|
|
Post by firedancer on Feb 20, 2010 12:47:47 GMT
So, 20 economists + business people such as Richard Branson tell Gordon to cut spending immediately, followed by 60 economists telling Gordon not to cut spending immediately.
Right - that's clear then.
Jeez - why don't they just admit they are p*ssingin the wind and don't really have a bloody clue?
What hope for us poor foot soldiers?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 20, 2010 13:29:09 GMT
So, 20 economists + business people such as Richard Branson tell Gordon to cut spending immediately, followed by 60 economists telling Gordon not to cut spending immediately. Right - that's clear then. Jeez - why don't they just admit they are p*ssingin the wind and don't really have a bloody clue? What hope for us poor foot soldiers? Luckily we've got Jumbo who'll be along in a minute to tell us what is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT as EVERYONE who isn't an IDIOT knows . . . ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 18:12:21 GMT
The answer is clear to anyone with half a brain.
YOU DO NOT CUT PUBLIC SPENDING IN A DOWNTURN!
This has been done too many times in the past and it ends the same way a longer and deeper rescission
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 20, 2010 18:27:11 GMT
The answer is clear to anyone with half a brain. YOU DO NOT CUT PUBLIC SPENDING IN A DOWNTURN! This has been done too many times in the past and it ends the same way a longer and deeper rescission Even when you can't borrow any more? I take it you are a Keynesian.... So you'll be aware that Keynes argued for public works schemes, financed by government borrowing to inject money into the economy to get people back to work and spending. This was too radical for the UK Treasury, and generally the UK didn't follow Keynesian policies in the Great Depression. Where are the public works??? The newly printed money was thrown at the banks and has been used to offset the difference between revenue and expenditure. Labour, like the Tories, is relying on market forces. |
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 19:29:37 GMT
Where are the public works??? The newly printed money was thrown at the banks and has been used to offset the difference between revenue and expenditure. Labour, like the Tories, is relying on market forces. Oh, I agree there was so much the Government could of should have done. Building more council houses would have been a start. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 20, 2010 19:43:01 GMT
Disagree.
Building projects create ghettoes.
I've thought for a long time that councils should buy up existing properties rather than buy their own, so that instead of having our urban areas split so totally between owner occupation and council slums geographically, there would have been council tenants all mixed in.
At the end of the day, however, I still believe in free market capitalism as the best way forward, so it woudl have been better in the long term for us to have taken the painful Icelandic option of economic chaos rather than what happpened, where our children and grandchildren have been saddled with public debt of unbelievable proportions.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 20:21:59 GMT
I've thought for a long time that councils should buy up existing properties rather than buy their own, so that instead of having our urban areas split so totally between owner occupation and council slums geographically, there would have been council tenants all mixed in. However, you do not need to build ghettoes. Given that lots of people were losing their houses and even more will find themselves in difficulty in the future then building lots of council housing would have been filled fairly quickly and it would make losing your house less painfull if there where new, cheaper homes to go into. Not only that but, you would change our economy to a more balanced one, not based on home ownership... The big point being that if people handed in their keys in droves the banks would be left with worthless houses... New Labour despise the British and love the bankers so having people sweating blood to keep bank profits flowing is the major desire of New LLabour and their socialy bankrupt ideology going. The Labour 'scum' (used advisedly) were not interested in needs of the people, just the needs of the bankers... At the end of the day, however, I still believe in free market capitalism as the best way forward, so it woudl have been better in the long term for us to have taken the painful Icelandic option of economic chaos rather than what happpened, where our children and grandchildren have been saddled with public debt of unbelievable proportions. Ahem, having said all of that above, we are not able to change our economy as much as your statement implies. Though it would be nice if we could. To simply let the economy to collaspe in the way you imply would have been madness. Do you really think that our economy crashing to the extent it would have was the answer? Think of the full implacations for a moment. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 21:24:42 GMT
So, 20 economists + business people such as Richard Branson tell Gordon to cut spending immediately, followed by 60 economists telling Gordon not to cut spending immediately. Right - that's clear then. Jeez - why don't they just admit they are p*ssingin the wind and don't really have a bloody clue? What hope for us poor foot soldiers? Luckily we've got Jumbo who'll be along in a minute to tell us what is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT as EVERYONE who isn't an IDIOT knows . . . ;D ;D sorry that i was a bit late in being along, but, luckily for you, i am here now. yes, as always, the answer is quite simple, but, had things been done properly in the beginning, the problem would not be present now, and if those wise enough to do it right were to do so, once the economy was going strong again, they would revert back to the stupidity that caused the problem to begin with. britain did get a fairly good start by levying a fifty percent tax on all executive bonuses over $40,000. obviously, that should have ALWAYS been the order of the day. the entire problem was created by the banks. it