Possibly. It's a bad idea either way.PFI was a Major creation wasn't it that Blair took and made bigger?
Possibly. It's a bad idea either way.PFI was a Major creation wasn't it that Blair took and made bigger?
why not borrow when interests rates are low? It makes perfect economic sense. Borrow to expand infrastructure and free up the dead spots and produce more goods and services. The building work will also generate jobs and further increase demand.
Same as the millennium dome, bad idea made worse.Possibly. It's a bad idea either way.
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.
Possibly. It's a bad idea either way.
I think we all know he meant reduce the debt when he said pay off.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.
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.
I think we all know he meant reduce the debt when he said pay off.
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
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.
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.
Didn't the IMF end up apologising to Osborne for its position on austerity?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
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.
Didn't the IMF end up apologising to Osborne for its position on austerity?
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.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?