|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2012 10:40:34 GMT
Right, so she spent money on the public sector and welfare instead of putting it aside for the forthcoming recession. Not so very different to what Labour did then is it, but you don't criticise the Thatcher administration. Why not? "Some might argue that she balanced the change relatively well to bring the required outcomes" I've no doubt that is indeed your interpretation, despite the fact that previously you've said running a deficit during boomtimes and not putting money aside is why you consider Labour to be guilty of fucking ineptitude? 8 years of growth she enjoyed, spending on the public sector as you have said, yet we still had the largest deficit (until the recent crash) under Major and a massive public debt. So clearly, she did exactly what pisses you off about Labour, but you don't moan about this? "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?"The flipside of that is tell us what Major did so catastrophically badly for the deficit to reach such proportions under his tenure? Either you accept that no government has much impact on the economy (and, by extension, its own finances); the economy does what it does (which is, incidentally, a right wing free-market approach and you take the good with the bad), or you consider that governments can influence things. In which case, if you think that where we are now is down to Labour, then presumably you think what happened in the early 90s is down to Thatcher and Major and they fucked up too, with the result that Major definitely didn't hand over the brilliant set of cards you think he did. I don't think Labour did anything "so brilliantly in the 8 months" to turn deficits into surpluses. However, they did manage another few years of surpluses, which is more than under any Tory administration since 1979. Any credit for that? Or are we back to the economy running itself again? Why do you think things went so amazingly wrong post 2000? You set far too much store by whether there is a deficit or not. Thatcher ran a deficit for almost all the time she was in office and during the periods of growth. Labour did the same. You can argue that both should have put money aside for a recession, but neither did. They both spent money on the public sector as you have said. Things went catastrophically wrong in 2007-08 as all the figures show (what a fool to rely on data, I know ). The reason the deficit is so large now is because the financial crash plunged us into the most savage recession for a long time. The reason the debt is so large now is because we had to borrow money to prop up the banks. Before that things were not catastrophically wrong, unless you count running a deficit as the defining characteristic of catastrophically wrong, but then you need to apply the same analysis to Major and Thatcher, don't you? If things were so amazingly wrong, why on earth were the Tories merrily promising to match Labour's spending plans up to 2011? (Unless you subscribe to Squareball's theory that it was just a blatant piece of bullshit?). I think most political analysts think Major was rubbish because of Black Wednesday (the ERM farce); an inability to unite his party on Europe, mass unemployment, banging on about back-to-basics and family values while shagging Edwina Currie, repeated party sleaze (Mellor, Cash for Questions, Jonathan Aitken etc), crap ideas like the cones hotline etc etc. Those are all things that matter, not just that he was boring.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 19, 2012 12:27:32 GMT
It's very different.
She started to pay off the debt...hence the surpluses....and she started from a very grim position. I'll cut her some slack on the basis that I imagine that it may take a while to get a country that had a general perception and evidence to suggest it's labour market was fucked and that we had severe money issues. Or does going the IMF not really constitute problems?
That is where she wanted to get to - she wanted for the country to 'pay it's way'. Don't get me wrong, I think her rhetoric was better than her results but she had the right idea.
As for Major, I don't give any credit other than having the intention to bring us back to surplus. I can him some slack on the global recession just like I would New Labour (they still should have made an effort to regulate the banks though)
(BTW, I accept that governments can do little about global economic winds but I do believe they have to have the right intention and show this intention at the right times.)
If you want New Labour to have the credit for those early years then they can have it for me. I'll credit them with not going on a spending spree immediately.
The real issue is that it isn't good enough for the country to settle at borrowing indefinitely. This is exactly what they ended up doing though.
If they hadn't done this from 2000 onwards then there would have been money available for 2008. It is a far greater crime of what they did from 2000 onwards than the hit that was suffered by the crisis. Similarly, the money that Brown then threw around after 2008 was equally shit in a bid just to win votes given the extent of the trouble that we were in....especially when Darling or Osborne would have to then reverse such spending as soon as the election was over.
That is why their 13 years looks such a bag of wank....far worse to come yet as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2012 13:19:16 GMT
You'll no doubt accuse me of the same, but I think your answer underlines your bias towards the Tories and how you apply the same criteria differently according to that bias. Thatcher had 8 years of positive growth, including in 1987 and 1988, higher annual growth figures than was achieved during any year under Labour, yet still didn't put enough money aside (which is your central criticism of Labour) to prevent the largest deficit since 1979 until the crash. And you're saying this was because she was still sorting out things from the seventies? That's a lot of slack you're giving her, mcf, a lot of slack! Let's not forget that the Tories were in power for half of the 70s too! (Edit: roughly half, before you-know-who gets excited!). It's great that Major intended to bring us back to surplus. A shame that he left us with an enormous debt, huge interest payments and a deficit several times larger than the one he took on. "If you want New Labour to have the credit for those early years then they can have it for me. I'll credit them with not going on a spending spree immediately". So it's not 13 years of wank then? "The real issue is that it isn't good enough for the country to settle at borrowing indefinitely. This is exactly what they ended up doing though". But that's what most countries do! You personally may never need to borrow because you wait till you can afford to buy something outright. Which is sensible and admirable. But that's not how countries operate (unless they're massively oil rich). It's not just Labour governments, mcf, as the figures show (foolish ) the Tories did it too and are already in this government borrowing more than they said they would, although thankfully things look like they may be starting to improve so that may come down. "If they hadn't done this from 2000 onwards then there would have been money available for 2008. It is a far greater crime of what they did from 2000 onwards than the hit that was suffered by the crisis. Similarly, the money that Brown then threw around after 2008 was equally shit in a bid just to win votes given the extent of the trouble that we were in....especially when Darling or Osborne would have to then reverse such spending as soon as the election was over".Let me get this straight then - you blame Labour for not putting money aside from 2000 for the unforeseen financial crisis. The fact that Thatch did the same is because for the entire 8 years of economic growth from 1982-1990 she was still sorting out the mess of the 70s. You blame Labour for spending money on the public sector which, as you have said, was what Thatcher did when she was in power, hence no surpluses until the very end. The money which you claim was being "thrown around" by Brown was so bad that Osborne was happily promising to match it all the way up to 2011. I'm not having a go, mcf, you're arguing this perfectly reasonably, but do you not see how you're applying the same criticisms differently? We're in a fucking big mess now overwhelmingly because of the impact of the financial crisis. Most people accept this. If you want to criticise Labour for lack of adequate regulation, I would agree entirely. Their rigid adherence to the continuation of the economic principles of a free market was a mistake. But what I think was a bigger, more damaging mistake was the experiment, if you want to call if that, of widespread deregulation and assuming that the market would regulate itself without ultimately collapsing in on itself. The Tories started that process and Labour followed it through.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 19, 2012 17:50:37 GMT
