Could anyone tell me some good/bad things the Tories have done since they've been in?

Why is it completely different? Economics is economics. Spending hugely led to massive economic growth and a reduction in the debt then. Why cannot it not do the same now?

Doing what America did under Obama. A stimulus package to create demand and promote growth.

The worrying figure is not public debt but private debt. Private debt has risen significantly under the Tories and that makes a financial crash far more likely as it did in 2008.

Yet people only seem to care about public debt.

Household, business and government debt should each be treated separately and we should look within those bounds at the segments.

Corporate debt for example is not especially bad even at high levels because it is unlikely that enough firms will go bust at once.

Household debt should essentially be split in two. Mortgage debt (i.e. secured) is very dangerous because of the amount involved and the fact is it is the primary asset. Even a 10% default rate could cost trillions. Actual household debt (i.e. credit cards) is concerning but not substantial enough to be especially dangerous (the percentage is high but it only amounts to about £60bn).

While we are not as close to collapse as you fear (mortgage lending is still well below 2007) i do agree that one of the worst policies of this government was the Help To Buy scheme which actively primed the credit market. It's only sad that Miliband called for a return to 07 lending levels.

Do you think there will be another financial crash in the next decade or so?

Private debt is creeping up and that is far more worrying than public debt.

Almost everything is completely different from speed, how complex markets are, how tax is collected, how intertwined markets are, fiat currency and so on the list is huge.

The law of averages certainly a recession at some point but i don't think it will be a repeat of the financial crisis although we will see a continued increase in mortgage debt which will become more of an issue over time.

You've just said its different. You haven't said why that difference means that investing to stimulate growth cannot work. Obama did that and America grew quicker than we did.

.

Myth, America used austerity.(on the whole)

He invested an additional $831 billion into the economy.

Local republican lawmakers used austerity.
It will not let me paste the image.
Look it up , the US deficit has fallen.

Household, business and government debt should each be treated separately and we should look within those bounds at the segments.

Corporate debt for example is not especially bad even at high levels because it is unlikely that enough firms will go bust at once.

Household debt should essentially be split in two. Mortgage debt (i.e. secured) is very dangerous because of the amount involved and the fact is it is the primary asset. Even a 10% default rate could cost trillions. Actual household debt (i.e. credit cards) is concerning but not substantial enough to be especially dangerous (the percentage is high but it only amounts to about £60bn).

While we are not as close to collapse as you fear (mortgage lending is still well below 2007) i do agree that one of the worst policies of this government was the Help To Buy scheme which actively primed the credit market. It's only sad that Miliband called for a return to 07 lending levels.

Certain states with Republican leaders did, but nationally a stimulus package was used. Hundreds of billions of pounds was invested into their economy.

Republicans chipped away at some of that with certain local services but overall it was a massive stimulus package.

If anything the Republican cuts slowed down the rate of recovery.

Tories are always obsessed with boosting house prices, it's what the Daily Mail voters want. It usually makes no sense and simply preps the economy for another round of major repossessions and personal bankruptcies when it unravels in the end, which is certain to happen once the dear old B of E eventually gets round to raising interest rates. (How long can it be now?)

Again look at the deficit, the deficit fell.Austerity was implemented.
You have to remember austerity is not designed to stimulate growth.


The sluggish growth of UK export markets in recent years. The decline in UK oil production, and the possible under-recording of UK GDP in the official statistics, should also be taken into account.


the credit crunch has had a more damaging effect on the UK economy than it has on the US .

http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2012/11/14/why-is-the-uk-recovery-weaker-than-the-us/
Take a look at that^^

I will address your points about austerity another time , President Obama's stimulus package was a shambles however, I will demonstrate this when I have free time.
Evidence of the GOP cuts slowing down growth ?

$831 billion was invested into the US Economy. That is literally the opposite of austerity.

$750 billion (about that) was invested by George Bush.

They engaged in austerity in the end.

The deficit was reduced by stimulating economic growth

They didn't use austerity in the end. $750 billion odd was invested by Bush and a further $831 billion by Obama.

There's actually little risk of people defaulting once interest rates rise given that defaults and mortgage arrears are at historic lows. Your right that it won't end well though (though your point is a bit too party political).

You're confusing cause and effect. Arrears and defaults are only at historic lows because interest rates have been frozen at the bottom for the longest period on record. That can't last and it won't. As soon as they spike upwards (perhaps not too long in the future now) all the interest-only and teetering buy to let propositions will fall over and there will be very large numbers of defaulters, particularly against the background of the contracting economy that looks almost inevitable in Brexit conditions.