This is the biggest problem with the economy - people don't realise how much money we owe.
The public sector would have to shrink by about 25% just to cut out the deficit, that's before we start paying the debt back! And you think they can avoid tax increases??
>>24680 Britain has had a national debt for decades, centuries even. It's not going to be paid back since the interest on it is nice and low. The creditors don't come knocking on first world countries.
The deficit will go down by itself as the economy recovers.
The debts in the past have at times absorbed 75% of the tax revenue and here you are wittering on about how it's never a problem. It is a real problem and potentially disasterous. This should be clear to anyone who looks into how money, banking and the economy works. Debt has always been a massive problem which has shown itself up in more obvious ways to the public at various points, but sadly most never get any chance to find out what the root of the problems are. Read up on the subect and the history. It should be an eye-opener and you'll probably enjoy it. Don't just parrot what you've picked up from the mainstream press, even if it is easy or holds a certain allure.
The economics board is better in this area anyway and there should be plenty reading there, as well as some helpful souls.
>>24701 The press is parroting the Conservative line that the debt and deficit will kill us all and rape our children. However, we are not close to being at a Greece level of near-fiscal collapse.
>>24708 He's correct. The national debt has been a lot higher relative to GDP in the past, and by past I mean not so distant past. If you're going to look at "history" you're going to fail the argument - other than "wot 'bout greece lol" which isn't a fair comparison, there's no real story from history that can be correctly applied here, without opposing points to be made from history to your point of view.
However this is not to say it isn't a problem, but it has been overstated to the point typical Tory tactics of cutting important key services is going to occur. Under funding is a totally understated problem at the moment. If you cut funding to some of the levels quoted, you're looking at a lack of public money in the economy, reduction in welfare, and mass unemployment that goes with it.
It shouldn't be the one way argument that is currently occuring. It seems to be "Tory cuts to reduce debt" against "Labour lack of reduction of debt". But the right answer is a middle ground. Cutting debt where we can, supporting economic growth and protecting front line services key to the normal man woman and child in the land.
The only reason the Tory Party mass ethos of cutting funding for everything under the sun is because it's the media pet theme at the moment. If you know anything about the media, you'll note they only report items that sell media like newspapers and only to specific themes. For example if there's a mass slaughter in Africa, 9/10 it won't be covered. More people die of diabetes per year than say cancer. But it isn't reported because it's not part of a media theme. It's not like paedophilia is a new problem, but it's reported as a major new headache, not because of expansion of the opportunities of paedophiles, but because it's a theme that can be used to scare people and sell newspapers.
So yes I agree the debt, deficit whatever you wish to brand it without knowledge that the two meanings are different, is a problem. But so would be major cuts to some of the items suggested. A middle ground approach is needed and the budget office idea I feel is totally contradictory. You can't tell me it's not been setup to score political points - the overheads of such an office are totally and inherently pointless when budget control should be exercised on every level as a default, not because some pointless office exists to spew out figures here and there and make them look busy. Cutting costs by creating costs? Nice one.
The only reason you're both arguing from opposition points is because you're both right to some extent. It's all well and good saying "look at history" but there are plenty of examples of non-investment in the economy or in services can cause major major economic problems - the Republican Party line on the Great Depression stands out for one.
Ostensibly, I believe you're both wrong, but also both right.
>>24709 What I want to know is why we aren't completely cutting off foreign aid? That would save a TON OF MONEY. We shouldn't be handing out cash to other people while the nation is in debt.
People talk about this like it's the problem, but in reality we shouldn't have such a bloated public sector in the first place.
If we've got mass unemployment as a result of sensible government spending then our population has grown too large due to irresponsible governments doing nothing to curb population growth in the past.
Not what I said. READING COMPREHENSION. Please.
What I did say was that it is not THE problem, which I correctly identified as unchecked population growth.
Our population has exceed the capacity of our land to sustain it, and of our economy to provide jobs. The native settled population is in decline precisely because our population has grown too large and our economic circumstances are correcting previous population growth in the same way that a predator/prey relationship works in nature.
