Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_am_disco)
    The only fact is that facts have been lost in this debate:

    George Osbourne uses the words deficit and national debt interchangeably even though they're two separate things. The Con'Dem propaganda is pretty obvious on this matter, and the only people unwilling to accept is are those who benefit from cuts, and those too stupid to understand that it's f*cking them over. Maybe even those who simply support the tories like a football team, and believe they're infallible.

    Likewise Labour are propagating *******s too. Even if their spending before the crash was good (which I'm fairly inclined to believe is true), they are largely to blame for further de-regulating the banks which is one of the reasons we got into this mess.

    Overall this debate is a decoy from the fact the way we're using capitalism simply isn't working well, and if we're too fix things it isn't down to cutting things back, or growing what we have. Positive change will come from reforming Capitalism into to system that offers prosperity, gets rid of waste, offers productive growth as opposed to just more fastfood/factory jobs. This is where the real problem lies.
    i think you're right on everything but your conclusion!!!

    a good marxist analysis says that capitalism IS boom and bust. the leopard cannot change its spots. David Harvey explains all.....in 10minshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

    Now I accept its a leap to break away from capitalism if you're not confident about a better alternative. perhaps its worth looking into.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    i think a system that to 'work' requires debt is a system we can do without.

    There is wealth of around 4.5trn belonging to the richest 10%. These people could pay the debt off if they wished or if they were forced to. Its either that or ordinary people pay for it.

    (Original post by badtothebone)
    Sure, but the point is with high debt you can invest you're way out. With deficit it is clear from the graph that it only went out of control in 2008 - the year of the global financial crash. Are you with me so far?

    if people are in work they pay more in tax you spend less on welfare and the money in their pocket stimulates the economy. does that make sense?

    So to invest your way out of this situation you need to create jobs which will lead to a reduced deficit and debt and economic growth.

    You could also collect the annual 123bn tax gap. that is not to raise tax but to just collect what we set!

    If you nationalised the banks and big companies this would be a rather simple task.
    To be fair you're being so patronising there that I'm not sure I can be bothered to sit and have a conversation. Am I aware that more people in employment means that the government can spend less on benefits? I am. You're just stating basic economic principles which do nothing to back up your point that debt isn't a bad thing.


    There are reasons why we now cannot cope with this debt, these include:
    Much of our postwar spending was on rebuilding our infrastructure, which had a direct positive impact on the economy, our current spending (pensions, health, military, education) have no direct economic benefit.

    Historically we had many more overseas possessions in our grasp than we do now, which meant much more reserve currency to cope with a large debt. As we are all but alone now, this is no longer the case.

    We have been threatened by the IMF that we need to cut our deficit or face having our credit rating reduced.

    There's a decent chance that at the end of the decade there will be yet another economic crisis, unless we wish to be hammered as we were before, we need the get the economy sorted. If we carry on as before, what will be the effect of another recession? We'll be hit exactly as we were before, we can't let that happen.

    Throughout the next decade we will see a large increase in pensioners as the babies born in the postwar period begin to hit retirement. This will mean a massive shift in the number of employed against the number of state dependent, and requires more pension payments with less income tax in return.

    Perhaps most importantly of all, there's also the fact that an economy has a limited supply of money in it, you can just 'make' more by borrowing more. In short, if the more the government has in its power the less is in private hands. If there's little money in private hands then it is very difficult to promote enterprise, and thus the economy stagnates. We're currently reliant on quantitive easing to prevent this, which if you ask me is a little difficult to justify given the dire effects on inflation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    of course it was written before. Osbourne didnt see the crises coming nor did brown. But for some reason you don't let labour off the hook. Labour and the tories were agreeing on spending they were matched POUND FOR POUND until the crisis. Now whist you grant the tories a chance to change course you still blame labour pre-crisis! you should be consistant. I am - i think they were both lunatic parties and policies but they're you go.
    The key difference is that Osborne would have begun cutting as soon as the recession started taking hold, whereas Brown dopily threw money around and then was confused as to why he didn't have any money left. Even still, you're a supporter of the trade unionist and socialist party!? This is the party that would have done the worst in the recession! I'm confused by the fact that one minute you support debt, the next minute you're condemning Brown's actions, which fit perfectly with your line of thought.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    Sure, but the point is with high debt you can invest you're way out. With deficit it is clear from the graph that it only went out of control in 2008 - the year of the global financial crash. Are you with me so far?
    lol, did you miss what happened to the economy between 1948 and the early 1990s?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone knew the recession was on its way soon as robots were used to make cars or other goods. This is where the country and economy went down, you replace a workforce without any supliment and your done for simple as that.
    There are many places all over the country that are ripe in unemployment because in the booming days work was there like nothing near me it was pottery people came from miles. Now they are stuck here and cant leave as there are no jobs.

