|
Post by Tubes on Jun 13, 2012 2:50:20 GMT
But Austerity is working so well... www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/06/LFFeconomicupdate6-12.jpgThe only way to drive growth is by significant public investment. The only thing that's going to stimulate the private sector is demand, cutting from the public sector right now is going to decrease demand. The role of the state is to step in and provide the things the private sector cannot, and to act in the national interest in areas where the private sector acts in the interests of it's stakeholders. Right now we need the state to do what the private sector cannot and drive the economy with investment. We can argue about whether we should have borrowed so much in times of prosperity, but right now is not the time to get that deficit down.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 10:07:36 GMT
These are not simply my conclusions – they are the conclusions of the Centre for Economic Performance and others. Equally, the reports do not destroy this reckless spending nonsense – it’s just your flawed interpretations that attempt to.
one - "Major handed over a great set of cards and it's hard to believe he got voted out" + the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997 (your IFS report) + Tory endorsement of Labour spending plans = no reckless overspending in the decade before the financial crisis = you don't know what you're talking about.
two - Major's govt wasn't in fact a great set of cards so even if your IFS report states that the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than in 1997 that's not saying much and Tory endorsement of Labour's spending plans doesn't say much for them either = you don't know what you're talking about.
These are both horse shit – you seem to think that Major’s influence and work ended the minute he walked out of the door. In 2000/2001, after following Tory spending plans, we had the lowest public debt as a % of GDP. Left to their own devices it then climbed and climbed and climbed. So yes, my conclusions, and those of many others do make sense. You are claiming that the IFS report supports your stance by picking figures at times that you decide with no context. Equally, you seem to think that all New Labour’s influence and work ended in 2007. It’s utter, selective horseshit.
Barings Bank and the savings and loans crisis were great warnings and when Brown came into government what did he do about it? He introduced the wrong regulation that produced a far, far, far greater and costly fuck up to the government.
(That said, I'm not sure Barings is that applicable to what followed. There is an argument that prior to 1997, thre was a regulation of capital and cash monitored by the Bank of England. Gordo changed this in 1997 and so banks over lent where they didn't before. I thought Barings was more about one rogue trader than generally the bank overstretching as a whole.)
Ok, so you are quite happy that banks and capitalism exist but it’s just how they operate and by that I presume you mean the laws and regulations that they are held to? Pretty important that Brown got this right then given how obvious it is?
Most of that overspending and debt was private as your own Tullet Prebon report showed (or are we discrediting this bit ) and where did this private debt come from? Hint: it was the banks
Not at all, and it happened because of Brown’s fucked up decisions in 1997.
If I am at all obsessed with anything it's simply the lazy, ill thought through guff that you rightwingers trot out time and time again about "13 years of financial ineptitude and reckless overspending on public sector non-jobs". Even when your own references state that the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were at the time Labour came to power and more money went on investment than day to day running .
The finances of 2007 were not in better shape than in 2000/2001 and we were standing on the edge of a cliff because Brown had taken us there. Take 2010 or 2011 and compare them with 1993 or 1994 or 1995 or 1996. Of course you can’t do that can you because this is the deepest global recession we’ve ever seen and has no way to do with the New Labour government.
If you don't think the banks are at the root of all this, why do you think the Spanish ones have had a E100bn bailout that went directly to them and not the Spanish government?
Because the Spanish government didn’t have control of the cajas.
Do you think if we relaxed the laws on murder or simply fucked them up that we would get more murders?
No matter how much you wriggle –your flawed interpretations of reports and selective figures don’t fool anyone and neither does your whitewashing of Brown's fuck up on 'right wing' policy.
