Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I know a fascist such as yourself is more openly honest about the brutality of your politics. If only that counted for anything.
    Ah the old, "if you're even to the slightest right of me, you're a facist".
    You promote people like Trump. You make people feel too afraid to talk up, in fear of being called a fascist, bigot or racist, and in doing so, shut down the conversation. Because they are too scared to talk and share ideas, they regress into their own and divide our country.
    You disgust me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YouMadBro!)
    Ah the old, "if you're even to the slightest right of me, you're a facist".
    If you think Pinochet was on the whole the right thing for Chile you are a bit of a fascist.

    You are all such (well not Dajiv038, we have history :boxing:) snowflakes. It's the easiet way to wind you all up. I don't cry when I get called a commie. But then again unlike with fascism, there are actually commendable things about being a communist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Disagree. We had huge debts after WWII. Far greater than what we have now. Instead of a austerity we built hundreds of thousands of houses, a welfare state and the NHS. The debt shrank. This was the era which you said was superior to the one we have now.
    Yes, becsuse we just finished in a major war and started dismantling a crumbling empire. Go figure.

    We are spending far far more on things like the NHS now than then. It was not designed to cope with today’s society.

    The idea that you need austerity to pay the debts down is economically false.
    It’s not. It’s not quite as simple as just cutting, but as we can see from the OP and others it works. I’d also add it’s a more proven way than spending your way out of recession.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Disagree. We had huge debts after WWII. Far greater than what we have now. Instead of a austerity we built hundreds of thousands of houses, a welfare state and the NHS. The debt shrank. This was the era which you said was superior to the one we have now.

    The idea that you need austerity to pay the debts down is economically false.
    That's a very rose-tinted view of post-war history. We also devalued, a lot, and the burden hobbled us economically until at least the 80s.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I (well not Dajiv038, we have history :boxing:)
    👍🏻


    . But then again unlike with fascism, there are actually commendable things about being a communist.
    Agreed. Communists are great at killing communists for instance 😂😉

    Tbf I think I prefer commies to liberals now. Authoritarians unite!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yes, becsuse we just finished in a major war and started dismantling a crumbling empire. Go figure.

    We are spending far far more on things like the NHS now than then. It was not designed to cope with today’s society.



    It’s not. It’s not quite as simple as just cutting, but as we can see from the OP and others it works. I’d also add it’s a more proven way than spending your way out of recession.
    But that's irrelevant, as is whether you think the NHS can cope or not.

    The fact is we spent hugely and reduced our debt by two thirds in the process. By spending, we grew the economy which has always been the best way to pay down debts.

    It hasn't worked either. We are behind where we were as a country ten years ago and our debt is substantially bigger. Honestly does it feel to you that this country has made ten years worth of progress since 2008?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    That's a very rose-tinted view of post-war history. We also devalued, a lot, and the burden hobbled us economically until at least the 80s.
    Yes it is a bit simplistic and admittedly, slightly rose tinted (but no more so than people who describe Thatcher's era). It certainly wasn't all plain sailing, nothing is.

    But the general point is we spent, we invested and our economy grew allowing us to pay down our debts. It's certainly possible to pay off your debts by investing and growing the economy.

    And there were huge social improvements in that period too. You cannot deny the positive impact which the NHS and the welfare state had on people.

    You may think that Labour's policies would not grow our economy and that's for you to argue but that's very different to the suggestion from some that it isn't possible to spend, grow and pay off debts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Yes it is a bit simplistic and admittedly, slightly rose tinted (but no more so than people who describe Thatcher's era). It certainly wasn't all plain sailing, nothing is.

    But the general point is we spent, we invested and our economy grew allowing us to pay down our debts. It's certainly possible to pay off your debts by investing and growing the economy.
    I don't agree with that, at all. The reality is high debt necessitated contractionary economic policies in the decades following the war. We are talking about a time where the top rate if income tax was 90% and inflation was high (hitting 24% in the 70s). I don't think we want to return to that scenario.

    One way or another, debts must be repaid. It's very easy to say "we can grow our way out", but as debts mount investors lose confidence in the government's ability to pay. The inverse relationship between government debt and GDP growth is pretty well established. Yes, we did grow in the immediate aftermath of the war despite high debt, but given the damage and disruption the conflict had wrought we were always likely to. Adding all those men back into the workforce was always going to increase GDP. It was a special circumstance which, god willing, won't be repeated.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I don't agree with that, at all. The reality is high debt necessitated contractionary economic policies in the decades following the war. We are talking about a time where the top rate if income tax was 90% and inflation was high (hitting 24% in the 70s). I don't think we want to return to that scenario.