I didn't think much of the u-turning that the Tories did in the 70's I'll give Thatcher more slack because of what she had to take on - it would have been a lot worse if we had continued down the path of subsidizing some of these loss making industries and it cost a heap of money to break the stranglehold. At least she got to where she was supposed to go. As for Major, if he had still been in place to enjoy the upturn, then I’d like to think that he wouldn’t go on to rack up further debts because that is ‘what most countries do’ – it certainly wasn’t the country that Thatcher described or the trend of where his deficits were going. I’ve said I’d give Labour the first 4 years of their tenure if you wanted it. Shall we settle on 9 years of wank then? The last 9 years? I just don’t see any reason for their deficits prior to 2008, nor Brown pissing money away straight after.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2012 18:26:16 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 ). I think you’re mistaking my amusement for concern champ ;D I doubt they return your calls if you've tried your tit/bollock analysis on them and which is why I was a bit nervous about seeking your own personal opinion you seeTo be honest I'm starting to struggle to understand your mangled English, but I’ll try and muddle through (I doubt they return WTF), your own personal opinion WTF – who else’s "own" opinion could it be ? You may be dyslexic for all I know, but the fact you have a go at others for having a go at others whilst doing the same thing that's incredibly funny and also explains why you often feel the need to go back and edit your posts several hours later ;D I notice you've quietly dropped the government performance angle of %GDP and also seem to have accepted there are problems with comparing different governments yet for some reason you're still banging on about political and economic analysts using these figures so widely ??? Weirdly you'll ignore any political or economic analyst who suggests Labour were at fault at all during the economic crisis ;D If %GDP is all you claim it to be, it really makes you wonder why this country needs elections just get your graphs out and see how the current lots graph looks against the previous lots graph and we have a winner ;D ;D I'm really struggling to understand what the relevance of why so many political or economic analysts use this measure is, or even how you really expect me to answer this without asking them all but if it's all to try and score a pettiness point over my use of "meaningless", well done award yourself one but deduct it immediately for claiming absolute numbers are meaningless unless you care to explain (must be the 4th time if not more of asking) how a percentage made from dividing one “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” is somehow meaningful ;D and take another one off for trying to claim graphs that are at the best indicative actually give explicit answers. While we're at it why not explain how lending money to the banks bought the economy down too ;D I’m sure there’s a point somewhere in your penultimate paragraph but I’m fucked if I can work it out. As far as I can make out you want me to work out something I’ve said wasn’t possible whilst yet again acknowledging the inadequacies in the %GDP measure you’ve spent the last god knows how many pages insisting is pretty much up there with the bible as being unchallengeable ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 21:22:23 GMT
You're sounding a bit desperate, old fruit, just regurgitating my posts now, like you've run out of ideas (which I can understand!). I suspect it's too late to help you understand plain english in the same way it's too late to help you with a rational interpretation of statistics ;D. The point about using % of GDP as a measure of debt and deficit (and, thereby, governmental performance) is that you are desperately trying to undermine it by claiming it's meaningless, as you have repeatedly said. In much the same way, you will desperately try to undermine any evidence, report or expert who contradicts your beliefs, to the extent that you even believe anyone who dares to quote such reports is a fool! You would presumably prefer, therefore, not to refer to any third party evidence and simply rely on your own opinions. If you can't see the weakness of this approach, I pity you. That being the case, if it is as meaningless as you claim, why is it so widely used as a routine measure of the impact of debt and deficit? You still haven't answered this! ;D Why is it used so much? A simple "I don't know, I don't understand why it's used so much, because I think it's meaningless" would be fair enough. Although it would, along with your statistical proof that we've all got one tit and one bollock, go a long way to showing that you don't really know what you're talking about, which is presumably why you simply won't answer the question! If it's so meaningless as a measure, why is it used so widely, routinely and regularly? You won't answer once again, I bet! My use of the word meaningless when referring to absolute billions as a measure of debt or deficit is simple. Even for you to understand, hopefully . Measured simply in billions, debt will inevitably increase. Our public debt has increased almost every year since 1960. Things generally get more expensive as a result of inflation. The fact that you can show a debt increasing over time by measuring it in billions just shows you that the quantity of that debt has increased. What it doesn't take into account is the affordability of that debt at any given time which is much more important. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 21:59:59 GMT
I didn't think much of the u-turning that the Tories did in the 70's I'll give Thatcher more slack because of what she had to take on - it would have been a lot worse if we had continued down the path of subsidizing some of these loss making industries and it cost a heap of money to break the stranglehold. At least she got to where she was supposed to go. As for Major, if he had still been in place to enjoy the upturn, then I’d like to think that he wouldn’t go on to rack up further debts because that is ‘what most countries do’ – it certainly wasn’t the country that Thatcher described or the trend of where his deficits were going. I’ve said I’d give Labour the first 4 years of their tenure if you wanted it. Shall we settle on 9 years of wank then? The last 9 years? I just don’t see any reason for their deficits prior to 2008, nor Brown pissing money away straight after. I think you should take away some of that slack from Thatcher because she enjoyed higher growth than anything Labour enjoyed and still operated a deficit. How did it cost money to break this stranglehold? Who knows what Major would have done? His record is poor in terms of debt and deficit. Presumably Labour's deficits pre 2008 were incurred through doing what you have said Thatcher did, spending money on various public sector needs, but to a greater extent, which is presumably why the Tories have such a hard job of defending their record on the NHS. Why do you think Osborne was happy to match this Labour pissing away of money up to 2011? I imagine Brown's spending money post 2008 was for two reasons: first to bail out the banks (or are we considering that done already?), second as a stimulus package following basic Keynesian economic theory - increasing government debt in a recession can stimulate the economy, which it appears to have done if you look at the growth figures.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Mar 20, 2012 23:56:48 GMT
I see this is still on going.
I don't really see the past labour government as going particularly wild with public spending - however you can argue if your going to follow keynesian economics, then a surplus should be run during boom times to pay for the deficit in a recession. Also, Brown's insistence of 'absolishing boom and bust' is not a useful mindset to have when the housing market is running out of control which it blatantly was from 2000 onwards.
Still not sure what people expect right now from the current situation either - tax receipts aren't there to support the current levels of public spending and the markets aren't going to stump up the cash to fund it so there's no choice but to cut. There's far more arguments to be had about how the money we do have should be spent (e.g do we need trident) etc
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 21, 2012 3:07:54 GMT
I'm really struggling to understand what the relevance of why so many political or economic analysts use this measure is, or even how you really expect me to answer this without asking them all but if it's all to try and score a pettiness point over my use of "meaningless", well done award yourself one but deduct it immediately for claiming absolute numbers are meaningless unless you care to explain (must be the 4th time if not more of asking) how a percentage made from dividing one “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” is somehow meaningful I've only been dipping into this thread for a giggle here and there, but I'll help you out on this point. The reason a percentage is more meaningful than an absolute number is that you are taking one number as a proportion of another number. So as an example, using "absolute numbers", we might be able to say that rugby, as a sport, is much more popular in Brazil than it is in Wales, because the number of active rugby players in Brazil (2.5 million) far outnumbers the number of active rugby players in Wales (400,000). As we know, though, that is pretty meaningless because the population of Brazil is about 200 million, while the population of Wales is 3 million. However. When we take those numbers as a proportion of the total population (i.e. a percentage), we can see that in Brazil just over 1% of the population play rugby, whereas in Wales the figure is about 13%. So we can say with confidence that rugby is a more popular sport in Wales than it is in Brazil. It's the kind of simple statistical representation that someone ought to have a good handle on by the time they enter high school, but then given your apparent political persuasion, I suppose it's not that surprising that you're still struggling with it. edit... I made the numbers up, by the way. By way of a disclaimer (I wouldn't normally think it necessary, but thanks to the study originally posted, I know what I'm dealing with here), if you use that fact as an argument in your favour, you really will be shovelling more hot stupidity nuggets into the furnace of self-evidence that this thread has become.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 21, 2012 9:13:22 GMT