In all your wailing, horseshit and diversionary tactics we kind of get away of simple facts like that in 2011, 64.3% net debt as a % of GDP - how does that compare to Major's time?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 10:13:07 GMT
you are right Tubes...leave it to the kids and grandkids.
seems fair
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 13:00:04 GMT
But Austerity is working so well... www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/06/LFFeconomicupdate6-12.jpgThe only way to drive growth is by significant public investment. The only thing that's going to stimulate the private sector is demand, cutting from the public sector right now is going to decrease demand. The role of the state is to step in and provide the things the private sector cannot, and to act in the national interest in areas where the private sector acts in the interests of it's stakeholders. Right now we need the state to do what the private sector cannot and drive the economy with investment. We can argue about whether we should have borrowed so much in times of prosperity, but right now is not the time to get that deficit down. Precisely, Tubes. Everyone agrees that growth is the way out of this mess. When the recession hit, private sector demand dropped, Brown achieved growth in the economy through various aspects of his fiscal stimuli. (There's a difference between growth achieved mainly on the back of private debt through reckless bank lending and that achieved through government spending to replace a temporary decline in private sector demand, mcf, before you get confused). The Coalition's austerity measures pulled that rug away completely and now we have an absence of the very growth that will get us out of this mess! Already Osborne has abandoned his debt and deficit reduction targets for this parliament simply because they were based on a combination of austerity combined with growth. We have the former but not the latter largely because of the former!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 13:10:14 GMT
For the love of God, we had growth based on private and public debt.
It couldn't go on.
Therefore growth will suffer now that both forms of spending are being cut. This is the required correction.
The government could have possibly spent more if hadn't been for the fact that the last government fucked it up so badly and already loaded us up with debt. 64.3% ring any fucking bells?
Jesus wept.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 14:06:19 GMT
I have to say, mcf, it's like trying to have a debate with someone who instantly forgets or ignores anything they're written previously if it turns out they don't like the information in it. The old facts which cease to be real if I ignore them scenario! The fact that you think I am the one engaging in selective interpretation I find most amusing of all. Just one example - you cite the "lowest debt as a % of GDP in 2001 as being Tory spending plans followed by Labour". What about the highest debt as a % of GDP since 1985 in 1997? Were these Tory spending plans too? ;D The recession had ended half a decade previously! Never mind eh, I'm the selective one! This is why I say your comments just don't make any coherent sense. You think I'm selective, yet you clearly see what you want and ignore the uncomfortable. And will continue to do so. That IFS report is the summary, word for word! You posted it as a demonstration of public finance performance under Labour! It says the public finances were in better shape after a decade of Labour government than they were in 1997. You've said it's hard to understand why Major got voted out after handing over a great set of cards, so how can public finances which were in better shape pre financial crisis be an indication of reckless overspending? Just doesn't make any coherent sense once again I'm afraid. OK, so you appear to accept that I didn't actually say banks and capitalism are dysfunctional, but you'll just pretend that never happened will you? Being consistently wrong has no actual bearing on your belief that you're right, right? Barings and the savings and loan crises - just useful warnings now are they? Not indicators of the dysfunctional way banks had been doing capitalism since being deregulated ;D. And the fact that both Labour and the Tories believed in not touching the free markets is in fact nothing more indicative of anything other than a poor idiosyncratic belief of Gordon Brown alone?! "Most of that overspending and debt was private as your own Tullet Prebon report showed (or are we discrediting this bit ) and where did this private debt come from? Hint: it was the banks". "Not at all, and it happened because of Brown’s fucked up decisions in 1997".
Right so that Tullet Prebon report was wrong about the massive relative impact of private debt over public debt was it? 80% private roughly! Just seeking clarification cos it was a while ago so you may well have decided to ignore this now? Do you think this might be why the IFS report said the public finances were in better shape in 2007 compared to 1997 after a whole decade of reckless overspending? Remember it's got to be a whole decade of overspending because you've consistently referred to "13 years of utter wank".
"The finances of 2007 were not in better shape than in 2000/2001 and we were standing on the edge of a cliff because Brown had taken us there. Take 2010 or 2011 and compare them with 1993 or 1994 or 1995 or 1996. Of course you can’t do that can you because this is the deepest global recession we’ve ever seen and has no way to do with the New Labour government".
