|
On April 22 2010 21:05 Klive5ive wrote:
If the evidence is readily available I would like you to point to one position in history where a deficit nearly as large as ours was removed without taxation or spending cuts.
Just going back to the 1970s , still in the UK.
The debt/GDP ratio was smaller but Britain was still forced to go cap in hand to the IMF.
The 70s were also remembered as a time of high inflation.
The only thing that saved the UK's ass was north sea oil which has pretty much run out.
You will find that is what was keeping the pound relatively high as well , expect a sharp correction within the next few years.
No matter who is in the UK finances are in a shambles , Labour did serious damage to them the past 13 years.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
If the evidence is readily available I would like you to...
As a cursory review of my post demonstrates, I said evidence was "readily available" to establish that the position I am taking is within the spectrum of mainstream economic opinion. You appear to have misread it.
Keynesian economics is very clear that...
I would not classify myself as a Keynesian. Further, none of the Keynesian references you make bear at all on the straightforward point I have made twice previously and make a third time here: that overly hasty austerity measures will themselves place upward pressure on the deficit.
Is it not true that to suggest all cuts would be bad you are implying that every public job is an investment that increases long term output.
No. Nor is there a direct connection between government deficits and "public jobs" (by which it is generally meant jobs in the public sector), another establishment meme which appears to have penetrated the public consciousness to the point where it squeezes out rational debate. My own personal preference would be for, among other things, major infrastructure projects which would assist in securing the long term economic situation of our country.
|
Papers are hilarious today. 'Clegg in Nazi slur on UK' followed by the usual daily mail crap.
Volcanoe saved the lib dems for a week. Their getting attacked from all sides today though.
|
On April 22 2010 21:28 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
on the straightforward point I have made twice previously and make a third time here: that overly hasty austerity measures will themselves place upward pressure on the deficit.
I've never disagreed with that, nor would it be possible to disagree with that.
By putting the word "overly" in there you've made it true by definition.
Any sensible hasty austerity measure would be not be "overly" hasty.
On April 22 2010 21:28 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
No. Nor is there a direct connection between government deficits and "public jobs", another establishment meme which appears to have penetrated the public consciousness to the point where it squeezes out rational debate. My own personal preference, among others, would be for major infrastructure projects which would assist in securing the long term economic situation of our country.
Ironically you are correct that it has squeezed out rational debate because you largely ignored what I said and made another point entirely.
My personal preference would also be major infrastructure projects but how can we afford them without first reducing non-investment spending?
I'm sure the IMF would be not be too pleased if we attempted to convince them we can reduce our debt 20 years from now whilst spending even more right now. Eventually we'd reach a run off point where the servicing of our debt would be more than we could feasibly cut back (if indeed we have not already reached that point).
I think we've reached the conclusion of our discussion. I'll summarise my position and if you would kindly do the same after you reply to this we can move on to other things.
Due to boom-time over spending and spending in areas that don't increase long term output (let's call it non-investment spending) we went into the recession with a deficit and large debt.
During a recession the only sensible thing to do is to try to stimulate growth and we were forced to bail the banks out too. This further increased the debt and our deficit.
We are now in a position where the deficit is far too large to reduce my stimulating growth alone. Sensible measures to increase future output are essential but they must also be backed up by spending cuts in sensible areas.
The quicker we cut non-investment spending the quicker the economy will recover. Although unemployment would rise the public sector would expand to fill parts of the gaps increasing tax revenue. The disadvantages of a person not being employed are outweighed by the advantages of not paying their wages.
As for tax increases they are dangerous to a recovery and non-essential cuts should always be favoured but ultimately if we are serious about reducing our debts some tax increases could be a sensible idea. If we don't appear to be serious about repaying our debts then the pound may fall drastically.
|
On April 22 2010 21:52 noddyz wrote:
Papers are hilarious today. 'Clegg in Nazi slur on UK' followed by the usual daily mail crap.
Volcanoe saved the lib dems for a week. Their getting attacked from all sides today though.