I'll look up some of the costs associated with breaking the cycle of subsidizing these dying industries and being held ransom to the unions - I'm sure I read somewhere once that it costs billions - as much as a year's deficit for the miner's strike alone. TBH, I thought it was far too high to be remotely believable but I'll try and dig some stuff up. Labour were already going down this road (doubtful that they would have stuck it out though) and EU law would have banned subsidies in the end in any case. Thatcher just had the backbone to see it through. She clearly didn't do a good enough job on destroying enough unions though because the rest of the public sector ones continue to take the piss....and Labour let them. What did Thatcher call it - the enemy within? (Even Balls is back in the news supporting them again isn't he? Happy with public sector workers getting more more than their private sector counterparts - yep, that will help) We've done this before but.....as for Major, his record looks poor because he went through a recession (and the ERM fuckup didn't help). His record on deficit was much improving by the time he left because the % of private sector jobs started to outflank the public sector ones as well as improving economic times in general. Care to guess how Labour looked good in those years? A Labour miracle never to be repeated or piggying of the back of Major and general forces Still...you want to claim these years as Labour success and who I am to stand in your way. Spending wise...something has to give though doesn't it? Not only did Labour spend to a greater extent, they didn't have to go through the kind of change that Thatcher did. They took the easy choices of dishing out public sector jobs etc on the back of borrowed money during growth times. Thatcher had an excuse - what was Labour's? The over-riding issue as we all know comes down to the balance of payments. Thatcher knew this - we couldn't keep borrowing and so she set up about building on the more modern sectors - which have provided us with lots of money. The whole supposed destruction of the manufacturing base is a myth too. The value of manufacturing has generally grown and only falls in a recession. Yes, we would like more of it but it certainly was destroyed - she just cut off the bits that lost money. So, we struggled to make up the shortfall but this isn't Thatcher's fault - it would have probably got worse as we would have continued borrowing for dead industries. Manufacturing just need need the kind of type of Labour force it once had....especially when your labour force is too expensive to compete at global levels. www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/a reasonable article on the subject.. Why do you think Osborne was happy to match this Labour pissing away of money up to 2011? From when? Brown post 2008 - well done on producing growth based on borrowed money...more of what happend post 2000. Brilliant...might have been more acceptable if he'd have saved some of it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 11:01:43 GMT
I see this is still on going. I don't really see the past labour government as going particularly wild with public spending - however you can argue if your going to follow keynesian economics, then a surplus should be run during boom times to pay for the deficit in a recession.[/ Also, Brown's insistence of 'absolishing boom and bust' is not a useful mindset to have when the housing market is running out of control which it blatantly was from 2000 onwards. Still not sure what people expect right now from the current situation either - tax receipts aren't there to support the current levels of public spending and the markets aren't going to stump up the cash to fund it so there's no choice but to cut. There's far more arguments to be had about how the money we do have should be spent (e.g do we need trident) etc That's absolutely right, adri, and neither the Labour government post 2001, nor the Thatcher administration (bar the last two years) did this, so if you're going to criticise one, surely you need to apply the same criticism to both, which has been my point. If 13 years of wankness led to where we are now, didn't 11 years of wankness lead to the mess that Major tried to deal with and ultimately left Labour with? mcf argues, not unreasonably, that Thatcher didn't do this because for pretty much all of the 80s she was sorting out the mess of the 70s. I think this is taking it way too far, especially when you consider that some of the levels of growth she enjoyed were far higher than those under Labour. I'd say that the last 25 years or so has seen an economic experiment where a rightwing monetarist philosophy of a free-market has been allowed by both Conservative and Labour governments to dominate economic thinking and that, overwhelmingly, is what has led us to where we currently are. Before anyone jumps to a daft assumption that the above means I'm all for a communist approach, I'm not. But I would like to see a return to a much more strictly regulated financial sector (or any sector which might bring about a repeat of the 2007-08 crisis if it appeared to be failing). Before the Big Bang banking used to be boringly safe, but at least it didn't create crises like the recent one and trigger a global recession.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 11:05:48 GMT
I'm really struggling to understand what the relevance of why so many political or economic analysts use this measure is, or even how you really expect me to answer this without asking them all but if it's all to try and score a pettiness point over my use of "meaningless", well done award yourself one but deduct it immediately for claiming absolute numbers are meaningless unless you care to explain (must be the 4th time if not more of asking) how a percentage made from dividing one “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” is somehow meaningful I've only been dipping into this thread for a giggle here and there, but I'll help you out on this point. The reason a percentage is more meaningful than an absolute number is that you are taking one number as a proportion of another number. So as an example, using "absolute numbers", we might be able to say that rugby, as a sport, is much more popular in Brazil than it is in Wales, because the number of active rugby players in Brazil (2.5 million) far outnumbers the number of active rugby players in Wales (400,000). As we know, though, that is pretty meaningless because the population of Brazil is about 200 million, while the population of Wales is 3 million. However. When we take those numbers as a proportion of the total population (i.e. a percentage), we can see that in Brazil just over 1% of the population play rugby, whereas in Wales the figure is about 13%. So we can say with confidence that rugby is a more popular sport in Wales than it is in Brazil. It's the kind of simple statistical representation that someone ought to have a good handle on by the time they enter high school, but then given your apparent political persuasion, I suppose it's not that surprising that you're still struggling with it. edit... I made the numbers up, by the way. By way of a disclaimer (I wouldn't normally think it necessary, but thanks to the study originally posted, I know what I'm dealing with here), if you use that fact as an argument in your favour, you really will be shovelling more hot stupidity nuggets into the furnace of self-evidence that this thread has become. ;D Steel yourself for an insightful "Lukey's found a fwend" riposte ;D He worked in a bank, you know . Kinda makes sense that, doesn't it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 11:37:44 GMT
Cheers, mcf, for replying in a decent way, good to see someone's prepared to argue about politics in a rational fashion "We've done this before but.....as for Major, his record looks poor because he went through a recession (and the ERM fuckup didn't help). His record on deficit was much improving by the time he left because the % of private sector jobs started to outflank the public sector ones as well as improving economic times in general. Care to guess how Labour looked good in those years? A Labour miracle never to be repeated or piggying of the back of Major and general forces Still...you want to claim these years as Labour success and who I am to stand in your way."My point re the above is that you consider Major's record looks poor because he went through a recession, but you don't appear to consider the financial crisis as having an impact on Labour's record? Or do I misunderstand and we're just talking about 2002 to 2007? If you do take these factors into account, as you appear to do with your defence of Major, and also allow the fact that Thatcher didn't put enough money aside to deal with Major's recession despite her record growth levels, we're talking about similar philosophies aren't we? Similar philosophies with perhaps slightly different reasons for spending - Thatcher on the public sector, destroying the unions and removing subsidies as you have said, Labour on trying to improve the public sector (hospitals schools etc) to a greater extent than the Tories achieved (hence their record on the NHS). And we're also down to 5 years of wankness . You ask what was Labour's excuse? I suspect that was it - trying to improve public services to a greater extent than the Tories managed. "Why do you think Osborne was happy to match this Labour pissing away of money up to 2011?