Nothing like a bit of selective figure usage is there, old bean! Ignore the overall decade long picture of government performance in relation to the one it took over from (those great sets of cards remember) and look at it from 2000 to 2007. Just to reiterate one more time - I know public spending went up both in billions and in % of GDP. I also know this was spent on trying to improve the NHS and education mostly. The figures show this and I don't dispute them. The "correct" conclusion I do dispute is yours - that this is indicative of reckless overspending over 13 years of Labour government. You quoted the figures 1993, 94, 95 and 96. Spending under Labour pre 2007 was nearly always lower than all of those years ;D.
So let's compare 2010 and 2011 with what happened previously. At last there appears to be some recognition on your part that comparing pre 2007 public finance figures with those of John Major's government doesn't work very well for your argument ;D. I'm guessing you'll deny this straight away despite the figures showing otherwise on ukpublicspending and that IFS report you posted!
"If you don't think the banks are at the root of all this, why do you think the Spanish ones have had a E100bn bailout that went directly to them and not the Spanish government?
Because the Spanish government didn’t have control of the cajas.
Do you think if we relaxed the laws on murder or simply fucked them up that we would get more murders"?
Yes I do think that - I'm glad you finally agree that the deregulation of banks was a bad thing. Ooops, just post 1997 obviously . All previous murders were a useful warning only!
"No matter how much you wriggle –your flawed interpretations of reports and selective figures don’t fool anyone and neither does your whitewashing of Brown's fuck up on 'right wing' policy".
It was your report posted word for word! No interpretation needed! ;D And you said lack of regulation was a right wing policy! Guess in mcf world it no longer is, just Gordon's own fuck up!
In all your wailing, horseshit and diversionary tactics we kind of get away of simple facts like that in 2011, 64.3% net debt as a % of GDP - how does that compare to Major's time?
Yep, in Major's time debt as a % of GDP was the highest from 1985 all the way through to 2008 even taking into account that decade of Labour's reckless overspending ;D. But still nothing out of the ordinary and nor was it under Labour as the figures clearly show for each government. And now it is much much higher. What happened in 2007-08 again? Oh yeah, a global recession to match the 30s depression caused purely and simply by Labour!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 14:09:36 GMT
For the love of God, we had growth based on private and public debt. It couldn't go on. Therefore growth will suffer now that both forms of spending are being cut. This is the required correction. The government could have possibly spent more if hadn't been for the fact that the last government fucked it up so badly and already loaded us up with debt. 64.3% ring any fucking bells? Jesus wept. 1. How bad was the debt pre 2007? 2. The Coalition is already borrowing more (more debt) because we haven't got the growth. Do you really not understand this?
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Jun 13, 2012 14:12:42 GMT
Some people can be chest deep and shit and still asking what the smell is
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 15:24:51 GMT
1. How bad was the debt pre 2007?
Very, very bad considering that we hadn't had a recession for 15 years and it had being increasing for the last 7 years..ever since they stopped with the Tory spending plans.
2. The Coalition is already borrowing more (more debt) because we haven't got the growth. Do you really not understand this?
..and your answer is to borrow even greater sums to fund growth? Even though you know that for every £2.18 under Brown's time we were spending we would get a £1 back. You said this was fair and sensible enough on the last page??????
What planet are you on.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 16:09:14 GMT
From that same IFS report
2. Public finances up to the crisis: 1997 to 2007
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993.
No way, they couldn't have increased taxes because that isn't right wing policy
During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives.
Oh my goodness, sticking to the Tory plans. Hold on, I thought this was Labour magic and not Major's cards.
The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.
What on earth could they mean by fiscal drift? Polite way of saying overspending of the wreckless nature that left us more in the shit than anyone else perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 13, 2012 16:18:43 GMT
Lets read a little more
By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries.
Not too shabby Sir John, probably even better if you add the next 4 years on as well.
Faced with this inheritance, Labour set out four main goals for its own management of the public finances: - to avoid an unsustainable and potentially damaging rise in public sector debt; - to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them; - to avoid a bias against investment when public spending has to be squeezed; - to ‘support’ monetary policy in keeping inflation on target.