Hilarious indeed, from the BBC:
Mr Clegg, whose popularity was on a par with Winston Churchill according to one headline last week, said: "I have done nothing wrong. In the next few days I will publish figures to prove it.
"There are a lot of people who want to stop change, of course. I think I must be the only politician in the space of a week to go from Churchill to Nazi."
He added there was a "very exciting opportunity for something different" adding: "I hope people won't be bullied, be frightened into not choosing something different."
I think I might play a game during the next debate, see who can pick the most frequently repeated key phrase. Will it be:
Clegg:
"something different"
"Old politics"
Cameron:
"Jobs tax"
"real change"
Brown:
"substance"
"focusing on policy"
"Tory cuts"
"is falling" (crime, immgration etc..)
All of them:
"wide open" (about the election)
"bureaucracy"
Any more?
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
I've never disagreed with that, nor would it be possible to disagree with that. By putting the word "overly" in there you've made it true by definition. Any sensible hasty austerity measure would be not be "overly" hasty.
And so we are back to the question of when the deficit will be reduced. My position on it is quite plain. Not yet. Since this would have a deleterious effect on the economic recovery and put upward pressure on the deficit yet again. In this I find myself in the unusual position of being on the same side as the IMF and a large number of mainstream economists.
Ironically you are correct that it has squeezed out rational debate because you largely ignored what I said and made another point entirely.
Actually if you review the posts you will see that you asked a question and I answered it with the word "no". I did not feel it necessary to address the supplementary point you made and chose to make a related one of my own.
I'm sure the IMF would be not be too pleased if we attempted to convince them we can reduce our debt 20 years from now whilst spending even more right now. Eventually we'd reach a run off point where the servicing of our debt would be more than we could feasibly cut back (if indeed we have not already reached that point).
I do not see that the sovereign British government has to convince the IMF of anything at all.
The point about servicing debt would take us into a more intricate economic discussion, in an area in which I hold more to certain heterodox economic views (such as Modern Monetary Theory of economists like Bill Mitchell and L Randall Wray). A discussion for another day, perhaps.
As for tax increases they are dangerous to a recovery and non-essential cuts should always be favoured but ultimately if we are serious about reducing our debts some tax increases could be a sensible idea.
I agree entirely with regard to the tax increases, which I think would be a very bad idea at present.
The only way to actually reduce the public debt would be to run a budget surplus. I do not expect to see anything even resembling a budget surplus for quite some time.
But yes, I think this conversation has pretty much run its course.
|
On April 22 2010 22:11 Klive5ive wrote:
I think I might play a game during the next debate, see who can pick the most frequently repeated key phrase.
I don't want to be confrontational but have you ever paused to think how difficult it must be to stand up in front of the nation day in day out and talk sense again and again and again without repeating yourself from time to time? And how difficult it must be to get a specific message to the public if they do what most people do which is flick in, flick out, get tea, eat food loudly, chat to each other whilst people are talking?
I never understood this barbaric anti-politicianism. It seems to be cultural more than rational. If you want to hear a politician talk without 'key phrases', wait for them to give interviews on serious radio shows or straight talk with Andrew Neil; especially after they have been in power.
I personally think that people slag off MPs far too much without considering how bloody difficult their jobs are. Having to argue and debate all the time without making any slip ups, as well as trying to get things done behind the scenes and do it all for the amount of pay that a relatively poor-off headteacher gets isn't exactly my idea of a walk in the park.
I may have gone over the top because I'm sure you were joking but I have always thought MPs get a little too much stick just for doing what obviously makes sense and what anyone else would do in their situation.
|
PS. FUcking hung parliaments: How do they work??
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 22 2010 18:35 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 16:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote:
I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue. EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market. So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 22 2010 23:56 sc4k wrote:
PS. FUcking hung parliaments: How do they work??
