everyone on his campaign team knows he's lost. ;D I know, I shouldn't take such enjoyment from it. But, honestly, with the stuff he writes, can you blame me? ;D Quite a bizarre individual in all honesty ???. A refusal to acknowledge why % of GDP is so routinely used, some guff about us all having tits and bollocks, mangled english while criticising others for exactly that and confusion over what i said re debt and deficit. For some reason he thinks I said the public net debt was increased by ten times under Major? Then some irritation over including the impact of the financial crisis in assessing debt and deficit when this is precisely the point I've been making in these threads. And he worked in a bank, ffs ;D ;D Is it any wonder that they went pop on such a grand scale when they clearly took on employees with statistical and financial ideas such as these? He's made this thread title on his own ;D.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 16, 2012 14:17:53 GMT
Oh bless Sif has got a couple of friends ;D Hopefully this will make him feel less picked on should anyone give him "Shit" about his piss poor maths, it's not like he claimed he was an IFA or anything ;D
He must be really good because no matter how much I try, I just can't get the deficit increase to 10 times under Major (it also seems his English isn't that grand as I cleared up any confusion over the question for him but he prefers to ignore it - probably scared of getting more "Shit" about his maths ;D)
Still champ, twist and requote out of context as much as you like, the fact remains you insist % GDP is a routine measure of government performance / debt management yet then want to exclude it because of the financial crisis which does somewhat prove my point about percentages being no more meaningful than “meaningless absolute numbers” and the many reasons I have put forward with the problems of %GDP – but hey someone puts it in a paper and you can get a nice graph so it must be right ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 15:18:20 GMT
Weird answer ???
Firstly let me acknowledge that I may have missed your comments. I'm not sure if it's the mangled english, freakish statistical and financial explanations, general ducking of simple questions, bizarre ranting about this that and the other, playground attempts at being patronising or some combination of all of the above, but the upshot is I've been kind of skim-reading your most recent posts.
I still don't think you've actually answered this simple question: why is % of GDP used so routinely as a measure of the manageability of governmental debt and deficit? If, as you are rather desperately trying to claim, it's so meaningless why do economic and political analysts use it so regularly? I don't want your personal explanation of why it's a load of bollocks cos we've been there with your tit and bollock theory of statistics and you came across a bit disturbing to be honest. What I want to know is why is it used all the time if it's as shite as you say? Do you have a better measure? Does it involve anything weird because if it does I'm probably going to struggle to take it seriously again ;D
Re Major's deficit. I never said that he increased the public net debt by ten times as you claimed! And I'm the one who twists things ;D. I said it about the deficit. You have corrected this to approx 6.5 times the level he inherited. Fair enough. We'll leave to one side the huge irony of you referring to reports of others in this process, the fact that you thought it was the debt and the fact that the corrected figure still makes pretty poor reading! Why was there no money put aside during the boom times to make the crash easier to handle? Could it be that no-one saw it coming and therefore didn't prepare properly for it?
I don't know why you keep banging on about my reluctance to include the effects of the financial crash on debt and deficit, as I've been saying that this was the major reason for where we are financially from the very start? After all you agree that the "banks brought down the economy" so why not see what was happening before the crash? Odd ;D. But thanks for making my case for me.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 16, 2012 18:10:18 GMT
Even weirder you only skim through posts by me, someone you don't take seriously and reply at what 9pm on a Friday night or 10pm on a Sunday evening, someone as irrelevant as me could surely wait until the next day ;D Sorry my "mangled english" isn't as good as yours but for my last post to have been an answer wouldn't there need to have been a question ? ;D You want me to answer your question but not give my personal opinion, contacting all these economic and political analysts might prove a tad time consuming - so please clarify if you want my opinion or you're expecting me to conduct some sort of survey ;D. If it's the later I'm afraid I'll have to tell you to go and get Sifluked ;D If this is another Lukey rule "an expert says it then it must be true" where does that leave the blame for the financial crisis ? I've read plenty of articles and heard plenty of experts who blame Labour for the poor state of government finances and the economy generally, this by your latest rule must mean they're correct ;D Please spare me the holier than thou attitude you deliberately re quote ad nauseum out of context other peoples comments. I have accepted I failed to quote you fully on your plainly wrong comment about the deficit under Major, yet you ignored it the first time I mentioned it before preceding to try and take the piss out of my maths skills, epic fail by you champ ;D I'm not sure why you think I'm making your point for you though, my point is if you think %GDP is a "true" measure of government performance or governmental debt / deficit management then apply it to every government without exception, tough titties for Labour about the financial crisis - otherwise adjust the rest of the data by taking out similar significant events (you won't be able to do this of course ;D), or it seems you're making quite a selective adjustment - take the financial crisis out here but leave the other side of it in (the practices that made banks such big losses in the financial crisis were making them big profits in preceding years therefore artificially inflating GDP - no ? ;D) Anyway have a good weekend and don't stay up too late
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 18:44:25 GMT