Very interesting, faced with this inheritance, all he needs to do is not fuck it up. Simply avoid increasing public sector debt and protecting future taxpayers and New Labour are home and dry surely? I wonder how they will get on.....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 13, 2012 17:04:44 GMT
Lets read a little more By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries. Not too shabby Sir John, probably even better if you add the next 4 years on as well. Faced with this inheritance, Labour set out four main goals for its own management of the public finances: - to avoid an unsustainable and potentially damaging rise in public sector debt; - to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them; - to avoid a bias against investment when public spending has to be squeezed; - to ‘support’ monetary policy in keeping inflation on target.Very interesting, faced with this inheritance, all he needs to do is not fuck it up. Simply avoid increasing public sector debt and protecting future taxpayers and New Labour are home and dry surely? I wonder how they will get on..... The idea that Major was some sort of economic genius is patently untrue.. eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/if-john-majors-debt-interest-were-still.htmlIn 1997 the UK was paying £27.5bn annually just to service John Major's debt. Now all these years on that might be hard to conceptualise, so let me try to do it for you. By adding year on year inflation we can say that £27.5bn in 1997 would mean the same as £41.3bn to be paid in the 2011-12 simply to service John Major's debt. If fact if you were calculate the inflationary growth on Major's debt interest all the way to 2015, you would find the amount to be £48.3bn. Not only have I already proven that a) as a percentage of government spending Brown's debt was lower, and b) as a percentage of GDP Brown's debt was lower, For the first time it also blows a hole in the argument that the raw figure of £50bn forecast for this year's debt interest is somehow huge.
Gordon Brown's debt is as serviceable as John Major's was, the only difference is that we as Keynesians do not wish to scaremonger the UK general public into accepting unnecessary cuts. Thankfully, Brown did fix the roof when the sun was shining and John Major's debt interest was not allowed to accrue. Had he not, then one may have had to query whether the UK could have withstood the global financial crisis that struck in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 19:10:24 GMT
1. How bad was the debt pre 2007? Very, very bad considering that we hadn't had a recession for 15 years and it had being increasing for the last 7 years..ever since they stopped with the Tory spending plans. 2. The Coalition is already borrowing more (more debt) because we haven't got the growth. Do you really not understand this? ..and your answer is to borrow even greater sums to fund growth? Even though you know that for every £2.18 under Brown's time we were spending we would get a £1 back. You said this was fair and sensible enough on the last page?????? What planet are you on. 1. Was it really? Strange then that the figures show that it never came close to the levels under Major even five years after the end of the recession! He must have been really shit! Or do you not include these figures in his great set of cards? 2. Yep, because that growth will pay off the debt and deficit. No growth won't. What I said fair and sensible enough to was you saying you weren't advocating Edwardian levels of spending! I was beginning to worry. Who knows what level of return we will get but as long as spending is below growth as it was going to be under both the Tories and Labour from 2007 onwards remember, the deficit and debt will come down without resorting to the austerity measures we're seeing on public services and which are killing growth at the same time. Despite recognising that the austerity measures have killed growth you think they should cut further. And you ask what planet I'm on? How will that help growth?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 19:24:08 GMT
From that same IFS report 2. Public finances up to the crisis: 1997 to 2007
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993. No way, they couldn't have increased taxes because that isn't right wing policy During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives. Oh my goodness, sticking to the Tory plans. Hold on, I thought this was Labour magic and not Major's cards. The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.What on earth could they mean by fiscal drift? Polite way of saying overspending of the wreckless nature that left us more in the shit than anyone else perhaps? I'm quite happy they increased taxes, I'm not a rightwinger on the whole. Are you happy your taxes went up? You said previously you'd prefer lower taxes and shittier public services. This must be getting very confusing for you ;D "Oh my goodness, sticking to the Tory plans. Hold on, I thought this was Labour magic and not Major's cards". Right so that's four years off the 13 years of financial ineptitude and utter wank is it ;D. You're getting there. Slowly, admittedly, but getting there! "What on earth could they mean by fiscal drift? Polite way of saying overspending of the wreckless nature that left us more in the shit than anyone else perhaps?"Well it certainly means that in mcf world that's for sure. Just like a "rapid increase in public spending" equals reckless overspending to anyone unless they're insane! And this is why Labour were planning on reducing spending to below growth and this was endorsed by the Tories. Why weren't the Tories screaming blue murder about Labour's reckless overspending back then? Just being nice? Or assuming, like Labour, that things would continue along quite nicely if we simply left the markets alone to find their own solution and the deficit would be reduced by half over the next four year period. More than likely.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 19:52:49 GMT