From when?"From 2007 to 2011, he said he'd match Labour's pissing away of money. Strange if it was indeed being pissed away. " Brown post 2008 - well done on producing growth based on borrowed money...more of what happend post 2000. Brilliant...might have been more acceptable if he'd have saved some of it".Lots of countries did this at that time in various forms of stimulus packages. It's basic Keynesian economics again and is now thought by many analysts to have turned a great depression into a great recession. The growth that was achieved, had it continued, may have produced the revenue needed to reduce the deficit. But we'll never know because the Tories chose the different route of direct cuts to reduce the deficit, with the result that growth flatlined for the last 2 years, revenues dropped and the government ended up increasing their borrowing as a result. Which irony, I hope, is not lost on you!
|
|
|
Post by skelman on Mar 21, 2012 12:44:34 GMT
Dunt it depend which way you're facing - which is the left and which is the right winger!!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 21, 2012 14:20:11 GMT
I'm really struggling to understand what the relevance of why so many political or economic analysts use this measure is, or even how you really expect me to answer this without asking them all but if it's all to try and score a pettiness point over my use of "meaningless", well done award yourself one but deduct it immediately for claiming absolute numbers are meaningless unless you care to explain (must be the 4th time if not more of asking) how a percentage made from dividing one “meaningless absolute number” by another “meaningless absolute number” is somehow meaningful I've only been dipping into this thread for a giggle here and there, but I'll help you out on this point. The reason a percentage is more meaningful than an absolute number is that you are taking one number as a proportion of another number. So as an example, using "absolute numbers", we might be able to say that rugby, as a sport, is much more popular in Brazil than it is in Wales, because the number of active rugby players in Brazil (2.5 million) far outnumbers the number of active rugby players in Wales (400,000). As we know, though, that is pretty meaningless because the population of Brazil is about 200 million, while the population of Wales is 3 million. However. When we take those numbers as a proportion of the total population (i.e. a percentage), we can see that in Brazil just over 1% of the population play rugby, whereas in Wales the figure is about 13%. So we can say with confidence that rugby is a more popular sport in Wales than it is in Brazil. It's the kind of simple statistical representation that someone ought to have a good handle on by the time they enter high school, but then given your apparent political persuasion, I suppose it's not that surprising that you're still struggling with it. edit... I made the numbers up, by the way. By way of a disclaimer (I wouldn't normally think it necessary, but thanks to the study originally posted, I know what I'm dealing with here), if you use that fact as an argument in your favour, you really will be shovelling more hot stupidity nuggets into the furnace of self-evidence that this thread has become. Well thanks for taking the time to join in and explain why a percentage is more meaningful than an meaningless absolute number but my point has been for a while that percentages can be just as meaningless and hasn't been anywhere that absolute numbers are meaningful ;D It's the kind of simple english misunderstanding that someone really ought to be avoiding by the time they enter high school but given your apparent political persuasion I suppose it's not that surprising you're still struggling with it Anyway using your simplistic example (and acknowledging the figures aren't real and also for the avoidance of doubt not for a minute am I claiming Rugby is more popular in Brazil), at a push you might be able to argue rugby is more popular based on your "figures" (although this would rather ignore some very important contributing factors history,age / sex distribution of population, availability of facilities i.e. rugby pitches, the amount of money and time people have to "spend" on leisure pursuits). However could you answer whether or not you'd also take the following points from your figures : 1. The Welsh rugby board is better at managing rugby in it's country than it's Brazilian equivalent because a higher proportion of people play rugby in Wales ? 2. The current Welsh rugby board is better / worse than the previous Welsh rugby board as a proportion of the total population more / less people now play rugby ? Personally I'd say you'd be unable to answer these questions even if they were based on real data because you'd be making some almighty assumptions based on your personal views using a highly selective measure which has some potentially serious flaws in it. Now try and apply this thought process to %GDP and tell me how you can really claim this really shows manageability of debt or government performance at best it's indicative yet a certain someone is trying to claim these figures give explicit answers as if economics was a science or something.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 21, 2012 14:59:26 GMT
We are just saying the same things over and over again here They weren’t similar philosophies at all – Thatcher wanted to reverse the trend and causes of the 70s borrowing and cutting down the loss making industries was the way to go if they were beyond being turned around – what other choice was there? (Besides, didn’t the miners and Scargill reject a more phased approach?) The problem is that she didn’t destroy enough of them. The unions left are still abusing the country to this very day because governments since haven’t sorted them out. Yes, these people walked into the welfare system and on to the dole queues and maybe that was a price worth paying. (Plenty got redundancy schemes – maybe it was worth the deficits that she did rack up as leaving the status quo would have been far worse in the long run.) Or maybe it would have been a price worth paying if Labour had continued with the policy of waiting on the dole queue for a private sector job rather than hiring fucking traffic counters. J It certainly seemed like the policy that Major was happy to follow towards the end of his time as plenty joined the private sector racks in proportion to those joined the public sector. Labour had no such philosophy that I’m aware of. Things will only get better? Prudence? Were they it? Sadly, the policy they would go along with is ....fuck whether there is a recession or not, let’s not have people on the dole unless we look after them really well but even better to borrow even more money anyway and give them some fairly unnecessary jobs on good salaries and pensions and preferably in the Labour voting heartlands. PS I know Thatcher did a bit of this too Are you sure the money on new hospitals and schools are in the general figures or are they wrapped up in PFIs for a later time? As for stimulus packages....you can’t claim that Brown was simply applying basic Keynesian economics when the stupid fuckpig forgot to honour the other side of the bargain which is using the surplus from the good times. He had one and he fucked it. (Thatcher didn’t have and so could only work her way towards one...which she did.) I think we all know that the growth made on borrowed money (and this includes Thatcher) isn’t the same sort of growth that isn’t. There is no irony to be had here as far as I’m concerned so it is definitely lost on me. Our growth problems are likely to be around the fact that countries that buy our goods being in similar levels of trouble as ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 21, 2012 16:33:23 GMT
[i]My use of the word meaningless when referring to absolute billions as a measure of debt or deficit is simple. Even for you to understand, hopefully ?. Measured simply in billions, debt will inevitably increase. Our public debt has increased almost every year since 1960. Things generally get more expensive as a result of inflation. The fact that you can show a debt increasing over time by measuring it in billions just shows you that the quantity of that debt has increased. What it doesn't take into account is the affordability of that debt at any given time which is much more important. Simple[/i][/b]
Sorry I can't reply to the rest of your post, I'm too busy laughing at the above explanation ;D
It's so funny (and wrong ;D), I'll even let the idea that debt will inevitably increase go (even though I'm pretty sure if you repay debt it doesn't increase ;D).
Do you have any graphs for your explanation as it lukes ;D like it's your personal explanation otherwise that debt increases without fail year on year due to inflation ;D WTF ;D
Just before I start to take the piss, I hope we can agree on the following:
Government debt is used to meet the shortfall between income (basically NI & tax receipts) and expenditure (the biggest element of this is the wages of the staff who work in the public sector). Staff have to be paid every month whereas taxes are generally paid in arrears sometimes several months after this, so if you like the government spends the money before it has collected it. - hopefully nothing too controversial there ;D.
I hope you also agree the calendar year ends on the 31st December (although with your maths skills who knows ;D) and as you've already said inflation makes things more expensive (which will mean almost with fail that GDP goes up year on year and therefore tax revenues also usually follow unless there is a change in tax rates of course ;D).