Weird answer ??? Firstly let me acknowledge that I may have missed your comments. I'm not sure if it's the mangled english, freakish statistical and financial explanations, general ducking of simple questions, bizarre ranting about this that and the other, playground attempts at being patronising or some combination of all of the above, but the upshot is I've been kind of skim-reading your most recent posts. I still don't think you've actually answered this simple question: why is % of GDP used so routinely as a measure of the manageability of governmental debt and deficit? If, as you are rather desperately trying to claim, it's so meaningless why do economic and political analysts use it so regularly? I don't want your personal explanation of why it's a load of bollocks cos we've been there with your tit and bollock theory of statistics and you came across a bit disturbing to be honest. What I want to know is why is it used all the time if it's as shite as you say? Do you have a better measure? Does it involve anything weird because if it does I'm probably going to struggle to take it seriously again ;D Re Major's deficit. I never said that he increased the public net debt by ten times as you claimed! And I'm the one who twists things ;D. I said it about the deficit. You have corrected this to approx 6.5 times the level he inherited. Fair enough. We'll leave to one side the huge irony of you referring to reports of others in this process, the fact that you thought it was the debt and the fact that the corrected figure still makes pretty poor reading! Why was there no money put aside during the boom times to make the crash easier to handle? Could it be that no-one saw it coming and therefore didn't prepare properly for it? I don't know why you keep banging on about my reluctance to include the effects of the financial crash on debt and deficit, as I've been saying that this was the major reason for where we are financially from the very start? After all you agree that the "banks brought down the economy" so why not see what was happening before the crash? Odd ;D. But thanks for making my case for me. For goodness sake man it's Friday. And no more posting on here this weekend, big footy match and make sure you treat Mrs Sif and the kids! Banks fault.....indeed
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 19:33:33 GMT
Don't worry, mate, me and Mrs Sif have a nice glass of wine on the go and the kids are currently killing each other in front of Dr Who. All's well in Sifu Towers ! Banks fault indeed, you said it! You even agreed they were part to blame a short while ago, you're mellowing matey .
|
|
|
Post by wazbagsbro on Mar 16, 2012 20:07:45 GMT
I never opened the link. i Genuinely thought you were talking footy wings Me too, and its took 3 weeks of skipping this thread before it dawned on me.although. Ethers is good at adding up(his losses) where as Pennant cant tell the time. Left wingers obviously
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 20:11:41 GMT
It doesn't take long to reply, FYD, don't fret about it so! I enjoy it! It's not your shit english that amuses me, you may be dyslexic for all I know, it's the fact you have a go at others for the same thing that's funny! Some epic question dodging going on here from the man who never does this apparently ;D. So I'll ask again. Fourth time now is it? Easy to lose track when you keep ducking it! Why is % of GDP used so widely and routinely as an assessment of the impact of governmental debt and deficit when you consider it so meaningless? You don't need to ask any political or economic analysts (I doubt they return your calls if you've tried your tit/bollock analysis on them ;D and which is why I was a bit nervous about seeking your own personal opinion you see), you could try a little research and see what you come up with. Ah, run into a little difficulty here haven't we? Tell you what, I won't stoop to your level and call you a fool if you find a reliable source to answer the above. I don't remember taking the piss out of your maths skills re the deficit. I do remember laughing about the fact you were desperate to make a point about it being 6.5 times not ten, but forgot to get your facts right about the whether it was the debt or deficit. Which is nothing if not an amusing fuck up after you'd pounced on my rounding of the figures in the first place! A bit like Ronnie Rosenthal famously smashing the ball against the bar when presented with a wide open goal at Villa Park all those years ago ;D "I'm not sure why you think I'm making your point for you though, my point is if you think %GDP is a "true" measure of government performance or governmental debt / deficit management then apply it to every government without exception, tough titties for Labour about the financial crisis - otherwise adjust the rest of the data by taking out similar significant events (you won't be able to do this of course ), or it seems you're making quite a selective adjustment - take the financial crisis out here but leave the other side of it in (the practices that made banks such big losses in the financial crisis were making them big profits in preceding years therefore artificially inflating GDP - no ?"Good idea, why not give it a go and we can see the effect of the financial sector on debt, deficit and GDP? But the point is you rightwingers rarely bother to consider the economy and government finances pre crash, preferring simply to say the usual, "13 years of financial ineptitude", "Look at the mess they left us with", "Reckless overspending" etc etc, without looking at how things were pre 2007-8 and after it and seeing what changed. To be fair, you are generally not one of these as you have correctly stated in the past that "it was the need to lend money to the banks which brought down the economy" and "the banks brought down the economy". Direct quotes those I'm afraid, old fruit Thanks for the good wishes, I'll be singing myself hoarse at Anfield, Mrs Sif and the sifettes will be at the Beatles museum, then we're all off to The Wizard for tea. (It's a restaurant, but feel free to run with anything you fancy ).
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 19, 2012 9:12:53 GMT
Government spending on health care and social security all went up under Thatcher so I'm guessing the money went here for starters.
Some might argue that she balanced the change relatively well to bring the required outcomes.
Tell us what Labour did so brilliantly in 8 months for the surpluses that you want to credit them with (as opposed to Major) and what then went so amazingly wrong from 2000 onwards? If it was all down to them and they were so expert at paying off debts why did it all change?
I think Major ranked low because he was boring, in during a recession and got tainted by sleaze rather than things that really mattered.
|
|