Is the government corrupt?

There wasn't too much public spending at all. Had it not been for the financial crash caused by right wing economics we'd have been absolutely fine.

Right wing economics didn't cause the crash. Failed oversight of the banking sector did by the US and UK Governments as well as poor monetary policy.

Bloody hell, direction of travel is not the same as absolute position, is it? If I put a little white paint into a lot of black paint, I've made grey, not white. These economies were fundamentally capitalist, but envisaged a slightly greater role of the state than before. Do you see the difference?

A lack of oversight is fundamental to right wing, free market economics.
The idea that the free market should be free and no one should interfere.

State interference and oversight would have been left wing, instead the banks had a free reign to do as they wished.

This was a crash caused by right wing economics, yet our response has been to go more right wing, blame the poor and disabled whilst giving huge bonuses to the very people who caused the crash.

But saying that of course makes you a looney lefty. Because we should never let truth and logic get in the way of a right wing political rant.

What the ****? You're aware that a free market isn't an obtainable concept? Right Wing economics advocates for limited oversight. However right wingers accept the need for this oversight to prevent abuses. The fact that they got away with it is due to inefficient oversight by a Labour government (who, if you wish to criticise de-regulation more generally, they deregulated more than Thatcher). Not to mention a cosy relationship between the city and the Labour government.

After the initial crash, ineffective monetary policy by the USA and the UK led to the 'recession' occurring, or being far worse than would be expected. Canada did not hit as hard as either did, in a global recession, due to sensible policies. *cough* Mark Carney *cough*.

Minor recession.

How has it be shown to be impossible?

Ummm i'm not a representative of the Labour party at all. They're far too right wing for my liking.

Infact had you bothered to read my posts in this thread I have criticized labour's de-regulation of the banks extensively and cited that as a cause of the crash. Labour's spending was not a cause of the crash at all.

The Conservatives at the time were however calling for less regulation on the banks not more and have since De-regulated the financial sector further.

De=regulation of the free market is a very right wing idea, thorough oversight is a left wing one. This was a right wing, free market crash and our response has been to go more right wing.

I assumed, but in the context of British political debate - they are the 'left' and the Tories are the 'right' regardless of their actual position on the scale.

I did. I just don't respect it.
Labour's excessive spending was a minor issue in comparison to inefficient oversight.

Good.

It isn't a 'very right wing idea', leaving something to do its own business is a basic right wing concept as individuals and businesses operate more effectively when they are left to their own devices.

Because the economy repeatedly crashes and fundamentally the economy is the trade of natural resources in some way and they can't infinitely increase. Only some many plants and animals can be harvested a year, only so many minerals can be mined (and there's only so much of them on earth, and only so many technologies can be built. We don't have an infinite of anything that would enable infinite growth in an economy.

You're arguing my point for me now.
The huge role of the state and the publically owned services were the hallmarks of a socialist economic structure mixed with a bit of capitalism.

An increased role for the state and the public owning the means of production is by definition socialist.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I'd rather spend a lot on public services and have no crash rather than your approach of crashing and spending nothing on public services.
Had there been full and proper regulation of the banking sector the crash simply would not have happened. It did not have to happen.

It called an economic cycle. 8 years good, two years bad.

It's happened since the dawn of time. Since the dawn of time people have said it can't go on, yet it is.

You hold a simplistic viewpoint of the economy. It's not about selling resources, it's about investing money for a return on investment.

Peter Dickens, global shift is a good read. It explains it all.

Not caring would be to splash a tonne of cash now and then be totally bankrupt for the future . Aka; Labour

but you won't get a return on investment if x commodity is already at maximum capacity. It is about selling resources as virtually everything needs something tangible to market and trade.

Plus the cycle is not very reliable a about every 30 odd years it spectacularly breaks down, genuine fluctuation like 8 years good 2 bad would be a pleasant change. No government ever really grasps or prepares for economic problems (or if they do, they reverse these preperations just before they're needed).

You're talking about commodities only. What about services? What about innovation?

The system wobbles every so often agreed. But generally it improves everybody and their way of life.

Agreed that gibernments often fail to prepare. Labour failed spectacularly for example. However, the most recent economic downturn didn't hit anywhere near as hard as the Great Depression showing that governments have improved. Secondly governments have a habit now of thinking short term. For example , the financial crash in the UK was worsened by labour getting rid of the regulations that was implemented after the crash of the 20s.

Dickens covers all of this in his book global shift. Again, is recomend it as a good read.

I'm not only thinking about commodities but everything needs resources in someway, they're the back bone of the economy and they're not infinite. Services and innovations can do great things economically but they still require resources.

I'd say technological advancements improve peoples way of life not the economy (yes I do understand that to spread the advancements the economy is necessary but I'd but the improves to the technology first).

Labour getting rid of the regulations was supported by the tories (the tories wanted even more de-regulation), it's one of the reasons TTIP is such a bad idea as it allows US banks to circumvent US regulations.

On a smaller scale, kibbutzim in Israel where it has worked perfectly and everyone benefits.

Difficult to do in opposition.

You entrust that to the Government.

They were pushing for more deregulation though.
That would have made it worse.
And guess what they are doing now -deregulating.

Just sayin'