Well champ ;D you see at December which is the year end there are a number of quite significant tax receipts that aren't due until January but which do to some or all extent relate to the calendar year just ended (VAT for the December quarter, Second self assessment payment on account, Quarterly payment on account for large companies etc etc) throw in other spikes in tax receipts in April due to the end of the tax year, taxes on bonuses and the fact companies don't have to to pay their tax until 9 months after the year end etc. or in other words taxes aren't paid evenly during the year
Now I could even apply these arguments as to why measuring the debt at the end of a calendar year also isn't that meaningful too but you're so tied into %GDP as being the only measure there's no real point offering an alternate view but what complete and utter bollocks from the Lukester that debt increases because of inflation and this is the reason that debt has become higher every year since 1960 ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 18:23:40 GMT
;D I'm honestly not sure anymore whether you can't understand, FYD, or just won't! If you don't think our public debt won't increase (when measured in billions), why has it done so almost every year since 1960? It was really quite straightforward. Public net debt has increased almost every year since about 1960 if you measure it in billions of pounds. If you consider that increase in debt to be a bad thing and a sign of poor governmental financial management, then every government since 1960 has performed badly in that regard. But that would be a simplistic and largely meaningless assessment. If, however, you prefer to consider the context of that increase in public net debt in relation to whether the country could afford that debt at that time, then the picture is different. It's also a better representation of the performance of the government in controlling its finances. Btw, nice try, but I didn't say " that debt increases because of inflation and this is the reason that debt has become higher every year since 1960". I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that even if you intend to spend on (or borrow for) exactly the same "purchases" year on year, this will lead to an increase in debt, if you haven't paid any off, as a result of inflation, so measuring the quantity of debt in simple terms like £billions is meaningless in assessing the impact of that debt at any given time against the economic conditions of that time. Quite simple really. ;D Not sure why you have such an issue with it? I notice you, once again, didn't answer the question: why is % of GDP used so routinely and widely in assessing the impact of debt and deficit if it's so meaningless as you so desperately want us all to believe? If you can't answer, just say so!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 21, 2012 19:03:16 GMT
It's the kind of simple english misunderstanding that someone really ought to be avoiding by the time they enter high school but given your apparent political persuasion I suppose it's not that surprising you're still struggling with it You see, fyd, the reason this statement worked (even as a joke) when I said it is because I am left wing and you are right wing (or at least seem to be representing the right wing in this thread), and people with right-wing values have been found to be less intelligent. It doesn't work the other way round. But then, given your political persuasion......etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 19:10:01 GMT
We are just saying the same things over and over again here They weren’t similar philosophies at all – Thatcher wanted to reverse the trend and causes of the 70s borrowing and cutting down the loss making industries was the way to go if they were beyond being turned around – what other choice was there? (Besides, didn’t the miners and Scargill reject a more phased approach?) The problem is that she didn’t destroy enough of them. The unions left are still abusing the country to this very day because governments since haven’t sorted them out. Yes, these people walked into the welfare system and on to the dole queues and maybe that was a price worth paying. (Plenty got redundancy schemes – maybe it was worth the deficits that she did rack up as leaving the status quo would have been far worse in the long run.) Or maybe it would have been a price worth paying if Labour had continued with the policy of waiting on the dole queue for a private sector job rather than hiring fucking traffic counters. J It certainly seemed like the policy that Major was happy to follow towards the end of his time as plenty joined the private sector racks in proportion to those joined the public sector. Labour had no such philosophy that I’m aware of. Things will only get better? Prudence? Were they it? Sadly, the policy they would go along with is ....fuck whether there is a recession or not, let’s not have people on the dole unless we look after them really well but even better to borrow even more money anyway and give them some fairly unnecessary jobs on good salaries and pensions and preferably in the Labour voting heartlands. PS I know Thatcher did a bit of this too Are you sure the money on new hospitals and schools are in the general figures or are they wrapped up in PFIs for a later time? As for stimulus packages....you can’t claim that Brown was simply applying basic Keynesian economics when the stupid fuckpig forgot to honour the other side of the bargain which is using the surplus from the good times. He had one and he fucked it. (Thatcher didn’t have and so could only work her way towards one...which she did.) I think we all know that the growth made on borrowed money (and this includes Thatcher) isn’t the same sort of growth that isn’t. There is no irony to be had here as far as I’m concerned so it is definitely lost on me. Our growth problems are likely to be around the fact that countries that buy our goods being in similar levels of trouble as ourselves. I'm afraid Labour did follow, to a large extent, the philosophies of right wing economic policy: little government intervention, a free market, deregulation etc. They also copied Thatcher's approach of running a deficit during boomtimes. "As for stimulus packages....you can’t claim that Brown was simply applying basic Keynesian economics when the stupid fuckpig forgot to honour the other side of the bargain which is using the surplus from the good times. He had one and he fucked it. (Thatcher didn’t have and so could only work her way towards one...which she did.)"Seriously, mcf, if you can't see the bias in those statements! Correct that Brown didn't maintain a surplus during the boom years. Perhaps he was using it to pay off the massive debts Major left us with or perhaps he simply didn't stick to the flipside of Keynesian economic theory as you say. But then nor did Thatch, yet you find every reason under the sun to defend this aspect of her government, despite having enormous levels of growth for the majority of her time in power! Come off it! Do you not think you'd be saying something along the lines of "why didn't Labour put money aside during the periods of massive growth" if they'd been in during the 80s?. Honestly? Secondly, was everything so hunky dory post Major's government that there was no "turmoil" to sort out? Hospitals fine, schools fine, transport fine etc etc. The Tories' record on the NHS and education would suggest otherwise. You see, that's why I think you apply the same criteria differently. I also can't believe you're saying it's better to have people on the dole than in work, if that is what you're saying? Is it really better to have hundreds of thousands more people on benefits while we hope the private sector eventually takes up the slack? Re the new hospitals and schools - undoubtedly some of the money is wrapped up in PFI projects. I don't have a problem with the criticism of the abuse of PFI (continuing under Osborne btw ). I do think it's a bit ridiculous of our resident statistical genius to try to make such an issue of PFI in an effort to make it over-shadow the financial crisis, especially when it adds relatively little to public spending if you add it in (OBR figures - what a fool to use them ;D). I agree though. I'd much rather have open and transparent spending than accounting tricks. But on the plus side, the hospitals and schools are there. "I think we all know that the growth made on borrowed money (and this includes Thatcher) isn’t the same sort of growth that isn’t. There is no irony to be had here as far as I’m concerned so it is definitely lost on me. Our growth problems are likely to be around the fact that countries that buy our goods being in similar levels of trouble as ourselves." The irony I was referring to was the fact that this present government is borrowing more than it said it would because it introduced the austerity package which killed any form of growth and prevented them from reducing borrowing! But I agree that other countries are also experiencing the same problems we have, be they politically right (USA - Bush's administration), left (Greece) or somewhere in the middle (UK). And this is primarily down to something that happened in 2007-08 but set in train in the mid 80s! Do you consider these governments to have been fucking useless for all of their period of power too I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 22, 2012 13:11:12 GMT
I don’t believe for one minute that it is a given that Thatcher would have repeated the inactivity of ‘New Labour’ on this matter of ‘deregulation’ or that she is to blame for it. berlinski.com/?q=node/111This article makes some pretty good points I defend Thatcher because she had a problem to solve – she gave it a go, made an effort and had some results to show for it. She made mistakes – like giving in to the ‘ERM’ boys – one thing that Brown did of some use by keeping us out of the Euro. The Tories taught me and I was absolutely fine – nothing wrong with the quality of my education – i wasn’t fussed if it was in a portacabin as opposed to a new shiny school. My NHS dealings were also fine. I do think it’s better to have people on the dole that actually have to fight their way to a job rather than them being so comfy that they can afford to stay there. What has happened under Labour has really hurt us. Never mind the Daily Mail, I get to see every day from the job I have to see what Labour’s policies have done to the country. Did you see the deficit/GDP % in the last few days without financial interventions? What are your thoughts on this? I have no doubt that the ‘coalition government will stunt growth’ line will come out but tell me about Labour’s involvement without the bailouts etc? I don’t know enough about other countries in enough detail to comment to much tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2012 18:30:25 GMT