Lets read a little more By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries. Not too shabby Sir John, probably even better if you add the next 4 years on as well. Faced with this inheritance, Labour set out four main goals for its own management of the public finances: - to avoid an unsustainable and potentially damaging rise in public sector debt; - to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them; - to avoid a bias against investment when public spending has to be squeezed; - to ‘support’ monetary policy in keeping inflation on target.Very interesting, faced with this inheritance, all he needs to do is not fuck it up. Simply avoid increasing public sector debt and protecting future taxpayers and New Labour are home and dry surely? I wonder how they will get on..... That's a quality example of you seeing what you want and ignoring the bits you don't. Debt handed over by Major was "not too shabby" according to the above. Debt under Labour up to the financial crisis was lower than under Major and you conclude this is 13 years of utter wank. Strange! Let's look at those four points: - to avoid unsustainable public sector debt Now who is it that keeps trying to get you to consider the affordability, manageability, sustainability of our debt? Oh yeah, me. So why do we keep looking at % of GDP? Because that provides a measure of that sustainability. And when we do what do we see, pre 2007-08? Oh look, a debt which was lower than anything in the previous administration and nothing out of the ordinary in historical terms. Tick. -to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them. Let's check that IFS report again: "more of the public sector spending went on investment [to improve quality for future users] than on day to day running costs". Tick. - to avoid a bias against investment when public spending has to be squeezed. Same comment as above. Tick. - to ‘support’ monetary policy in keeping inflation on target. Problems with inflation? No. Tick. At last you appear to be considering the impact of what might have brought about the significant changes to the public sector finances before and after 2007-08. Which is precisely what your IFS report also does. Not really sure why you can't, unless it's to carry on with this 13 years of utter wank which you feel you need to cling to. Or maybe it's now nine if you insist on adding in the first four to John Major's record! Or even three if you are prepared to recognise the summary of your IFS report. Probably not, you just want the nice bit about Major and ignore the nice bit about Labour pre financial crisis!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 14, 2012 7:29:02 GMT
Quality Gents, absolute quality.
This great belief that the minute that someone walks out the door that everything they did becomes the magic or the ruination of those that follow. It doesn't wash guys.
This report puts that myth to bed.
Let me say it again
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993.
During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives.
By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries.
There is no point taking the moment power switches as the point to measure from and you will see that even in 1997, because everyone had been through a global recession and that is why debt figures were generally high - that we were handily placed - low levels of borrowing and mid-table debts.
So this nicely takes us to the early 00s.
Followed by
'But over the same ten years (97 to 07) the vast majority of other leading industrial countries reduced their borrowing by more than the UK. And most also reduced their debt by more. So while the UK public finances were in better shape when the financial crisis began than they were when Labour came to power, the UK was in a worse position relative to most comparable countries.
On the eve of the financial crisis, the UK had one of the largest structural budget deficits among either the G7 or the OECD countries and a higher level of public sector debt than most other OECD countries, though lower than most other G7 countries. Most OECD governments did more to reduce their structural deficit during the period from 1997 to 2007 than Labour did. This fiscal position formed the backdrop to the financial crisis.'
ie They overspent - they had been handed 'improving finances' in 97 that 'further strengthened' when following Major's spending plans and yet still by 07 we were in a worse position relative to most.
