How long would it take to pay off the national debt?

Scroll to see replies

As is any other medium of exchange. Especially gold.

My printer does not print gold. When they invent a printer that prints gold, the come back with this argument.

Anyway we can bypass the whole debate about Fiat currency and agree that a government can simply print the money to pay its debts which devalue the money so the debt level is often simply the stage in the lifecycle of a Fiat currency. Every Fiat currency has a lifecycle after which it is worth zero or the antique collectors value of the coins and notes.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 21

fodder

Original post by MatureStudent36

And yet you criticise politicians for trying to do it, and support other politicians for trying to increase it

They should be criticised just for being politicians that make worse everything they touch. As long as they want to compete for power by creating ever more far fetched fantasies the outcomes will be worse and worse.

They spending without caring is a part of this.

How much did they manage to spend on creating the tent formerly called the Millennium Dome?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 22

Jammy Duel

Original post by fodder

How much did they manage to spend on creating the tent formerly called the Millennium Dome?

Posted from TSR Mobile

And how much has the taxpayer got back from that investment?
And why chose that over say the London eye or hs1?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

MatureStudent36

Original post by fodder

You've just described one particular plitocal party there.

Reply 24

Quady

Original post by fodder

So what? It still rockets around like any commodity.

Printing money doesn't neccesilly devalue the currency. Look at the Swiss...

Reply 25

Quady

Original post by MatureStudent36

You've just described one particular plitocal party there.

The Tories? It was their Dome originally...

Reply 26

MatureStudent36

Original post by Quady

The Tories? It was their Dome originally...

I don't think you can claim the Tories are consistently overspending.

Reply 27

Quady

Original post by MatureStudent36

I don't think you can claim the Tories are consistently overspending.

They seem to be, over half a trillion of borrowing Osbourne will have racked up won't he?

The Tories were in power from 1979 and yet every year of their government in the 1990s had a deficit.

Reply 28

Jammy Duel

Original post by Quady

They seem to be, over half a trillion of borrowing Osbourne will have racked up won't he?

The Tories were in power from 1979 and yet every year of their government in the 1990s had a deficit.

You realise that last point describes every government for decades, labour and conservative?
As for the first, I expect you prefer things as they are too the brutal cuts and running or the nation to not have that outcome, it's a weak argument at best

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

MatureStudent36

Original post by Quady

They seem to be, over half a trillion of borrowing Osbourne will have racked up won't he?

The Tories were in power from 1979 and yet every year of their government in the 1990s had a deficit.

IMF bailout on 76 probably had something todo with that.

Reply 30

Quady

Original post by Jammy Duel

Yes, but MatureStudent said it was just one party...

Since the Dome was mentioned I assumed it must've been them...

If you think its both parties you should probably let MatureStudent know.

Reply 31

Quady

Original post by MatureStudent36

IMF bailout on 76 probably had something todo with that.

The budget deficit in '76 was 5% of GDP.

If it takes 13 year to get from that to surplus, then the Tory figures for the next few years sound somewhat off... surplus by 2028?

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

Original post by Quady

Yes, but MatureStudent said it was just one party...

Since the Dome was mentioned I assumed it must've been them...

If you think its both parties you should probably let MatureStudent know.

MatureStudent36

QFA

Looks to me like both parties enjoy running at a deficit. I think the funny thing is that a different BBC article claims that there was a surplus every year in that first block of deficit, but regardless of that, it's rather clear that both parties have for the last few decades had no issues with large borrowing, although I guess really we should be looking at the structural deficit/surplus

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Jammy Duel

Original post by Quady

The budget deficit in '76 was 5% of GDP.

If it takes 13 year to get from that to surplus, then the Tory figures for the next few years sound somewhat off... surplus by 2028?

I wonder if they were under the same pressure at that time, also worth looking at data beyond surplus and deficit fire that time, and consider the implications of falling to balance next parliament, and note it isn't even Tory projections

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

fodder

Original post by Quady

So what? It still rockets around like any commodity.

Printing money doesn't neccesilly devalue the currency. Look at the Swiss...

That is true, you can buy stuff with it so it has a perceived value and yes it's true than printing money does not necessarily devalue a currency in the short term, the U.S. Dollar also strengthened after QE.

As long as you treat cash as a hot potato and don't hold onto it long term it's not a problem.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 35

Quady

Original post by Jammy Duel

The pressure is self inflicted, and since the IMF had been in I would have thought there was at least as much pressure.

Reply 36

Rakas21

Its the deficit and trend that's important. Thatcher saw growth and then surplus from, 82-90. The entirety of Major's reign saw recession and a shrinking deficit. Cameron's reign has seen a constantly shrinking deficit albeit it just about stalled in 2012. Labour from 02-10 saw deficit and then recession.

Personally I think 93-03 as an economic period was about as good as it gets for the UK. Sustained growth at over 3% in most years. Low inflation and falling unemployment. Falling deficit then surplus. We even squeezed out a trade surplus.

Reply 37

Jammy Duel

Original post by Quady

The pressure is self inflicted, and since the IMF had been in I would have thought there was at least as much pressure.

I wonder in what way you think it to be self inflicted, and the circumstances ate very different note compared to '76

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 38

Rakas21

Original post by Quady

The budget deficit in '76 was 5% of GDP.

If it takes 13 year to get from that to surplus, then the Tory figures for the next few years sound somewhat off... surplus by 2028?

I could be wrong but I think the issue in 76 was that we had a short term cash problem and to go to the markets would have seen us pay massively for it since bond yields were extremely high. So we essentially requested an IMF loan as a preferred solution rather than because we were about to have a Greek style collapse.

I could be wrong about that though.