Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    You also haven't provided any evidence that we would have grown slower had we adopted a Keynsian model like Portugal did, whose economy has grown far faster than out own..

    We have been spending more every single year, austerity isn't actually happening.

    Here's the facts on Portugal alledgedly growing far faster than us

    Portugal UK
    2011 -1.83% 1.45%
    2012 -4.03% 1.48%
    2013 -1.13% 2.05%
    2014 0.89% 3.05%
    2015 1.82% 2.35%
    2016 1.54% 1.79%
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The current surplus/deficit is the important one in that it is the running of the government functions. That overall deficit could be eliminated right now by cancelling all capital spending. Think of it in terms of household spending, your current surplus/deficit would be looking at household income and comparing it to things like bills, food, fuel, etc, overall would be considering things like getting an extension or a new car, TV, etc. Getting, say, a new car you might have an overall household deficit as a one off matter while retaining a current surplus and as such there is no issue here. The most important surplus/deficit figure is current. That does not mean that we should not try to have revenues to cover capital spending NOW as well though.
    You are just making yourself look stupid here Government finances don't work like household finances. If you just keep cutting and cutting then you will have nothing left because money is created through debt and thus just paying back all the money means there is not much money for people to use to create opportunities to grow the economy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Where did I say Labour created the global financial crash? Nowhere.


    But they made things very difficult for us, you struggle to follow arguments but try this without just retorting Momentum simple slogans.


    - They ran a deficit at a time where we had uninterrupted growth for ages; we should have used that time to have a responsible budget with a surplus.


    - When we borrow money, investors buy government bonds. Until we can buy them back we have to pay interest every year (effectively wasted taxation), and when investors lose confidence in us paying back like with Greece we can't borrow anything for schools or hospitals (or invading Iraq) at the time it's needed most.


    - If New Labour had paid off more of the debt we would have more to spend on helping grow the economy again and investing in public services.



    - Since you mention hospitals, the spending on PFI contracts adds tens of billions to our national debt unnessecarily. Tony Blair opened our borders unconditionally to 8 former communist countries putting far more pressure on public services


    - They signed us up to EU integration so our financial services was regulated not in Westminster but by the EU/IMF. The main problem with banking was not deregulation, but changing from experienced banking where good decisions were made to box-ticking.
    oh yes momentum who love New Labour....
    They were right to run, which was at the time, a historically insignificant deficit. Our country's infrastructure needed upgrading. We needed new schools, roads, hospitals and general infrastructure. PFI was wrong, I'm glad you agree. The only problem was the financial crash. Had that not occurred we would not be talking about Labour's spending.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Putting aside the question of the overall effectiveness of the policy, the creators of the policy and those employed to enforce it were not malevolent in their intentions.

    Some policies might be bad- that doesn’t make the people who enforce them evil. IDS isn’t cackling in delight when some poor soul gets sanctioned and dies- just as presumably Venezuela’s President doesn’t when some kid dies of starvation.

    It’s the inevitable cost of governance that decisions will be made whatever your political beliefs that people will be hurt and damaged.

    (Yes that includes Anarcho Syndicalism which is probably the worst doctrine as it fails at its most basic level of keeping its population safe from others. If you blame IDS for deaths of the bedroom tax you should blame the anarchists for all the dead Catalans massacred by Franco.)

    They bare a degree if responsibility sure but it’s not the same as deliberate cold blooded murder.
    I'm not too fussed about intentions. I don't think certain communist regimes set out to kill millions of people but that was the impact of their policies. I'm not comparing the Tories to communist dictatorships before anyone gets outraged. But I do think tory policies really have hit vulnerable groups hard and they should take responsibility where this has happened.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Keynes advocated counter-cyclical fiscal policy which this is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I'm not too fussed about intentions. I don't think certain communist regimes set out to kill millions of people but that was the impact of their policies. I'm not comparing the Tories to communist dictatorships before anyone gets outraged. But I do think tory policies really have hit vulnerable groups hard and they should take responsibility where this has happened.
    So it would make no difference to you if I purposely run over a member of your family or lost control of my brake in this icy weather and accidentally ran them over?