    One way or another, debts must be repaid. It's very easy to say "we can grow our way out", but as debts mount investors lose confidence in the government's ability to pay. The inverse relationship between government debt and GDP growth is pretty well established. Yes, we did grow in the immediate aftermath of the war. But given the damage and disruption the conflict had wrought we were always likely to. Adding all those men back into the workforce was always going to increase GDP. It was a special circumstance which, god willing, won't be repeated.
    I'm not saying we should replicate the 50s and you're right in that the situation now is very different. Nor was it all plain sailing.

    But the bottom line is we spent hugely invested in all sorts of public services and goods and our economy grew hugely. Our debt shrunk from 200% GDP to less than 60%
    It is possible to pay debts off through growth rather than austerity. Considering interest rates are so low, we really should be seconding more on infrastructure at the moment. As well as on creating jobs in the renewable energy sector which is going to be of increasing importance.

    If you invest in things like housing, education, healthcare etc you will have a healthier, higher skilled and more productive workforce. I'm always going to prefer paying down debts by increasing the country's income rather than cutting public services which people rely on.

    Honestly, since 2008 does it really feel like this country has made ten years worth of progress? From 1997 to 2007 the answer to that would have been a lot more positive.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I'm not saying we should replicate the 50s and you're right in that the situation now is very different. Nor was it all plain sailing.

    But the bottom line is we spent hugely invested in all sorts of public services and goods and our economy grew hugely. Our debt shrunk from 200% GDP to less than 60%
    It is possible to pay debts off through growth rather than austerity. Considering interest rates are so low, we really should be seconding more on infrastructure at the moment. As well as on creating jobs in the renewable energy sector which is going to be of increasing importance.

    If you invest in things like housing, education, healthcare etc you will have a healthier, higher skilled and more productive workforce. I'm always going to prefer paying down debts by increasing the country's income rather than cutting public services which people rely on.

    Honestly, since 2008 does it really feel like this country has made ten years worth of progress? From 1997 to 2007 the answer to that would have been a lot more positive.
    To the average British punter the state of the economy is what The Sun and/or the Daily Mail says it is.

    We all know who the real problem is, it's dodgy Dave who claims to be ill but has the cheek to leave his house! Well he's not ill! If we just got rid of people like him, all these problems would go away!

    The food banks, the desperation, the cuts to local services... all due to individual traits (the scrounger narrative) or the local councils (bonus points for non-Tory)incompetence.

    Case in point: Gavin Williamson recently blaming cuts to local services on the local council and getting a petition to direct the blame from central governments savage cuts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I'm not saying we should replicate the 50s and you're right in that the situation now is very different. Nor was it all plain sailing.

    But the bottom line is we spent hugely invested in all sorts of public services and goods and our economy grew hugely. Our debt shrunk from 200% GDP to less than 60%
    It is possible to pay debts off through growth rather than austerity. Considering interest rates are so low, we really should be seconding more on infrastructure at the moment. As well as on creating jobs in the renewable energy sector which is going to be of increasing importance.

    If you invest in things like housing, education, healthcare etc you will have a healthier, higher skilled and more productive workforce. I'm always going to prefer paying down debts by increasing the country's income rather than cutting public services which people rely on.

    Honestly, since 2008 does it really feel like this country has made ten years worth of progress? From 1997 to 2007 the answer to that would have been a lot more positive.
    It's very important to distinguish between current spending and infrastructure spending. It is the current deficit which has (finally) been eliminated.

    Yes, low interest rates make infrastructure projects easier to finance and that's all well and good, because you assume you'll derive some benefits from them at some point to make the cost of financing worthwhile. But we have also been running a deficit in day-to-day spending, and financing that with long-term debt. It's the government equivalent of taking out a mortgage to pay your food bills. We have been spending beyond our means and then just kicking the can down the road, hoping future taxpayers will be more able to pick up the bill.

    And yes, if we grow, they might. But it's a very optimistic government which takes the risk of assuming we'll grow at a good enough clip to overtake our spending habits. Because what if something unexpected happens (as they often do) and we don't grow all that much? We'd be ****ed.

    Even if they would be able, there's the secondary argument of whether it's really fair or moral to ask kids to pick up the tab for their parents' largesse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    To the average British punter the state of the economy is what The Sun and/or the Daily Mail says.