So that when the recession hit,
'Once again, the UK public finances have underperformed relative to comparable industrial countries. The UK is forecast by the OECD to experience the highest level of borrowing in 2010 and the fifth largest increase between 2007 and 2010 out of 26 industrial countries. Only Ireland and Iceland are projected to see a larger increase in debt over this period with the UK sliding further from its ‘mid-table’ position in the international public debt league table.'
In 2008–09, the government borrowed a total of 6.7% of national income, which includes: 5.2% of national income to cover a structural (i.e. permanent, if unaddressed) gap between public spending and revenues (about half of this was spent on investment), 0.6% of national income to fund the temporary fiscal stimulus measures (such as the VAT cut), and 0.9% of national income as a result of the economy operating below trend and thus spending being temporarily high and revenues temporarily low.
Therefore in conclusion,
Inherited an improving financial picture in 2007 that was comparable to other countries - that was further strengthened by following Tory plans - followed by fiscal drift ;D - and we end up with higher debts and deficits than most before the crisis, and that worsens after.
Now for the love of God, how does this report support your stance and not mine. ;D
One more thing because we know how you love to blame the banks....
'The eventual fiscal cost is uncertain and depends on a number of factors, including the sale price achieved for the shares in RBS and LBG compared to their purchase price. The Treasury estimated in Budget 2010 that, at then current market prices, the cost of the financial sector interventions (net of fees and other income) would be £6 billion.a This would be a trivial increase in PSND, which is expected to reach £1,406 billion by the end of 2014–15, and would have little effect on long-term borrowing requirements.'
Well worth keeping an eye on
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 14, 2012 7:43:04 GMT
Wow Sif has done MCF up like a kipper here, public finances are in a better state 15 years after a recession than they are 5 years after a recession well done that man. Next week Sif brilliantly proves dead people have less time left to go than the living.
Talking about people who only see what they want I notice you've ignored the head of the FSA saying Labour cocked up Northern Rock and if they'd followed his advice and let Lloyds use the government loan to buy them the run on the banks could have been avoided, so as your premise is that bailing the banks out caused the government cuts therefore as Labour fucked this up it really was all their fault.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 14, 2012 8:37:39 GMT
The irony being that finances were better 8/9 years after a recession than 15.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 10:27:19 GMT
Now for the love of God, how does this report support your stance and not mine. ;D It's really quite simple. As FYD and the IFS report states public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997. This despite a decade of reckless overspending; they were still in better shape. If there had been a decade of reckless overspending wouldn't they have been in worse shape or similar shape to 1997. Weird then that they weren't ???. This is why the Tories promised to match Labour's forthcoming spending plans in 2007. They looked at the existing debt and deficit figures, looked at the projected growth figures, saw that the 2% yearly spending increase in real terms over the next four year period would halve the deficit after a period of investing in the public sector and had no problem with it. I ask again, when the Tories love to portray Labour as a profligate tax and spend government (which you appear to buy into given your claim that public sector non-jobs added almost 20% of GDP to our debt post financial crisis!) and this country's electorate generally swallows this guff that you can have better services without having to pay for them through taxation, why weren't they screaming about a decade of reckless overspending back then? Neither chancellor nor shadow chancellor anticipated the financial crisis because both assumed the free markets would find their own solution because influential right wing economists were telling them so eg Alan Greenspan amongst others. So neither blue nor red parties saw a massive problem with the previous decade's spending levels at that time and a correction was programmed in. Is that really so controversial or "insane" a conclusion?! It's very easy now to say look at the mess we're in, and say it's all the result of massive overspending. But if you remove the effect of the financial crisis where would we be (assuming things had gone on as before, which both parties did)? With a debt and deficit that was reducing to Thatcherite levels after a period of spending on public services to improve them. In other words it's pretty obvious what event had the greatest impact on where we are now. This is why your IFS report also looks at the period pre financial crisis and the period after it. Simple. If you consider it to be "insane" to assume that things would merrily go on ad infinitum, then fair enough, but that was the prevailing consensus of thought at that time, promoted