is true that having enough people who are so abjectly stupid that they pay $300,000 for a house that is worth one hundred thousand helped them tremendously. the ONLY rational thing to do in the situation is to simply let the banks go bankrupt. no one needs classless imbeciles anyway. those banks that did practice intelligent loaning, would be the only ones left standing, and the customers of the bankrupt banks would bolster these banks even more. there would be no need to raise taxes, since the money wasted on propping up worthelss corporations would be used for public works projects, putting thousands of people to work. there would be enough money for "make work" jobs also. along with that would be tighter controls on all corporations, with financial consequences for laying people off, thus further enlarging the till to put hose people to work doing something. price controls would also be a step forward. there you go hon. simple, yet realistic solutions for a self inflicted problem you're very welcome |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 21:25:41 GMT
The answer is clear to anyone with half a brain. YOU DO NOT CUT PUBLIC SPENDING IN A DOWNTURN! This has been done too many times in the past and it ends the same way a longer and deeper rescission jolly good show, my man. you get to be right, for once |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 21:27:14 GMT
The answer is clear to anyone with half a brain. YOU DO NOT CUT PUBLIC SPENDING IN A DOWNTURN! This has been done too many times in the past and it ends the same way a longer and deeper rescission Even when you can't borrow any more? I take it you are a Keynesian.... So you'll be aware that Keynes argued for public works schemes, financed by government borrowing to inject money into the economy to get people back to work and spending. This was too radical for the UK Treasury, and generally the UK didn't follow Keynesian policies in the Great Depression. Where are the public works??? The newly printed money was thrown at the banks and has been used to offset the difference between revenue and expenditure. Labour, like the Tories, is relying on market forces. which is insanity since the fact is that "market forces" are solely responsible for the creation of the problem to begin with |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 21:29:56 GMT
Disagree. Building projects create ghettoes. I've thought for a long time that councils should buy up existing properties rather than buy their own, so that instead of having our urban areas split so totally between owner occupation and council slums geographically, there would have been council tenants all mixed in. At the end of the day, however, I still believe in free market capitalism as the best way forward, so it woudl have been better in the long term for us to have taken the painful Icelandic option of economic chaos rather than what happpened, where our children and grandchildren have been saddled with public debt of unbelievable proportions. huh? it is current version of free market capitalism that is the SOLE cause of the problem. why would you like to have the termites rebuilding your house? |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 20, 2010 21:40:20 GMT
Even when you can't borrow any more? I take it you are a Keynesian.... So you'll be aware that Keynes argued for public works schemes, financed by government borrowing to inject money into the economy to get people back to work and spending. This was too radical for the UK Treasury, and generally the UK didn't follow Keynesian policies in the Great Depression. Where are the public works??? The newly printed money was thrown at the banks and has been used to offset the difference between revenue and expenditure. Labour, like the Tories, is relying on market forces. which is insanity since the fact is that "market forces" are solely responsible for the creation of the problem to begin with It all goes back to the early nineties when Gordon started his charm offensive in the city. Labour were desperate to get the square mile onside, there was no prospect of winning an election without some support there. As I said in Brown's Bane, favours are being called in. Make no mistake, New Labour is basically neocon. I have to laugh when people tell me they are left wing. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2010 22:12:57 GMT
William Hague said Gordon Brown was deliberately pushing the UK into 'as much debt as possible'
Gordon Brown has been accused by a senior Tory of deliberately pushing the UK into "as much debt as possible" in an effort to make life tough for any incoming Tory government.
William Hague, de facto deputy to party leader David Cameron, compared the Prime Minister and his Labour administration to a retreating army "poisoning the wells".
In a dramatic escalation of pre-election skirmishes over the economy, the shadow foreign secretary launched a serious attack on the PM in an interview with the News of the World.
"They are like a retreating army, poisoning the wells as the other army advances," the former party leader told the newspaper.
"That is precisely what Gordon Brown is doing by chalking up as much debt as possible, making as many spending commitments as possible which he doesn't know how to finance, partly in the hope of leaving a new government with a really difficult situation. To say we will inherit a poisoned chalice if we win the general election is putting it mildly. It's as poisoned as it can get.
"Gordon Brown's troops are leaving as much poison as they can. It is almost as if they have given up caring."
Mr Hague spoke out after official records this week showed the public sector borrowed in January for the first time on record.
Net borrowing was £4.3 billion in a month which usually sees a seasonal surplus thanks to income and corporation tax, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
For the 10 months of the financial year so far, public sector net borrowing has reached £122.4 billion with the UK's net debt now £848.5 billion, which is equivalent to 59.9% of the country's annual output - the highest proportion for a January since the 1974 financial year.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 22:57:53 GMT
Your point, mouse?