    The food banks, the desperation, the cuts to local services... all due to individual traits (the scrounger narrative) or the local councils (bonus points for non-Tory)incompetence.

    Case in point: Gavin Williamson recently blaming cuts to local services on the local council and getting a petition to shield central governments savage cuts.
    I remember Cameron signing a letter to his Council complaining about cuts, when his government has cut their grant by 40%.

    Honestly does anyone feel like this country is a better or happier place than it was ten years ago?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I remember Cameron signing a letter to his Council complaining about cuts, when his government has cut their grant by 40%.

    Honestly does anyone feel like this country is a better or happier place than it was ten years ago?
    To some people, disabled people getting their benefits cut is enough to make everything alright.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    As if any of this has any consequences. Or that you weren't actually knobs.
    I didn't realise that you convinced people by calling those who disagree with you "knobs"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise that you convinced people by calling those who disagree with you "knobs"
    Who says I am trying to convince you or people like you?

    On this issue I don't need to anyway. You guys are not exactly doing a great job of stopping the Trans tidel wave.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    It's very important to distinguish between current spending and infrastructure spending. It is the current deficit which has (finally) been eliminated.

    Yes, low interest rates make infrastructure projects easier to finance and that's all well and good, because you assume you'll derive some benefits from them at some point to make the cost of financing worthwhile. But we have also been running a deficit in day-to-day spending, and financing that with long-term debt. It's the government equivalent of taking out a mortgage to pay your food bills. We have been spending beyond our means and then just kicking the can down the road, hoping future taxpayers will be more able to pick up the bill.

    And yes, if we grow, they might. But it's a very optimistic government which takes the risk of assuming we'll grow at a good enough clip to overtake our spending habits. Because what if something unexpected happens (as they often do) and we don't grow all that much? We'd be ****ed.

    Even if they would be able, there's the secondary argument of whether it's really fair or moral to ask kids to pick up the tab for their parents' largesse.
    I don't put much stock in the 'kicking the can down the road for our kids to deal with' argument. There has always been a certain amount of that and there always will be.

    We shouldn't go 'let's spend less on healthcare or cut benefits of those who are in need' so our kids don't pay in the same way you wouldn't go 'let's stop buying enough food'... Yes you need a certain amount of future planning but that shouldn't be at the extent of neglecting the needs of people today.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Who says I am trying to convince you or people like you?

    On this issue I don't need to anyway. You guys are not exactly doing a great job of stopping the Trans tidel wave.
    I know you aren't, you're only interested in your bubble with people like BB/DeBreyne/Dalek/FoS who will agree with you without argument, and calling those with different views names if they dare challenge your views
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think you are both wrong.

    Getting the day to day spending of the government to a neutral position is very important but we must also heavily invest to fix what is wrong with the country I.e. housing and transport for example.

    That requires many hundreds of billions.

    It’s not an either or it’s simply the right thing to do as is putting tax up for everyone.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by paul514)
    I personally think you are both wrong.

    Getting the day to day spending of the government to a neutral position is very important but we must also heavily invest to fix what is wrong with the country I.e. housing and transport for example.

    That requires many hundreds of billions.

    It’s not an either or it’s simply the right thing to do as is putting tax up for everyone.
    Housing and transport require higher taxes? The private sector says high, especially in the case of housing it is government (mostly local) holding things back.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I don't put much stock in the 'kicking the can down the road for our kids to deal with' argument. There has always been a certain amount of that and there always will be.

    We shouldn't go 'let's spend less on healthcare or cut benefits of those who are in need' so our kids don't pay in the same way you wouldn't go 'let's stop buying enough food'... Yes you need a certain amount of future planning but that shouldn't be at the extent of neglecting the needs of people today.
    May I remind you how this all started. It did not begin with Cameron/Osborne slashing budgets, but with Gordon Brown as chancellor believing he had abolished boom and bust and embarking on a debt-fueled spending spree, confident that future growth would be sufficient to pay for it. But then **** happened and we're still paying for it a decade later. How short must our memories be to already risk making the same mistake again?

    A prudent government needs to, at the very least, have a coherent plan about how it intends to balance its budget. We can avoid pain today only at the expense of giving the next generation a much more uncertain future. Because we do not at all know that the next generation will be able to fund even just the same level of benefits that we receive now for themselves, and if we ask them to pay for a good chunk of ours too then that likelihood can only be substantially less.

    And by 'the next generation' I largely mean us. And by 'us' I largely mean our parents, but there we go.
 
 
 

1,507

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.