Possibly. It's a bad idea either way.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
pay off debts first then borrow, the fact that we spend more on debts then we do defence each year is staggering. Once we pay off debts you lefties can spend as much money as you like on sending transgender 5 year olds to Brazil on cultural exchanges as you like.
As for corbie saying long term sick people should not be checked up on, the guy is a fcuking idiot.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Same as the millennium dome, bad idea made worse.
Governments always "pay off debts" but they always borrow and add new debt, whether right wing or left wing. It's not a mortgage for phucks sake.
Lost Mango
Pascal Chimbonda
Absolute shocker of an idea but credit where credit is due.
I think we all know he meant reduce the debt when he said pay off.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
wooo there we are not even close to paying off our debts and we should not be borrowing any time soon, that is much the fault of the right as the left, it needs a change in mindset of the population.
We need a massive cut in benefits and the government if they want to be crossrail 2 or a new runway at Heathrow it should come from those savings. We are years away from being at a comfortable level with our national debt.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Exactly, it is clear we are no where close to be at a decent level with the national debt. It seemed to finally get some news coverage in the 2008 period but now all anyone wants to talk about is the deficit. It is important of course to control our yearly outgoings but to give Britain a bright future we need to reduce the national debt so we are more prepared for the future and any shocks or recessions in the future.
Apologies for the left-wing source of this info:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/public-debt
For those countries with no headroom (in the red or amber zone on the chart), the IMF’s paper is not much use: they need to take action to reduce their borrowing levels. But for countries well into the green zone (of which America is a star performer and Britain is a somewhat marginal case), the IMF’s analysis has a clear message: don’t worry about your debt.
For these countries, the wonks argue that the costs of raising taxes or cutting useful spending to reduce debt levels outweighs any benefits. For countries safely in the green zone, the authors present an example of a country reducing its debt from 120% to 100% of GDP. They calculate that the expected costs of the higher taxation (for instance, from the disincentives to work created by increased tax rates) are likely to outweigh the expected benefits (from the lower risk of a default in the event of a crisis) by a factor of ten.
What should such countries do instead? The best thing, the paper says, is simply to let economic growth take its course. In the long run, if the economy grows more quickly than debt, the burden of it will fall as a percentage of GDP
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/public-debt
For those countries with no headroom (in the red or amber zone on the chart), the IMF’s paper is not much use: they need to take action to reduce their borrowing levels. But for countries well into the green zone (of which America is a star performer and Britain is a somewhat marginal case), the IMF’s analysis has a clear message: don’t worry about your debt.
For these countries, the wonks argue that the costs of raising taxes or cutting useful spending to reduce debt levels outweighs any benefits. For countries safely in the green zone, the authors present an example of a country reducing its debt from 120% to 100% of GDP. They calculate that the expected costs of the higher taxation (for instance, from the disincentives to work created by increased tax rates) are likely to outweigh the expected benefits (from the lower risk of a default in the event of a crisis) by a factor of ten.
What should such countries do instead? The best thing, the paper says, is simply to let economic growth take its course. In the long run, if the economy grows more quickly than debt, the burden of it will fall as a percentage of GDP
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Can't remember the exact reasoning, but modern economics believes that paying off national debt would harm the economy. In the US it would cause the economy to contract. The US had the money to pay the debt off, but the implications were scary. Think it was Alan Greenspan who avoided doing it. Need to look up exactly why its a problem. I think essentially you are contracting the economy if you did, taking a lot of cash out of circulation...?
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
I thought the interesting news today was Liam Fox nailing his desire for 'Hard Brexit' to the mast. Out of the single market, presumably losing car firms, banks. But taking real control.
I'm not sure its a view held by many MPs, or the PM. No one seems to know the government position, probably because they don't know themselves.