largely by right wing economists and bought into by those pesky socialists New Labour. This is why I keep referring back to a 30 year long rightwing experiment dominated by free markets and supply side economics embraced by both Labour and the Tories. I know it's uncomfortable for you rightwingers who simply want to blame the idiosyncracies of a Labour administration, but that's the harsh reality I'm afraid. Those "useful warnings" of Barings (what banks went bust indeed ;D) and the savings and loan crises should really have shown where this dysfunctional way of doing capitalism was heading but the rightwing economic approach won out in the end and here we are enjoying its fruits. Just to point out another contradiction of yours, mcf, if Major handed over middle-ranking debt levels and you consider this to be "not too shabby", how come you consider much lower levels (% of GDP as usual) pre financial crisis very, very bad ;D? Is it any wonder I can't get beyond your application of the same criterion of analysis entirely differently when looking at the Tories and Labour. On the one hand a certain level of debt is part of a great set of cards yet at the same time, a still lower level of debt is very, very bad! Presumably because you think they should have paid off all Major's debt before spending any money and got into budgetary surpluses before spending any money? I'm thinking this is why you consider a "nation is like a business that is like a household". This is how you run your household and the country should do the same? That being the case, how do you explain the 3% deficit and 60% debt criteria in the Maastricht Treaty? Why not follow your approach and say zero and zero or better? Why don't all countries do as you do? Please answer. Also, given that "the nation is like a business that is like a household", ;D how come we haven't gone bankrupt considering we've had 30 years of greater spending than income since 1975 and continuous debt for god knows how long? Please answer. Finally, you never answered whether you were happy that Major increased taxes and cut public services at the same time. His was a great set of cards remember, so what do you think of having to pay and not actually getting! You prefer lower taxes and shittier public services, you said so, so what about when you get the higher taxes and shittier public services? Please answer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 10:34:06 GMT
Wow Sif has done MCF up like a kipper here, public finances are in a better state 15 years after a recession than they are 5 years after a recession well done that man. Next week Sif brilliantly proves dead people have less time left to go than the living. Talking about people who only see what they want I notice you've ignored the head of the FSA saying Labour cocked up Northern Rock and if they'd followed his advice and let Lloyds use the government loan to buy them the run on the banks could have been avoided, so as your premise is that bailing the banks out caused the government cuts therefore as Labour fucked this up it really was all their fault. I'd discuss it with you but you'd only take it down some pointlessly pedantic avenue about the meaning of one word or some guff like that. Remember when you said how much you didn't like me and I made reference to how sad it is to dislike someone on the basis of their posts on a message board. You then spent several posts arguing about the difference between "dislike" and "don't like". So I don't think I'll waste my time anymore with that kind of daft nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 10:43:33 GMT
The irony being that finances were better 8/9 years after a recession than 15. The irony being that you accuse me of using figures selectively! 10 (or 6 if 1997 to 2001 now counts as part of John Major's great set of cards!) years of reckless overspending and the public finances were in better shape than ten years previously! They really must have fucked things up to manage that! Just can't get my head round that one at all .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 10:56:39 GMT
This great belief that the minute that someone walks out the door that everything they did becomes the magic or the ruination of those that follow. It doesn't wash guys. Fuck me, that's funny, coming from someone who is desperate to blame where we are now on precisely that process! The killing of growth, extra borrowing, double dip recession, budget u-turns. These are all Tory financial ineptitude then by your definition above, yes? I only ask to see if you can put aside your love of everything rightwing for a second and admit it. And I'm the one who wriggles apparently! This'll be interesting! Please answer.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 14, 2012 13:14:29 GMT