    Both lead to the same outcome so should face equal sentences right?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    So it would make no difference to you if I purposely run over a member of your family or lost control of my brake in this icy weather and accidentally ran them over?

    Both lead to the same outcome so should face equal sentences right?
    Well, ultimately to the person ran over, it's the same result.

    Mao's policies killed millions. He didn't set out to kill, but that was the end result.

    I genuinely believe that (apart fro the extremes) people go into politics for the right reasons, Tory or Labour. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions or get a free pass. I do agree that people claiming the Tories 'murder' are being ridiculous. But I also think their policies have had a dreadful effect on certain groups of people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    The same "argument" could be used against whatever socialists or communist ideology you follow,
    A third way capitalism where you actually fund the welfare state properly?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    A third way capitalism where you actually fund the welfare state properly?
    so the Nordic plan? that is failing and destroying the cultures and is failing in most of scandinavia.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well, ultimately to the person ran over, it's the same result.

    Mao's policies killed millions. He didn't set out to kill, but that was the end result.
    I think the time where mao decided to go call for landowners and rightists to be "purged" or "forcefully removed" is basically setting out to kill, same with many of stalins mass murders
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well, ultimately to the person ran over, it's the same result.

    Mao's policies killed millions. He didn't set out to kill, but that was the end result.
    Answer the question. Of if you’ve got to be directly be involved- say I deliberately ran you over or accidentally as above. Would I deserve to go to prison in both cases?

    I can answer categorically that although I would of course be angry with you, I wouldn’t want you to go to prison for something g that wasnt directly your fault.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    so the Nordic plan?
    Nope. To the right of that. It really isn't radical to propose that we can afford a welfare state. No matter how much of a communist I am.

    I don't think guillotining the rich is the same as social murder. Just like drug dealers dieing ina drug deal gone wrong can be considered death by natural causes, so to is a ruling elite falling prey to the angry mob.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    I can answer categorically that although I would of course be angry with you, I wouldn’t want you to go to prison for something g that wasnt directly your fault.
    So Nazi war criminals should have been let scot freee and it was the grunts doing teh grunt work that should have got the rope?

    I approve of defending Mao though. Top quality communist.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    I think the time where mao decided to go call for landowners and rightists to be "purged" or "forcefully removed" is basically setting out to kill, same with many of stalins mass murders

    I guess the point I was making is that intention isn't always all that important. I don't think Mao set out to kill people like Hitler did. But the end result was millions of deaths which makes him just as bad.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Answer the question. Of if you’ve got to be directly be involved- say I deliberately ran you over or accidentally as above. Would I deserve to go to prison in both cases?

    I can answer categorically that although I would of course be angry with you, I wouldn’t want you to go to prison for something g that wasnt directly your fault.
    I think a better comparison would be if someone got really drunk and then ran over someone. Sure, they weren't meaning too but ultimately is that a whole lot better than if you had intended to? Is being reckless to the point you are putting people at risk that much better?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So Nazi war criminals should have been let scot freee and it was the grunts doing teh grunt work that got the rope?
    No because the War Crimes were the desired effect by people who wanted it to happen.


    I approve of defending Mao though. Top quality communist.
    Ay?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I don't think Mao set out to kill people like Hitler did. But the end result was millions of deaths which makes him just as bad.
    I'm willing to accpt that if aply the same logic from the black book of communism to that of the crimes of capitalism. It more or less becomes a wash at that point.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Davij038;76391862]
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So Nazi war criminals should have been let scot freee and it was the grunts doing teh grunt work that got the rope?
    ?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm willing to accpt that if aply the same logic from the black book of communism to that of the crimes of capitalism. It more or less becomes a wach at that point.
    I do!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I do!
    Fair enough.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.