Why would anyone be suprised that Hague says this? What are we to deduce from a cut and paste? Why bother simply lifting someone else's work and plonking it on a message board. This is supposed to be a debate foeum, not a copy forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 23:00:13 GMT
jolly good show, my man. you get to be right, for once I am used to being right, it is just that I don't need to pepper my posts with FACT, REALITY and INDISPUTABLE to make the point. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 20, 2010 23:04:11 GMT
Your point, mouse? Why would anyone be suprised that Hague says this? What are we to deduce from a cut and paste? Why bother simply lifting someone else's work and plonking it on a message board. This is supposed to be a debate foeum, not a copy forum! But there is a ring of truth to it, is there not. And now we're going to be lumbered with yet more of the same in this elected dictatorship. New labour have been an unmitigated disaster and now we're going to suffer a Tory disaster. Do try to think outside the box for once. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 10:22:32 GMT
Your point, mouse? Why would anyone be suprised that Hague says this? What are we to deduce from a cut and paste? Why bother simply lifting someone else's work and plonking it on a message board. This is supposed to be a debate foeum, not a copy forum! random........when some one says some thing....and one wishes to repeat what has been said...the easiet way to repeat what has been said is to...copy and paste how else do we know what has or has not been said... i can rember you asking for a link on i think it was the warming thread either here or on another site..... but to return to your question...are we suprised hague said this... no...but what is suprising is that in a so called democracy a government standing for re election would behave in such a away and even go so far as to tell its faithful not to dwell on its record......of course it wouldnt do to dwell on its record..its record is not some thing to be admired or spoken about loudly british jobs for british workers....lol....this bunch of creeps couldnt even get jobs for the very people it wants to re-elect it |
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 21, 2010 13:26:36 GMT
But there is a ring of truth to it, is there not. And now we're going to be lumbered with yet more of the same in this elected dictatorship. New labour have been an unmitigated disaster and now we're going to suffer a Tory disaster. Do try to think outside the box for once. But why simply cut and paste somebody else's speech onto a message board? Hague is not here to defend his points of further explain what he thinks needs to be done. Nowhere does Hague explain the full implications of a banking meltdown to us. Nowhere does he say why having a worthless currency would benefit the Country or mass poverty would make the position better. Too many people sit on the sidelines making glib comments about how much we have borrowed, but no-one has shown any interest in looking objectively at the actual position of the economy, rather than what they want the economy's position to be. Too many morons (term used advisedly) seem to think that you could change or remove huge parts of the infrastructure of the economy and it would have no effect on the rest of the economy. Well, sorry, but such people have to realise that it doesn't work that way. Closing the mines in the early eighties was not a simple cost saving measure. We now spend more money trying and perhaps falling, to prop up those areas. So, no, cut and pastes from glib people, do not cut the mustard. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:31:58 GMT
But there is a ring of truth to it, is there not. And now we're going to be lumbered with yet more of the same in this elected dictatorship. New labour have been an unmitigated disaster and now we're going to suffer a Tory disaster. Do try to think outside the box for once. But why simply cut and paste somebody else's speech onto a message board? Hague is not here to defend his points of further explain what he thinks needs to be done. Nowhere does Hague explain the full implications of a banking meltdown to us. Nowhere does he say why having a worthless currency would benefit the Country or mass poverty would make the position better. Too many people sit on the sidelines making glib comments about how much we have borrowed, but no-one has shown any interest in looking objectively at the actual position of the economy, rather than what they want the economy's position to be. Too many morons (term used advisedly) seem to think that you could change or remove huge parts of the infrastructure of the economy and it would have no effect on the rest of the economy. Well, sorry, but such people have to realise that it doesn't work that way. Closing the mines in the early eighties was not a simple cost saving measure. We now spend more money trying and perhaps falling, to prop up those areas. So, no, cut and pastes from glib people, do not cut the mustard. Why post useless links? Hague? he could be Labour or Tory for all I care, but Gordon is *#cked and everybody, except him perhaps, knows it. The borrowing is not being invested, its being frittered away. I think you know my thoughts on the economy already, and no, council houses are too little too late and become cost ineffective, the tenants tend to screw them up. Love the advisedly used ad-hominem! Closing the mines was idiotic, but I'm surprised that an AGW junkie say's that. So, no, posting daft links does not cut the mustard. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 21, 2010 21:20:16 GMT
the bottom line is that venezuela has the right idea. how much are you paying for gasoliine? in caracas, it's 14 cents a gallon
|
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 1, 2010 22:47:48 GMT
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a
year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles.
So that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million.
Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.
Relax. The same people are going to fix health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 1, 2010 22:50:55 GMT
Think of it this way: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year. The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles. So that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million. Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. Relax. The same people are going to fix health care. You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 2, 2010 14:14:44 GMT
Think of it this way: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year. The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles. So that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million. Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. Relax. The same people are going to fix health care. You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man? |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 2, 2010 14:42:46 GMT
You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man? My friends call me fret, but 'the V man' is preferable to being called a nutjob  |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 2, 2010 22:00:54 GMT
that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man? My friends call me fret, but 'the V man' is preferable to being called a nutjob we shall have to try to keep that in mind |
|
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
yay! 
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
Oct 23, 2024 18:34:05 GMT