"I don’t believe for one minute that it is a given that Thatcher would have repeated the inactivity of ‘New Labour’ on this matter of ‘deregulation’ or that she is to blame for it." That's very trusting, but she started the process of deregulation (the Big Bang remember) and when Brown tried (and failed) to regulate, the Tories criticised him for his "heavy-handed approach to business". You might choose to believe she'd have got stuck in and regulated but that's not what she did in the 80s and it's not in line with the Friedman economic policies she and Keith Joseph championed. So, probably incorrect, but we'll never know for sure obviously. We can make an educated guess based on her economic philosophy though. "I defend Thatcher because she had a problem to solve – she gave it a go, made an effort and had some results to show for it. She made mistakes – like giving in to the ‘ERM’ boys – one thing that Brown did of some use by keeping us out of the Euro."All of the above would be fine if it wasn't for the fact you criticise Labour for something which you can equally apply to Thatch, the deficits, unless you truly believe the funds from massive levels of growth for 8 years were swallowed up completely by the demands of the 70s? I don't I'm afraid. I think that's simply stretching it way too far. I'm no great supporter of Brown, especially as a PM, but as well as keeping us out of the Euro, he also reduced Major's enormous debt and bailed out the banks, quite possibly helping to prevent a depression. One of the reasons we still have our triple A credit rating is because our banks are now in a much healthier position as a result. So the current govt's extra borrowing is, ironically, likely to be at a lower rate as a result! "The Tories taught me and I was absolutely fine – nothing wrong with the quality of my education – i wasn’t fussed if it was in a portacabin as opposed to a new shiny school. My NHS dealings were also fine."I'm genuinely pleased to hear it, but you surely don't base your opinions purely on your own personal experiences do you? I know FYD wants us all to ignore any reports or evidence and thinks those who don't are fools, but I assume you're not that daft and are happy to search things out? The Tories' record on the NHS is dreadful. "I do think it’s better to have people on the dole that actually have to fight their way to a job rather than them being so comfy that they can afford to stay there. What has happened under Labour has really hurt us. Never mind the Daily Mail, I get to see every day from the job I have to see what Labour’s policies have done to the country."I'm not sure I understand this. I asked if you thought it was better to have people on the dole than in a job but you seem to be saying something about cutting benefits to force people to fight for a job. Is that right? I also don't get the next sentence - "what has happened under Labour has hurt us" - do you mean you think Labour was effectively paying people to remain unemployed by making it easy for them? If so, I think you really need to demonstrate how and why you think this. "Did you see the deficit/GDP % in the last few days without financial interventions? What are your thoughts on this? I have no doubt that the ‘coalition government will stunt growth’ line will come out but tell me about Labour’s involvement without the bailouts etc? No, I didn't see them. Please stick them up here. I promise not to consider you a fool for doing so You never commented on Osborne's promise to match Labour's spending plans right up to 2011, btw.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 23, 2012 14:36:11 GMT
If you don't think our public debt won't increase (when measured in billions), why has it done so almost every year since 1960?Ignoring the mangled english again The idea you put forward is that it is inevitable that debt will increase, my point is actually if you pay back debt it doesn't increase not sure what is so hard for you to understand about that, the reason it hasn't see previously ignored comments about the tax system / calendar year but mainly it's because most governments run deficits. Despite saying you didn't say it was down to inflation you then try and bring inflation into it Of course in Lukeconomics it appears inflation only affect things the government "purchase" and not things the private sector "sell" that drive tax revenues ;D I'm not really sure what you think I can't or won't understand, I've never argued absolute numbers are meaningful I've just pointed out quite a few times, in detail with many reasons why percentages aren't necessarily any more meaningful - your response is Luke ;D at the graphs or it's a widely used measure whilst somewhat bizarrely giving Labour a get out of jail "blame it on the banks card" ;D If you acknowledge that there are factors outside the control of the government in 2008, hasn't there also been in many other years in which case don't these figures become well a little subjective and not quite the explicit verdict on governments or debt affordability you seem to want to present them as ??? Then again when as you did a few pages back with graphs proudly refer to how Labour paid down some of the interest /capital / debt (sorry can't remember the exact wording and having to read your posts again would make me lose the will to live ) , using interest as a percentage of GDP maybe you don't really understand things as much as you like to crack on when you now admit debt very rarely goes down. The Labour achievement in full again is that they didn't increase the debt as much as the overall increase in GDP outstanding economic management there I notice you're very selective about what you notice, I think I've answered your question more than once just because you want the answer to start in a particular format it doesn't mean it isn't there go and have a look again, on this point though it's rather amazing that you haven't noticed or answered why you feel able to ignore any financial and economic analysts who blame Labour for the mess we're in when the fact they put a few graphs in a paper is good enough for you to take this measure as gospel ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 19:46:07 GMT
I think you may be cracking up, old fruit . Can you explain to me what is mangled about that sentence of mine you quoted? ;D Also, since we're discussing it, what is so difficult to understand about "I doubt they return your calls" which prompted a WTF from you. ??? There's something quite odd, almost unhealthy, about your responses, FYD. I'm not sure you can't understand, just won't. All a bit weird. But, perhaps that oddness makes sense. I'm beginnning to wonder if there may be "something of the night" about you since you seem unable to answer a straightforward question, a la Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman. Don't make me ask 12 times ;D. I'll ask again: "why is % of GDP used so routinely and widely in assessing the impact of debt and deficit if it's so meaningless as you so desperately want us all to believe? And, if you'll permit me a follow up: if it's as meaningless as you want us all to accept, why is it the standard measure of assessing government finance (debt and deficit) in the Maastricht Treaty for example? Please answer. I think this quote of yours sums up your misunderstanding, willful or otherwise: "Then again when as you did a few pages back with graphs proudly refer to how Labour paid down some of the interest /capital / debt (sorry can't remember the exact wording and having to read your posts again would make me lose the will to live ) , using interest as a percentage of GDP maybe you don't really understand things as much as you like to crack on when you now admit debt very rarely goes down."It (debt) doesn't often go down if you measure it simply in £billions. What does change is the manageability, the affordability if you prefer, of that debt, as measured in % of GDP. Which is my entire point. This is what Labour did to Major's legacy of debt. Made it more manageable. I really don't see why you are trying so hard to undermine such a commonly used yardstick, unless it's just to make a strange point, like the one about us all having one tit and one bollock. "I notice you're very selective about what you notice, I think I've answered your question more than once just because you want the answer to start in a particular format it doesn't mean it isn't there go and have a look again, on this point though it's rather amazing that you haven't noticed or answered why you feel able to ignore any financial and economic analysts who blame Labour for the mess we're in when the fact they put a few graphs in a paper is good enough for you to take this measure as gospel"You haven't answered it at all ;D. All you've done is argue consistently that using % of GDP as a measure of debt and deficit is meaningless. Re the second point, feel free to post the analysts' reports and we can discuss them. Or would this make you a fool? To be fair, I can see why you don't answer. This thread has essentially been about those from the right having less reasoning ability than those from the left. So far, and there's probably more in there ;D, you've said anyone who posts the reports of others is a fool. So, anyone who tries to rely on data or evidence to back up a point is a fool according to you. The irony of your consistently referring to the information in them is presumably lost on you? You've then tried to undermine the use of percentages by indulging in some bizarre piece of analysis that would embarrass a child. You're now desperately trying to undermine the use of % of GDP as a routine and widely used measurement of debt and deficit in governmental finance. Lastly, for the time being, and perhaps most oddly, you seem strangely keen to do little beyond taking normal sentences and questioning their construction as if you've forgotten how to understand english. You're really not doing yourself any favours in respect of this thread title!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 27, 2012 13:13:50 GMT
I was going to let this go but you'd only start banging on about it in the next political thread so I'll answer and then leave you to it ;D If you don't think our public debt won't increase (when measured in billions), why has it done so almost every year since 1960?”I think my original point was pretty clear, debt doesn’t always have to increase (despite all your guff about inflation) especially if it is paid back so unless you’ve somehow misunderstood this ? (which based on previous experience can’t be completely ruled out), what you appear to be asking me why I think the debt will increase ( don’t think it won’t increase) which is kinda of the complete opposite of what I actually said ;D I did try and answer the question I thought you were trying to ask in you “mangled English” ;D but knowing what a stickler you are for non “shit-english” just thought I’d point it out to you champ. I hope you now understand why I found this sentence neither normal or well constructed ;D – although I would have thought with your higher reasoning ability you could have worked it out on your own ;D why is % of GDP used so routinely and widely in assessing the impact of debt and deficit if it's so meaningless as you so desperately want us all to believe? And, if you'll permit me a follow up: if it's as meaningless as you want us all to accept, why is it the standard measure of assessing government finance (debt and deficit) in the Maastricht Treaty for example? Please answer”. Already answered (see below) if you don’t like the format of it, hey ho but again your higher reasoning ability appears to have let you down 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.[/i]
THIS IS AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOLLOW UP QUESTION (to avoid any misunderstandings again ;D)
The Maastricht Treaty that formed the basis of the creation of the Euro, bearing in mind the problems in the Eurozone you want to use that as it being an example of a meaningful way of measuring debt and deficit ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What’s odd of course is how long it’s taken you to google this and this is the best you come up with PMSL.
