Turn on thread page Beta

Government Cuts: Agree or Disagree? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    According to the World Bank, it is closer to actually 2.2 trillion. (Sauce)
    $2.2trillion is roughly = £1.3trillion
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Got a link to Labour's economic plan?


    I either found the plan, or the plan is sitting at the bottom of that there hole.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ahh, the ideological solution to any problem. Cuts, leading to less economic growth, greater unemployment and lowering the quality of life for many families in Britain. That's even before we look at the implications of loading debt onto young people (not just students) in a future looking economically unstable, with no retirement age, an ageing population and less public sector jobs.

    The funniest part of it all is that even if the police, health service, etc, cut out all the 'middle managers'; do you think they'll get rid of the paperwork? Or simply pass it on to the doctors/nurses/police officers. never before have we tried to cut our way out of a recession...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C92119F)
    Thank you for your views everyone who's posted so far, although I'm on the disagree side, those who are pro cuts are perfectly entitled to your opinions

    Thank you for your views

    I'm an Economics student and we're studying Fiscal Policy at the moment so I thought this topic would be relevant to have a mature debate to express one's views

    @Aj12: I agree that Labour should have published their Economic policies by now, however, I thought that Ed Balls made a good point though that Labour shouldn't have to publish a full manifesto whilst in opposition since the economy come the next General Election will be in an entirely different state than today, therefore they only need to make brief points regarding their economic policy. In the Miliband/Balls conference the other day they outlined what they would do if they were in power. They wish to halve the budget deficit over a period of 4 years, and make cuts at a steady pace, their policy is to pump money into the economy to boost aggregate demand in order to increase consumer confidence which in turn creates a multiplier effect, leading to the creation of jobs. More Jobs = More Tax Revenue + Less expenditure on benefits such as JSA etc, reducing the deficit.
    Have you learnt about crowding out and monetarism/neo-classical economics?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Utter drivel.

    Let me make this very clear. Labour's spending pre-financial crisis did not cause the 'mess' we are currently in. Between 1997 and 2008, Labour actually reduced both the deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP left behind by the previous Tory government (and we still managed to revolutionise the rotting education system and the sinking NHS! Talk about an achievement, something the country should be thanking us for).

    The main bulk of the national debt that exceeds the debt left behind by the Tories is the result of measures we had to take as a result of the banking failure (if we didn't take those measures, we would have gone into a depression). Selling off the gold is an absolute none point, although I suppose it helps papers like the Daily Mail instil anger into its uneducated Tory readership.

    The mess was caused by a failure of the banking system. Had the Tories been in government when it happened, not only would be up ****creek now, we would almost certainly be in an even worse situation, as the Tories advocated even less banking regulation than New Labour did.
    UK Government debt and deficit did fall from 97 to 08 but hardly difficult considering that this was period of unprecedentedly high prosperity and other major economies reduced theirs by far more, one example is Canada-reduced national debt by over 40% and entered the recession with a surplus compared to a few % under labour.

    You talk about revolutionising education yet is it not true that in the international educational rankings we fell from 8th in 97 to 26th in 2009 according to OECD PISA- http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf.

    A large proportion of the debt is due to the banking crisis but much it wasn't all of it hence a structural deficit of £80 billion that is the deficit which won't go away even as the economy grows.

    If underselling gold by billions of pounds in a non point then why the uproar in the emergency budget following £6 billion of cuts?

    If Tories are uneducated then how come more people read right leaning broad-sheets than left leaning ones.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    According to the World Bank, it is closer to actually 2.2 trillion. (Sauce)
    2.2 trillion dollars = 1.4 trillion pounds
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacktri)
    Why don't the government sell all the bank shares to private investors for a good price in return for business tax reductions it means we will be back in the economic situation before the collapse
    They will, if they sell the shares now then the money gained from sales will less than the amount of money used to bailout the banks i.e. we will have bailed out the banks at a loss
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with the methods they're doing it but do not disagree with the necessity for cuts.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.