    What would sort this country out is a cut in the amount of people living here but that will never happen so there has to be something found that will take over robots or something they cant do so we establish the dominance again in the workforce.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    of course it was written before. Osbourne didnt see the crises coming nor did brown. But for some reason you don't let labour off the hook. Labour and the tories were agreeing on spending they were matched POUND FOR POUND until the crisis. Now whist you grant the tories a chance to change course you still blame labour pre-crisis! you should be consistant. I am - i think they were both lunatic parties and policies but they're you go.
    Erm where are you getting this from? :confused:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    if one of your mates is in an NHS hospital because they cant afford to go private, and due to cuts in the NHS budget there isnt the sufficient care for your friend they become seriosuly ill, or die are you going to 'just accept it and move on' when it could have been prevented.....if theres a fire and the response time from the fireservice is too slow....if the police don't show up.....if youth centres close and crime goes up.....if people skilled people are unemployed.......the list goes on. The rich would not put up this - why should you?
    I don't know why cameron even bothered. Get this into you thick skull and tell all of your other retarded comrades that NHS spending will increase over the course of this parliament.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    they were not fiscally responsible. You are correct in what you are saying however that is not a definition of being fiscally responsible for this reason.....capitalism IS boom and bust. Labour convinced themselves that they had eliminated boom and bust. And if you think like that then you are going to be in for a shock. Maintaining the capitalist system is not fiscally responsible because it always means there will be a crisis - and the ordinary people of the country will pick up the tab.
    Whether you believe capitalism is boom boom bust or bust bust, they were fiscally responsible, it was exogenous shocks that caused the deficit to go out of control. So yeah, you're wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I don't know why cameron even bothered. Get this into you thick skull and tell all of your other retarded comrades that NHS spending will increase over the course of this parliament.
    lol, you don't live in the real world and just believe what the tories say dont you.....
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Maybe the deficit became a problem after 08 because it got a hell of a lot higher?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    lol, you don't live in the real world and just believe what the tories say dont you.....
    Its in the budget for god sake, of course its rising. Why don't you drop the propaganda and face some facts and figures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thatcher ruined our economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon1212)
    Sure...but one has to accept these things and just get on with life.
    Good point, thank you for sharing. The cuts have been made now, so hopefully people will learn from this that labour is a much better alternative to the conservatives in the next election in terms of economic policy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    To be fair you're being so patronising there that I'm not sure I can be bothered to sit and have a conversation. Am I aware that more people in employment means that the government can spend less on benefits? I am. You're just stating basic economic principles which do nothing to back up your point that debt isn't a bad thing.


    There are reasons why we now cannot cope with this debt, these include:
    Much of our postwar spending was on rebuilding our infrastructure, which had a direct positive impact on the economy, our current spending (pensions, health, military, education) have no direct economic benefit.

    Historically we had many more overseas possessions in our grasp than we do now, which meant much more reserve currency to cope with a large debt. As we are all but alone now, this is no longer the case.

    We have been threatened by the IMF that we need to cut our deficit or face having our credit rating reduced.

    There's a decent chance that at the end of the decade there will be yet another economic crisis, unless we wish to be hammered as we were before, we need the get the economy sorted. If we carry on as before, what will be the effect of another recession? We'll be hit exactly as we were before, we can't let that happen.

    Throughout the next decade we will see a large increase in pensioners as the babies born in the postwar period begin to hit retirement. This will mean a massive shift in the number of employed against the number of state dependent, and requires more pension payments with less income tax in return.

    Perhaps most importantly of all, there's also the fact that an economy has a limited supply of money in it, you can just 'make' more by borrowing more. In short, if the more the government has in its power the less is in private hands. If there's little money in private hands then it is very difficult to promote enterprise, and thus the economy stagnates. We're currently reliant on quantitive easing to prevent this, which if you ask me is a little difficult to justify given the dire effects on inflation.
    i was trying to go theough it point by point so you could pick out where u diasgreed more easily.

    1) The deficit became a problem in 2008. see the graph.
    2) 2008 was the year of the global financial crisis.
    3) the deficit leap was principly to do with bailing out the banks and the unemployment and reduced demand caused by the subsequent recession
    4) we have always had debt. it has been up to 3 times worse than present
    5) we have a problem with unemployment and a lack of demand
    6) to get out of the crises you need to sort out the problem of demand
    7) that means people need to have cash in their pockets to stimulate the economy
    8) that is not done by adding to the number of unemployed, cutting people hours, cutting or freezing people pay. these policies do the exact opposite.
    9) if unemployed people were working there would be a)less money spent on welfare b) more income tax revenue c) people would spend more which means more expenditure tax revenue and more jobs created.
    10) this, over a period of time will pay off the deficit. because you are spending less and getting more tax.
    11) we have an estimated 123bn tax gap every year. If start to collect the tax that also means we have more tax revenue and that helps to sort out the deficit.