I think this quote of yours sums up your misunderstanding, willful or otherwise: "Then again when as you did a few pages back with graphs proudly refer to how Labour paid down some of the interest /capital / debt (sorry can't remember the exact wording and having to read your posts again would make me lose the will to live ) , using interest as a percentage of GDP maybe you don't really understand things as much as you like to crack on when you now admit debt very rarely goes down."
Upto your usual tricks I see part quoting, taking out of context or just plain making stuff up (which we’ll come to later), why not add in my next paragraph “The Labour achievement in full again is that they didn't increase the debt as much as the overall increase in GDP outstanding economic management there ”
Now you might not like the wording but this is the basic gist of your guff about “manageability and affordability” so I’m really not sure why you think there is any misunderstanding on my part of the concept of %GDP, I’ve made many comments about the reasons I don’t think GDP is that meaningful and your only response is that it’s a widely used measure but for some strange reason you persist with the idea it’s me who doesn’t understand it, which is a little odd when you’ve previously claimed labour paid back some debt and managed the finances better which it now seems you’ve “clarified” to the fact that they probably didn’t pay back any debt but as a result of their good management the economy and GDP grew but when it went wrong it was all the banks fault – gloriously inconsistent ;D
Lets finish with the just plain making stuff up that you (and I am referring to you champ and only you) often resort to ;D
you've said anyone who posts the reports of others is a fool. So, anyone who tries to rely on data or evidence to back up a point is a fool according to you. The irony of your consistently referring to the information in them is presumably lost on you?
Actually I’ve never said that and below is my actual quote in context in a post directly replying to you
The only person I'm embarrassing is you by showing you up for the one trick pony you are, posting independently sourced evidence which you either don't understand or choose to deliberately misrepresent as somehow proving your opinion as fact.
[b]You[/b] truly do prove the quote that "The wise understand by themselves; fools follow post the reports of others" [/i] You seem to believe putting "Prove Labour were ace" into google and then posting some report, graphs or figures actually makes your opinion somehow more valid and then demand anyone who disagrees with you does the same, this in itself is both breathtakingly arrogant and stupid because even if you ignore the fact that the majority of politics debate is in reality purely about opinions and hindsight, you can find anything on the internet if you look. I even have a quote from Abraham Lincoln that says 98% of the facts on the internet are made up which considering he died in 1865 would make him quite the psychic (Before we get you spending pages trying to ridicule something that you think I said again - I'm fully aware this is a made up quote )Maybe not putting "your own personal opinion" (copyright Lukey) confused you ;D but i'm not really sure how you think it was aimed at anyone but you ??? Maybe you think you are the messageboard and any comment aimed at you is aimed at the whole messageboard someone has tickets on themselves hey Jeremy Paxman PMSL ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:22:05 GMT
Nope, still no idea why you consider that sentence to be "mangled english", it makes perfect sense to me. But then everyone having one tit and one bollock appears to make statistical sense to you, so it's probably not surprising that I don't understand why you consider it to be "mangled"! Guess what? You ducked the question about why you consider "I doubt they return your calls" a "WTF" example of mangled english? However, I can enjoy the mangled english in these two sentences which I've highlighted for you. Pedantic, I know, but when someone starts accusing others of "struggling with english" or "not having english as their first language" (that's you by the way ;D), the hilarity of the irony is just too huge to ignore. And does rather underline the title of this thread one more time! "I did try and answer the question I thought you were trying to ask in you “mangled English” but knowing what a stickler you are for non “shit-english” just thought I’d point it out to you champ.
I hope you now understand why I found this sentence neither normal or well constructed – although I would have thought with your higher reasoning ability you could have worked it out on your own" Nice try, but you've done a Ronnie Rosenthal once again, old fruit ;D. (It's neither...nor...in case you're struggling ). I genuinely don't understand why you can't answer the question ;D: Why is % of GDP used so widely and routinely as a measure of debt and deficit? You consider it to be meaningless, which is all you keep saying in one form or another. I'm not asking you why you consider it so meaningless, I'm asking why it's such a ubiquitous measure of debt and deficit if it's as shit as you'd have us all believe? "The Maastricht Treaty that formed the basis of the creation of the Euro, bearing in mind the problems in the Eurozone you want to use that as it being an example of a meaningful way of measuring debt and deficit". Nicely ducked once again ;D. I want you to tell me why % of GDP is used in the Maastricht Treaty as a measure of governmental debt and deficit if it's as meaningless as you claim. Please answer that question ;D. "Lets finish with the just plain making stuff up that you (and I am referring to you champ and only you) often resort to
you've said anyone who posts the reports of others is a fool. So, anyone who tries to rely on data or evidence to back up a point is a fool according to you. The irony of your consistently referring to the information in them is presumably lost on you?
Actually I’ve never said that and below is my actual quote in context in a post directly replying to you
The only person I'm embarrassing is you by showing you up for the one trick pony you are, posting independently sourced evidence which you either don't understand or choose to deliberately misrepresent as somehow proving your opinion as fact.
You truly do prove the quote that "The wise understand by themselves; fools follow post the reports of others" That is just truly desperate, FYD ;D. I'm not entirely sure what "fools follow post the reports of others" means. Follow post ??? Is english not your first etc etc ;D. But leaving to one side that second Ronnie Rosenthal in one post , I wasn't aware that the phrase "the wise understand by themselves, fools post the reports of others" could be applied so selectively. Superb stuff ;D I mean, who would have thought that whoever it was who came up with that quote had me in mind on a football messageboard when he or she devised it? Incredible foresight! And there was me thinking it was a generic phrase which applied to everyone ;D. What next I wonder? Will you be telling us that "a fool and his money are easily parted" applies only to those willing to buy lunch (and influence) with Eric Pickles? That's going to be an expensive lunch ;D ;D Fucking genius, mate, absolute fucking genius! Bordering on your one tit one bollock theory but not quite that mad ;D! "You seem to believe putting "Prove Labour were ace" into google and then posting some report, graphs or figures actually makes your opinion somehow more valid and then demand anyone who disagrees with you does the same, this in itself is both breathtakingly arrogant and stupid because even if you ignore the fact that the majority of politics debate is in reality purely about opinions and hindsight, you can find anything on the internet if you look. I even have a quote from Abraham Lincoln that says 98% of the facts on the internet are made up which considering he died in 1865 would make him quite the psychic (Before we get you spending pages trying to ridicule something that you think I said again - I'm fully aware this is a made up quote"I've said it before and I'll say it again - I think you regularly make the mistake of judging me by your own standards, FYD. Stop looking into your motives for posting and assuming that I am also that way inclined . My involvement in these threads is simply when the usual rightwingers bang on about 13 years of uselessness etc. I'm quite happy to argue with mcf and adri and the like who generally don't get abusive or dance around questions they'd rather not answer. Even RMB72 appears to be mellowing these days . I'm happy to challenge their points and have mine challenged, but it is hard when simply posting reports or evidence is apparently the action of a fool. Although you're finally right in one respect - I do think posting independently sourced and reliable data does actually make your point more valid. I suspect most people agree with that, even if you think it makes you a fool, notwithstanding your rather lame attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you created by posting such a silly quote in the first place ;D. Off you trot if you can't or won't answer those questions yet again, but you'll just be underscoring the thread title once and for all .