The same as any other. It's an evolved system, the word PM started off as a derisive term for any MP with sufficient sway among his peers to dominate politics. Factions have always formed groupings in Parliament to try and get legislation working. If a single party faction cannot form a Government then they will argue among themselves to try and form a coalition. If they cannot make up their mind then the Queen will call a new election.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 22 2010 18:31 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 18:22 Kerotan wrote:
He thinks gay men kissing is disgusting, so I would never ever vote for him on that point alone. I find he comes across as a Christian fundamentalist. He talks about a country that is Christian, British and white. The guy is very misguided and lacks any understanding of history it seems BUT he's not a Nazi.
Statistically Britain is athiest.
Also
“..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.”
That's from the BNP website.
yeah...
|
On April 23 2010 00:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 23:56 sc4k wrote:
PS. FUcking hung parliaments: How do they work?? The same as any other. It's an evolved system, the word PM started off as a derisive term for any MP with sufficient sway among his peers to dominate politics. Factions have always formed groupings in Parliament to try and get legislation working. If a single party faction cannot form a Government then they will argue among themselves to try and form a coalition. If they cannot make up their mind then the Queen will call a new election.
Actually I was referring to the ICP  you might want to check Boesthius blog
|
As a Londonner living in the music business, I found a very good way to keep sleeping without having nightmares from the idea that tories could get back in power: I leave this city and UK and get back to where there is no way that we have some Tatcher Reloaded in power.
I hope the best for Lib Dem, they still seem to be the one who have the most common sense. People in England are utterly disppointed by Labour (which is explanable, they have screwed everybody in the arse for 10 years), and I can tell from what I hear about me that almost everybody working in culture is massively scared by the idea that Cameron may get into power.
I've seen a conductor doing a political speech before a concert because he was so worried about the outcome of this election. I had never seen that in my life. It just doesn't happen.
|
On April 23 2010 00:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 18:35 sc4k wrote:On April 22 2010 16:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote:
I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue. EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market. So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU? You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
I read about France being forced to buy British meat by the EU even when the US has an embargo. I guess that is a good example which would probably have benefitted our country greatly.
|
On April 23 2010 00:22 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 18:35 sc4k wrote:On April 22 2010 16:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote:
I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue. EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market. So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU? You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips. I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
People say that in France too.
The only thing is that I don't see why it's bad that Poland or Slovenia benefit the economy of my country, for two reasons:
1- Because the fact that theses countries get a better economy, with our help, is a guarantee for the future. The best which can happen to us is that Eastern Europ get prospere and rich in the future decades. Without European help, they won't (egoism apart, that's just long term thinking).
2- Because I feel like a European citizen and, the same way that I would find normal that a rich portion of France helps a poorer area to get richer, I find good that rich European countries help the poorest one to get to a good economical standart (that's more personnal, and I would say the same about anywhere in the world, but whatever).
Just my two cents.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 23 2010 00:22 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 18:35 sc4k wrote:On April 22 2010 16:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote:
I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue. EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market. So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU? You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips. I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
Leaving the EU is a nonsense. When the European Coal and Steel Community was first created Britain refused to join, placing her future in Empire rather than Europe. However with the decline of the British Empire and the rise of Europe Britain found itself forced into to trade with Europe by reasons of geography. Since joining the EU that has expanded and the British economy is now completely intertwined with Europe. You couldn't tear them apart without inflicting huge damage on the British economy. Every company which moves goods to and from Europe would see huge increases in their costs which the market quite simply couldn't handle. It'd take a complete restructuring of the British economy to become more autarkic and even if that were possible (which it's not) it'd be way more expensive. It would shut the economy down completely.
The problem with the EU is that Britain didn't join it soon enough. As the least fucked up country after WWII we could have created it in a British model rather than joining a Franco-Germanic system. That and the political aspect of it. We signed up for the European Single Market and it keeps getting political stuff added to it.
|
So just so I can get it in some easily graspable examples, leaving the EU would do what for our trade with Europe and our economy? Higher prices, no trade, potentially smaller skilled workforce etc?