However, successive governments have artificially swollen our population through immigration to prop up the housing market and keep property values rising, and keep everyone in debt. The high birthrates among the newcomers means we're spending more than ever on maternity care and things like child tax credits, and schools and so on. The swelling population is what necessitated the swelling public sector, even the "race relations" non-jobs were a product of government intervention to increase the country's population.
There are other elements to this problem, like de-industrialisation, but what it all comes back to is that there are too many people about and too few of them are bringing money into our economy from abroad.
>>24747 You insinuated mass unemployment isn't a problem if caused by "sensible government". This of course is totally hypocritical - sensible proper government governs for everyone, not a select few.
But yes your argument is pretty funny Simon. Economically poor argument, socially suspect....almost exactly the same as the BNP economic argument in fact. Before the recession, these "immigrants" were brought in to fill existing jobs. When the recession came about, some of them kept their jobs and it has led to this whole cry foul argument by the far right. It's terribly fallacious - we wouldn't have had people to do particular jobs at all if it wasn't for such immigration.
However, due to an economic downturn there has been a loss of jobs inevitably and the previous government skillfully avoided it becoming mass unemployment. I'm not confident in George Osbourne's ability to do the same. The guy hasn't even had a job before this one.
Oh and finally, fuck off. Your Far right Tory misguided economics stinks. Looking up Keynes on Wikipedia doesn't qualify you to comment who know what you're talking about. Ok mother fucker!
>>24760 >Before the recession, these "immigrants" were brought in to fill existing jobs.
Yes, that is true to an extent, but the points system was introduced not long before the recession; before then, jobs had nothing to do with it. Even now, people come in from Europe and fill jobs which our 2.5 million unemployed could do perfectly well.
>>24761 No that's incorrect. One example would be certain Olympic game projects where we had almost full employment and needed to bring people in to do the job - that pre-dates the points system. Since unemployment has risen, there's been no real need for companies or organisations to organise outside labour.
People come here for jobs - the "oh it's our welfare system" is a line spewed out by the right to hit two birds with one stone. It doesn't stack up when really scrutinised.
In as far as Europe goes, there is nothing to stop people from the UK travelling to other parts of the EU to work. In fact more do than we have work here
The fewest unemployed people we've had in recent times was 1.4m. 'Almost full employment' quite simply doesn't figure into the equation, and there was no need to bring people in.
>>24763 Does that include all people out of work? There were many sleights of hand used to fudge the figures by Labour.
>>24762 I'm more than prepared to believe you, but why do illegal immigrants travel through France to get here? Why isn't France prosperous enough for them?
>>24764 >Does that include all people out of work? There were many sleights of hand used to fudge the figures by Labour.
It's official statistics, whatever their criteria are. Anyway, there's a much better graph (same trend, but also shows numbers on the dole) here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10327101.stm
>>24763 Your right, which is why several immigrant groups are top on the list of groups that are on the dole.
Oh, snap. Guess those filthy right-wingers were right after all! Coming here to do the jobs we wont do? More like coming here to pop out kids and get paid free cash. Why are we importing a darker version of chavs?
>>24766 I haven't mentioned benefits, so do stop harping on about them.
What we needed was a more effective system for getting the unskilled into work, and well you know it.
>>24760 >You insinuated mass unemployment isn't a problem if caused by "sensible government".
No, you just pulled that out of your ass, then waffled for three paragraphs interspersed with a few buzzwords because you clearly have nothing intelligible to say.
>>24762 >People come here for jobs - the "oh it's our welfare system" is a line spewed out by the right to hit two birds with one stone. It doesn't stack up when really scrutinised.
It's not an either/or proposition, some come for the welfare state, others come for jobs. It does stack up when you view it in that context and don't frame the debate in such a myopic fashion.
>In as far as Europe goes, there is nothing to stop people from the UK travelling to other parts of the EU to work. In fact more do than we have work here
>>24776 Inflation is uncontrollable, economy is inflexible and cannot respond to emerging markets etc. Static economy, businesses are damaged as anyone who is unemployed can demand extremely high wages....
>>24776 As an economy approaches full employment, inflation becomes unmanageable.
The government has to strike a balance between mass unemployment and uncontrollable inflation.