I'm not sure its a view held by many MPs, or the PM. No one seems to know the government position, probably because they don't know themselves.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
The IMF has lost any credibility thanks to Larage and her corruption, they have also had to come out and apologise for getting wrong their advice on our Britains reaction to the global downturn and the after mark of Brexit.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
This following article shows what is wrong http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mo...two-buy-to-lets-can-i-send-my-son-to-private/
A woman earning 60 grand a year should not be allowed any child benefit, this country is still giving out money like its smarties at a kids birthday party. We give away to much money in this country.
A woman earning 60 grand a year should not be allowed any child benefit, this country is still giving out money like its smarties at a kids birthday party. We give away to much money in this country.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Germany has bigger issues with their banking system and it will derail them more them Brexit will harm us.
As for trade deals, all we need is with France, Germany, Italy and Spain, Holland and Belgium would be good but not that important. Eastern Europe and I have a soft spot for Latvia, but eastern europe does not have to be involved in any trade deals because we do not do enough trade with them to matter. They are only threatening to veto trade deals unless we give them freedom of movement because they want to keep all the money they get from us. Sheer greed on their part.
The main countries we trade with in Europe will fall into line we just need to be tough with these gangsters, which is what they are, bullies and gangsters. You got to be strong with thugs, but we will get there and in a few years time we will be completely fine.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
You got that right, last time i saw the figures we give the second highest donation to foreign aid ( only the yanks pay more), while we have many homeless and living in tent citys here.
Didn't the IMF end up apologising to Osborne for its position on austerity?
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Like Conservatives who want to promote a "UK global story" outside the EU, it is all sheer fantasy! These people presume Germany will want to sell us cars, and because of this we will be able to sell them tarriff free cars too. Of course Germany would like that very much, but Germany will have to leave the EU themselves otherwise there will be a UK car sales tariffs with hard Brexit, because EU rules apply to 27 countries. Why would these 27 agree to waive car tariffs to help Germany? Thus car factories here would also have a 10% tax on any cars sold into the EU. Which would mean they close and move to Poland etc. losing thousands of working peoples job, or the government pays the 10% to keep them - either way it doesn't make any sense.
It's some kind of proud Great British lump in the throat delusion. Like a child who really wants something, Liam Fox is desperately wishing preferential Brexit terms, when they simply will not be. You can't protect trade with the EU - our biggest trading partner - while also fuking them off. We don't need you. But er...we want to keep trading with you.,,
If France proposed they'd stop paying into the EU, stop EU migration but continue free trade, while we continued to pay and take migrants, we'd tell them to do one....wouldn't you? Why do the likes of Liam Fox think they won't say the same? Complete delusion from the Minister in charge of UK trade!
Germany sells cars to as many countries as there are internal calling codes. The UK is just one market, and individuals here will probably pay 10% more for a new BMW. But Nissan won't take a 10% hit on output costs, no company would. 6,700 people build Nissan cars in Sunderland.
Last edited:
Does that invalidate the logic of this:
In the long run, if the economy grows more quickly than debt, the burden of it will fall as a percentage of GDP
And if the above statement is true, is it not worth considering borrowing money at record low rates to invest in things that improve society and grow the economy? Surely we can then all benefit?
And people might say "well, if we borrow money, then the rates won't stay low."
But under Osborne, the country has borrowed more money than under Labour -- yet the rates of interest remain very low. Why should borrowing to invest in infrastructure, grow the economy and grow tax revenues mean a huge jump in rates of repayment? Particularly if it is deemed to make economic sense (as seems to be the opinion of that IMF paper talked about in The Economist).
But under Osborne, the country has borrowed more money than under Labour -- yet the rates of interest remain very low. Why should borrowing to invest in infrastructure, grow the economy and grow tax revenues mean a huge jump in rates of repayment? Particularly if it is deemed to make economic sense (as seems to be the opinion of that IMF paper talked about in The Economist).
It doesn't invalidate that at all, but that statement works on the assumption that an increase in debt is not treated by the outside world as an increase in risk.
It also ignores the fact that during the time the economy is growing, we should attempt to reduce that debt because the economy won't always be growing - the basic premise of it all is Gordon Brown's "I ended boom and bust" which is akin to someone holding a balloon and saying "I ended gravity".