When you say leaving the EU is a nonsense, I hear this all the time from people. I don't doubt it, but if I try to tell my UKIP supporting friend it is a nonsense, he'll ask me why and I just don't know lol. Are you saying that if we were to leave, our economy would collapse and our industries would be less profitable?
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 23 2010 00:37 sc4k wrote:
So just so I can get it in some easily graspable examples, leaving the EU would do what for our trade with Europe and our economy? Higher prices, no trade, potentially smaller skilled workforce etc?
When you say leaving the EU is a nonsense, I hear this all the time from people. I don't doubt it, but if I try to tell my UKIP supporting friend it is a nonsense, he'll ask me why and I just don't know lol. Are you saying that if we were to leave, our economy would collapse and our industries would be less profitable?
Damn near every single country in the UK imports or exports something from the EU. Most in some indirect capacity. Take a cleaning company, the cleaning supplies they bulk buy may come from Europe. Or a building contracter who uses imported wood or bricks. Somewhere along the line everyone buys something from the EU, not because they can only get it in Europe but because it's usually cheaper to import something from abroad than to produce it in the UK. If you then left the EU all of those links would be cut.
If it were at all possible to simply buy from elsewhere immediately then you'd just see a large increase in prices as that happened (because the reason we import from Europe atm is because it's cheaper than elsewhere). However the UK uses quite a lot of stuff, more stuff than there is surplus on the international market. Thus you would have shortages and massive price rises that effect every part of the economy.
Plus there's the cost of every business in the country having to reforge these links. That'd be pretty huge.
Plus there's the death of every business involved in direct import and export with the EU.
Imagine the England Scotland border got completely closed down. How much of what Scotland needs do they actually produce in Scotland? How long before businesses couldn't get raw materials, shops couldn't get anything to sell. We're not just talking about the direct stuff, take something like paper, if Scotland didn't have enough paper mills every business with paperwork would be forced to import paper from abroad at higher prices or go without. Imagine how many businesses that'd fuck up.
Basically when you create a single market, like the EU is, businesses treat it as a single market. It's like a giant tangled ball with threads going from everyone to everyone. Even a business that doesn't directly rely on Europe will be linked to another business that does. If you tear that tangled ball apart it rips it to pieces. Every day that Britain has been part of the single market it becomes harder to leave, and we've been part of it for a while now.
|
Ok thanks for the explanation, I understand what you're saying. But let me get this straight: you compared leaving the EU to closing the border to Scotland. Would there ever be a way to leave the EU but continue to trade with the EU as before, or would the EU essentially be *mad* we left and therefore prevent us trading at cheap prices? I'm also curious as to how Norway and Switzerland profit as countries- are they paying more money per imported item than us from EU countries, by not being in the EU? Does being in the EU give us special access to surplus in the European countries? And when you are talking about surplus are you mostly talking about food?
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 23 2010 00:56 sc4k wrote:
Ok thanks for the explanation, I understand what you're saying. But let me get this straight: you compared leaving the EU to closing the border to Scotland. Would there ever be a way to leave the EU but continue to trade with the EU as before, or would the EU essentially be *mad* we left and therefore prevent us trading at cheap prices? I'm also curious as to how Norway and Switzerland profit as countries- are they paying more money per imported item than us from EU countries, by not being in the EU? Does being in the EU give us special access to surplus in the European countries? And when you are talking about surplus are you mostly talking about food?
Switzerland has a special arrangement with the EU for tariff exemption because not giving it one would be geographic economic blackmail. In theory the UK could ask for that, in practice I have no idea if it'd be granted.
What I meant by surplus is that if we previously bought 10,000 units of example X from Europe and were made subject to the external tariff we could only switch to importing 10,000 units of X from somewhere else if there were already the units on the market. Which assumes that somewhere in America there's a big factory pumping out X without a buyer, just for kicks. If we could immediately start buying from that factory instead then it'd just be a small increase in cost (the reason we were buying from the EU in the first place was that it was cheaper than America). However if the factory doesn't exist, and it doesn't, then you get a shortage and therefore price rises. Replace X with everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