    I'm going to leave it there for now. point out which bits you disagree with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Its in the budget for god sake, of course its rising. Why don't you drop the propaganda and face some facts and figures.
    Every hospital i know is facing cuts. I know this because i have talked to the people who are losing their jobs/hours. you can beleive what the tories say or you can ask the people who work there.

    Further you didnt answer...please have a go.
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Its the Deficit, not the debt that is the problem.
    when did the deficit become a problem? the graph clearly shows it was 2008

    Why was that? a global economic crises......... 'rooted in the financial sector' according to Mervyn king, governor of the bank of england.

    Who should pay for the crisis? the people that caused it.

    Who is paying for it? Virtually everyone else.

    is that moral? is that logical?

    Further debt and the deficit are related because the interest on the debt forms part of the deficit. do you accept that or not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Maybe the deficit became a problem after 08 because it got a hell of a lot higher?
    yeah, we bailed out the banks - a fair few billion spent there.

    people lost their jobs there goes a load of income tax revenue

    people signed on the dole - more welfare to pay

    companies went bust - less tax revenue, less jobs etc.

    Labour reduced VAT to 15% for a short while to try and stimulate demand.

    Labour gave 2k to people scrapping their old cars and buying a new one to stimulate the car industy, where for example at vauxhalls the warehouses were full as noone was buying any more and all their staff went on 30% pay.

    labour spent to try and stimulate demand. this had some success - we got out of recession (just about) unemployment stagnated at around 2.5m etc.

    This spending is going to be paid back by people through losing their jobs and the public services that they use - legal aid, winter fuel allowance, ema etc.

    some of those services may not have been perfect and you may want to have cut them anyway (i personally woulndt) but in any case EMA, or winter fuel allowance did not cause the recession but it is paying for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Whether you believe capitalism is boom boom bust or bust bust, they were fiscally responsible, it was exogenous shocks that caused the deficit to go out of control. So yeah, you're wrong.
    its not a belief it is a fact. capitalism IS boom and bust. if you are in charge of a country and run i along capitalist economics then you have to take the blame for a capitalist crisis. Labour were doing well in capitalist terms - the tories said they would match their spending POUND FOR POUND so its not like they would have done anything different prior to the crash and further they also would have bailed out the banks. The problem is not tory or labour the problem is capitalism

    if you've got 10 mins spare this David Harvey vid explains things very well. Its an animation - part of RSAanimate who i guess a similar to TED. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    The key difference is that Osborne would have begun cutting as soon as the recession started taking hold, whereas Brown dopily threw money around and then was confused as to why he didn't have any money left. Even still, you're a supporter of the trade unionist and socialist party!? This is the party that would have done the worst in the recession! I'm confused by the fact that one minute you support debt, the next minute you're condemning Brown's actions, which fit perfectly with your line of thought.
    no, it would have nationalised the banks as labour did and tories lib dems would ahve done. Further to this it would ahv nationalised the other banks and major companies. This would mean that the 123bn that they avoid in tax could be collected every year for a start. control of the banks (not arms length nationalition) means banks could lend to small businesses 1st time home owners and create jobs for example building affordable homes for the 5m on the council house waiting list. This would stablise the economy.

    Brown did get the economy out of recession remember - just would have left the bill to be paid by nurses losing their jobs and pensioners having their winter fuel allownace cut.

    The tories are risking putting us back into recession.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    Every hospital i know is facing cuts. I know this because i have talked to the people who are losing their jobs/hours. you can beleive what the tories say or you can ask the people who work there.

    Further you didnt answer...please have a go.


    when did the deficit become a problem? the graph clearly shows it was 2008

    Why was that? a global economic crises......... 'rooted in the financial sector' according to Mervyn king, governor of the bank of england.

    Who should pay for the crisis? the people that caused it.

    Who is paying for it? Virtually everyone else.

    is that moral? is that logical?

    Further debt and the deficit are related because the interest on the debt forms part of the deficit. do you accept that or not?
    Yes, and any cuts they make they keep.

    And we didnt jump to a £160 Billion deficit in the single act of bailing out the banks. It was a large number of issues and in regards to the banks when we sell the Shares back to the Private Sector we will make even more back.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    and in regards to the banks when we sell the Shares back to the Private Sector we will make even more back.
    Howd you know?

    We wouldn't if we sold them today according to the OBR.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.