Wow Sif has done MCF up like a kipper here, public finances are in a better state 15 years after a recession than they are 5 years after a recession well done that man. Next week Sif brilliantly proves dead people have less time left to go than the living. Talking about people who only see what they want I notice you've ignored the head of the FSA saying Labour cocked up Northern Rock and if they'd followed his advice and let Lloyds use the government loan to buy them the run on the banks could have been avoided, so as your premise is that bailing the banks out caused the government cuts therefore as Labour fucked this up it really was all their fault. I'd discuss it with you but you'd only take it down some pointlessly pedantic avenue about the meaning of one word or some guff like that. Remember when you said how much you didn't like me and I made reference to how sad it is to dislike someone on the basis of their posts on a message board. You then spent several posts arguing about the difference between "dislike" and "don't like". So I don't think I'll waste my time anymore with that kind of daft nonsense. I don't need to remember what I post you do it for me Stan ;D I can understand how you'd want to duck commenting on a point that seriously undermines your it wasn't Labours fault argument still bonus points for not making any claims about the head of FSA's sexual fetishes ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Jun 14, 2012 13:20:07 GMT
you are right Tubes...leave it to the kids and grandkids. seems fair no, we have to sort the deficit out. But not during a recession, that's incredibly counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 13:20:49 GMT
Good effort, but we both know you'll only take it down some pointlessly pedantic avenue once you start losing the argument again, it's what you always do and I really can't be arsed with you any more, sorry old fruit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 14:36:02 GMT
Good effort, but we both know you'll only take it down some pointlessly pedantic avenue once you start losing the argument again, it's what you always do and I really can't be arsed with you any more, sorry old fruit. Wow ! Time out Gents ! ....and I thought I could be argumentative ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 15:26:45 GMT
;D
Ah, but what do you mean by the word argumentative?
Etc etc for a dozen or so posts, eh FYD ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 14, 2012 17:04:39 GMT
As FYD and the IFS report states public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997. This despite a decade of reckless overspending; they were still in better shape. If there had been a decade of reckless overspending wouldn't they have been in worse shape or similar shape to 1997. Weird then that they weren't .I’ve already answered this and so has the IFS report. Context. 1997 was five years after the recession and we were in good shape in comparison to other countries. In 2000/01 we were in even better shape – then by 2007 they had increased the net debt by more than 6% as a % of GDP - fiscal drift – and we weren’t in good shape. The IFS report says that it was shit pre and post the financial crisis. Read the fucking thing properly or ‘my direct quotes’ from it that sit behind the summaries. What you have basically done is quote 1 line out of the summary and ignore those that sit behind the rather large ‘but’.... This IFS report that you said supported your claims doesn’t..it’s that simple. Deal with their belief that they overspent...’fiscal drift’.....just like it concludes ‘overspending’ in the Centre for Economic Performance, ukpublicspending’s ‘rapid’ increase etc. Stop denying the summaries, details and the conclusions of the bodies that you asked for in the first place. As far as the overspending argument goes – this should be the end. All I can do is keep posting these many damning quotes and conclusions from the articles that you asked for and I’m quite sure that it will get even more tedious that watching your wenching and wriggling around this topic. I’ll get on to your other wank next week
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 14, 2012 18:10:59 GMT
Good effort, but we both know you'll only take it down some pointlessly pedantic avenue once you start losing the argument again, it's what you always do and I really can't be arsed with you any more, sorry old fruit. PMSL that time of the month again, I've worked it out finally the mood swings, lack of economic understanding, one eyed support for Labour - you're Gordon Brown aren't you ! You're not arsed, can't be bothered etc yet you keep dragging up stuff from months ago even though it doesn't get to you, let it go Gordon you fucked up the bailout and the economy just get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 8:40:32 GMT
Bless you for your lack of understanding, FYD! There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you. There's me, mcf, huddy, tubes etc talking about nothing but politics. Even Squareball got involved again which was good. And what do you do? Two posts in and you're straight back into your sexual fetishes ;D. You know there might be specialist professional help available to get you off this addiction . As I say, I'd argue happily with you about the issues, as you can see the rest of us have been doing, but you already said you don't need to remember anything you've posted previously and you don't need to prove any of your standpoints to anyone, which doesn't make for a coherent argument on your side and doesn't make it worthwhile on mine, since you just claim everything that disproves your points is simply made up. You'll probably do it to this post too. It's what you do. Presumably because you don't remember what you posted previously. So it's not worth risking the descent into another pointless meander into the meaning of one word or phrase. Sorry
|
|