Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Extra £50 billion to be pumped into the economy Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    Article here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8187360.stm

    What do people make of this? Good idea or a bad idea?

    I am obviously totally against this, just like I was against the first 125 billion being flushed down the toilet. The left keeps telling us that all of this money being pumped into the economy is going to stimulate it and make it grow: well of course this is true to some extent, of course when something is injected with hundreds of billions it'll grow.

    But the growth is temporary; it's based on borrowing rather than production. It might make a short term gain but then it'll fall back into recession with the difference that people are poorer because of the higher taxes to fund various bailouts, the national debt is dramatically increased, and people have no savings because of the awful interest rates.

    The government keep saying it's better to do too much than too little, but is this really true? It seems like their cure is worse than the disease: they are actively making things worse, and shockingly they are continuing to do so despite the fact we're still in this recession even after all these bailouts, all this printing of extra money, and all of this nationalisation!

    With all this extra money being printed, we are bound to enter a period of inflation, whether it'll be as bad as Germany in the 1930's remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past Gordon Brown or blue labour to lead us into that kind of situation.

    Surely you can do worse than simply evaluate what you yourself would do in your personal life in this situation. You have low income and high debt, do you increase spending - or do you lower it? Surely what we need is spending cuts, what we need is to end bailouts, and to increase productivity by relieving business of harsh tax burdens.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In my view, this is a planned move towards the debasement of the US dollar, to be replaced by a global currency:

    Quantitative Easing means currency debasement. The persistent bailouts of the insolvent banks mean that America will be bankrupted. No amount of taxpayer money can plug the US$1.5 Quadrillion financial derivatives hole. What the FedRes and treasury will do is to keep printing money out of thin air to plug this hole. But it will be the end of the USD.

    Source:

    http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com...ld-government/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another £50 Billion backed by nothing other than government debt :facepalm2:

    The thing is most of the public will just glance at this article and think the Government is doing a good job. Few of them will give much thought to the fact that as they work their fingers to the bone earning a living to hopefully save or invest for the future, the Government and the Bank of England are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every pound we have is being devalued. It's beyond a joke to be quite honest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Makes you wonder why anyone would want to stay? I certainly dont...... Take the good bits of the UK (education system) and leave. Maybe in 30 years coming back might seem sensible. At the moment the next 30 years look like a period of inflation, high interest rates, low spending and high taxes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The government's hoping to create a mini bubble before the next election but they know it is futile. Wasn't an independent central bank supposed to stop stop-go economics from occuring?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by yeahm8justhavina****)
    The government's hoping to create a mini bubble before the next election but they know it is futile. Wasn't an independent central bank supposed to stop stop-go economics from occuring?
    That was the idea yes, the free-market alternative wasn't ideal because it means the economy goes up and down, and it's unpredictable. Centralised banking and monetary policy is much better; it just means the economy goes up and down and it's unpredictable. :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing is being "pumped into the economy". The £50bn is being removed in inflation from existing currency holdings.

    A more accurate title would be "New £50bn tax to be raised."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The term "pumped" doesnt seem appropriate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and people complain about others on benefits..........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Article here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8187360.stm

    What do people make of this? Good idea or a bad idea?

    I am obviously totally against this, just like I was against the first 125 billion being flushed down the toilet. The left keeps telling us that all of this money being pumped into the economy is going to stimulate it and make it grow: well of course this is true to some extent, of course when something is injected with hundreds of billions it'll grow.

    But the growth is temporary; it's based on borrowing rather than production. It might make a short term gain but then it'll fall back into recession with the difference that people are poorer because of the higher taxes to fund various bailouts, the national debt is dramatically increased, and people have no savings because of the awful interest rates.

    The government keep saying it's better to do too much than too little, but is this really true? It seems like their cure is worse than the disease: they are actively making things worse, and shockingly they are continuing to do so despite the fact we're still in this recession even after all these bailouts, all this printing of extra money, and all of this nationalisation!

    With all this extra money being printed, we are bound to enter a period of inflation, whether it'll be as bad as Germany in the 1930's remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past Gordon Brown or blue labour to lead us into that kind of situation.

    Surely you can do worse than simply evaluate what you yourself would do in your personal life in this situation. You have low income and high debt, do you increase spending - or do you lower it? Surely what we need is spending cuts, what we need is to end bailouts, and to increase productivity by relieving business of harsh tax burdens.
    Most of the comments above have just been leaning to a more conservative Laissez Faire fiscal policy. But without the government 'pumping' the money it is into the economy this economic downturn could have been much worst. Im not saying how they went about this was right or that the banks etc deserve this money but untill further reform of the capitalist system this is the best policy to take.

    People easily forget the depression of the 1930's.

    The example you used and the conclusion you came to here is totally ludacris. this situation is not as simple as you put it in terms of ones own personal situation. Spending cuts would lead to more bank closures and in turn lots of small businesses well even large ones would start to fail as they would have no money coming in. this would lead to higher unemploment and in turn less money being spent by the general public and business profits dropping even further. Im not saying that the economy will never recover with this method, but it would not recover as fast or less damaging to the average joe. I think you can work out my views on taxes yourself
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shuky)
    Most of the comments above have just been leaning to a more conservative Laissez Faire fiscal policy. But without the government 'pumping' the money it is into the economy this economic downturn could have been much worst. Im not saying how they went about this was right or that the banks etc deserve this money but untill further reform of the capitalist system this is the best policy to take.

    People easily forget the depression of the 1930's.

    The example you used and the conclusion you came to here is totally ludacris. this situation is not as simple as you put it in terms of ones own personal situation. Spending cuts would lead to more bank closures and in turn lots of small businesses well even large ones would start to fail as they would have no money coming in. this would lead to higher unemploment and in turn less money being spent by the general public and business profits dropping even further. Im not saying that the economy will never recover with this method, but it would not recover as fast or less damaging to the average joe. I think you can work out my views on taxes yourself
    Removing money from private citizens' currency holdings to give to favoured political interests does not increase spending, it just gives control over it to the government. I realise it's back in fashion amongst a collection of journalists and state officials right now, but logically the failure and general abandonment of traditional Keynesianism in the post-war era is not somehow erased from history just because somewhat reformed policies have failed yet again. If anything the opposite ought to be the case.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.