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 28, 2012 6:20:55 GMT
I'll get back to you soon as well. Busy at work at the moment in the private sector...especially now the government is starting to pull back on funds that we used to ride on the back of
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 28, 2012 14:11:10 GMT
You are starting to sound genuinely demented That is just truly desperate, FYD ?. I'm not entirely sure what "fools follow post the reports of others" means. Follow post ? Is english not your first etc etc ?. But leaving to one side that second Ronnie Rosenthal in one post ?, I wasn't aware that the phrase "the wise understand by themselves, fools post the reports of others" could be applied so selectively. Superb stuff ? I mean, who would have thought that whoever it was who came up with that quote had me in mind on a football messageboard when he or she devised it? Incredible foresight! And there was me thinking it was a generic phrase which applied to everyone ?. What next I wonder? Will you be telling us that "a fool and his money are easily parted" applies only to those willing to buy lunch (and influence) with Eric Pickles? That's going to be an expensive lunch ? ? Fucking genius, mate, absolute fucking genius! Bordering on your one tit one bollock theory but not quite that mad ?!Firstly have a point to crow over for the next god knows how long ;D Copy and pasting doesn't obviously carry through the strikethrough on the follow, I don't have the time to come back and do a lukedit 2 hours later like you strangely seem to do to most posts in reply to me ;D You (that’s you Luke not the whole messageboard) are correct the phrase "the wise understand by themselves, fools post the reports of others" could not be applied so selectively, however when it is preceded the words “ You truly do prove the quote.....” ;D it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s aimed squarely at you (that’s you Luke not the whole messageboard -sorry I can’t prove this by quoting it as a %GDP for you) ;D Technically it was me who came up with that quote in the format applied here as you see the original quote is “fools follow the reports of others" which I changed with varying degrees of success ;D to “fools post the reports of others" so yes I did have exactly you (that’s you Luke not the whole messageboard ;D) in mind so it's not really incredible foresight but thanks for the compliment anyway ;D You claimed to be an IFA / Hedge fund manager once, you can clear up the fool and a money thing for us can’t you (that’s you Luke not the whole messageboard) - do you(that’s you Luke not the whole messageboard or financial industry ;D) have any clients ? If the answer is yes it would appear there is a strong chance this is indeed correct ;D I do think posting independently sourced and reliable data does actually make your point more validFor someone who thinks they have a valid point, you've spent quite a few pages ducking any question about the reliability of GDP, the fact that you really don't seem to be able to get is the graphs that you've made various claims about show purely debt as % of GDP any other claim / intrepretation after that is based purely on your own personal opinion ;D (copyright Luke). As you're rantings have got more bizarre, I really don't see the point in answering again and god knows how you will actually intrepret them in your own weird and wonderful way but here goes If you don't think our public debt won't increase (when measured in billions), why has it done so almost every year since 1960?Why do I think it’s mangled English already explained, of course you’re (thats you Luke not the whole messageboard) trying to head behind the fig leaf that’s it good English asking me a question about why I believe the exact opposite of what I actually posted ;D Good one champ. "I doubt they return your calls" “I doubt they’d return your calls” is actually how I think most people would phrase it,t hat’s just my own personal opinion (copyright Luke) – I notice you left that bit out funnily enough. Perfectly happy with or rather than nor in my comment by the way thanks for asking though ;D Not sure how many times, I can put this answer though I believe GDP is used because it is not possible to measure debt manageability for a government how it is measured in the real world (Income/Cashflow to debt - the government is not the economy so can't see how using GDP makes sense really). You would have to ask all those experts why they use %GDP but i’m sure if you did they would tell you at best it is an indicative / directional measure and not the explicit measure you claim. Re the Maastrict treaty, again as I didn’t write it I can’t say but I would assume for the same reason as above it gives some sort of indicative / directional guidance however I would have thought the chaos resulting from the creation of the Euro / Eurozone that the Maastrict treaty was the basis for is very relevant although I can understand why you’d want to ignore it as you’ve just done a Geoff Thomas finish from what you seem to think was a Ronnie Rosentahl scoring opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2012 14:59:26 GMT
I'll get back to you soon as well. Busy at work at the moment in the private sector...especially now the government is starting to pull back on funds that we used to ride on the back of No worries, mate
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2012 17:57:36 GMT
Comedy gold, FYD, comedy gold once again! It's the fact that you made (and continue to make) such a big thing about other people's problems with english while not having a clue yourself. That is what is so funny and so indicative of the subject of this thread! I love your selective application of "the quote" 'the wise understand by themselves, fools post (or follow, whatever it is these days ;D) the reports of others'. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of english can see that that can apply to anyone. In precisely the same way that the phrase "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" can equally be applied to anyone. But let's spend a moment looking into your use of "the quote" itself. You're now telling us that it was you who came up with that quote in that format. What? It's not a well known saying already? You made it up? But you referred to it as "the quote". You also spent so much of your last post going on about how I fabricate things! This is so good, you couldn't make it up - well, you could obviously ;D ;D Am I a hedge fund manager, today, FYD? So far, according to you and your ongoing campaign to be the most regularly wrong bloke on the planet, I'm a student, a recently graduated student, the high school debating champion, a [non-specific] public sector worker and a teacher. I've probably missed a few there too! "Why do I think it’s mangled English already explained, of course you’re (thats you Luke not the whole messageboard) trying to head behind the fig leaf that’s it good English asking me a question about why I believe the exact opposite of what I actually posted Good one champ." I'm trying to head behind the what? ;D Head behind? In a rant about good english - fucking priceless ;D To stop laughing for a second, the question was phrased in perfectly good english - your point was that it was mangled. Wrong again! I doubt that they'd return your calls would be strictly correct, but never mind, Ronnie . You also seem to have a weird thing about my use of "your own personal opinion" as if you can't post anyone else's personal opinion. Ask a friend if you have one, then it'd be his own personal opinion. Go on an internet blog (Mr A Arnold from Nottingham seems a decent chap ;D) and post his own personal opinion. What's so tough to understand about that? Or is that the problem once again? Re % of GDP - finally an answer! Thank you! I never said it was 'an explicit measure' which you ascribed to me - I have repeatedly said it is a widely used and routinely accepted measure of exactly what you just described ;D. Why you railed against it so is a bit odd. Re Maastricht - thank you once again! Some acceptance that it gives an idea of exactly what you just described! Like getting blood from a stone that was! Finally some acknowledgement that it's not as meaningless a means of measurement as you were desperately trying to convince us . PS - it's Rosenthal, not Rosentahl. You got Thomas right though ;D.
|
|