Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Of course - printing money and driving economic growth via the public sector are the indelible watermarks of the world's strongest economies, How is your invisible friend and isn't that a lovely basket?

About as visible as you... but generally more friendly :D

I don't think we did print money, we released funds against assets (quant easing); all major economies subsidise their 'pet' industries so the inference there is an archetype of free market heaven is a little orf the mark.

On the above note, I do like this quote:

"Maybe uninsured American children who can’t get adequate health care could masquerade as cotton plants or cornstalks. Then the farm bill would shower them with money and care."
(New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof)

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Of course - printing money and driving economic growth via the public sector are the indelible watermarks of the world's strongest economies, How is your invisible friend and isn't that a lovely basket?

About as visible as you... but generally more friendly :D

I don't think we did print money, we released funds against assets (quant easing); all major economies subsidise their 'pet' industries so the inference there is an archetype of free market heaven is a little orf the mark.

On the above note, I do like this quote:

"Maybe uninsured American children who can’t get adequate health care could masquerade as cotton plants or cornstalks. Then the farm bill would shower them with money and care."
(New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof)

Yes, but Gordon's pet industries seem to be fat administrators and feckless chavs - pump priming investment should be targeted at improving infrastructure, not shoring up Labour's core vote.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by mushroom

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

the public debt crises is a myth - if there's a normal economic recovery it will solve it - if there are cuts it will make it worse - FT as quoted just now by Meacher in Economic Recovery and Welfare Debate on Parliament Channel.


It was shown retrospectively that the 1979 finances were added up wrong by Healey's cibil servant number crunchers (ref Barnett or Berstein). To the effect that Britain was nowhere near the dire straits Snatcher traded on.

What the FT and I believe others are saying who know how cash flows work is that cuts by the Tories will be catastrophic to economy.

I think you'll find that it wasn't the CS who looked at the figures and said broke - it was the chaps from the IMF.

Cash flow works in many differing ways which doubtless you'll find if you ever run a business, but the tally on the bottom line year in and out is the one to watch.

Have run two businesses, one medium one large. What Broon understood instinctively that reported losses are one thing but if your trading cycle is operating hope springs eternal. His decision is 'smoothing' the worst effects of this blip. Not even profit is sanity... but cash movement is.

One difference being, you did not know for a fact your business was going to cease to exist in less that a year...

I am cynical enough to believe that Brown is only looking at the short term, knows his party will not have to face the consequences, and knows that an economic disaster on the next Tory watch will play in Labours favour in 2014.....

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...tatistics_Says

The 175bn quoted has already been exceeded.


..and given the importance of the property market in UK, I don't see much fast action going on in that sector for a while:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...rtgage_Lenders

..especially as FSA are putting reality into the equation:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...nsumer_Lending

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Yes, but Gordon's pet industries seem to be fat administrators and feckless chavs - pump priming investment should be targeted at improving infrastructure, not shoring up Labour's core vote.

And that's the problem with Gordons 'investment' in public services. People like the bin police, or Ofsted inspectors who go round telling off Police officers for looking after each others children do no add anything to infrastructure or the economy or anything else. Getting rid of such types wouldn't do any harm at all. Likewise, telling lazy fcuking chavs to work or they're not getting any money would hardly cause the UK to grind to a halt. Why not pay chavs, and bin police, and equality and diversity outreach co-ordinators to mend pot holes in the roads? In that way, rather than making peoples lives a misery, they improve them. Rather than folk going round taking pictures of dangerously overfilled wheelie bins those folk could instead pick up litter.

Too controversial for New Labour perhaps

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Of course - printing money and driving economic growth via the public sector are the indelible watermarks of the world's strongest economies, How is your invisible friend and isn't that a lovely basket?

About as visible as you... but generally more friendly :D

I don't think we did print money, we released funds against assets (quant easing); all major economies subsidise their 'pet' industries so the inference there is an archetype of free market heaven is a little orf the mark.

On the above note, I do like this quote:

"Maybe uninsured American children who can’t get adequate health care could masquerade as cotton plants or cornstalks. Then the farm bill would shower them with money and care."
(New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof)

Yes, but Gordon's pet industries seem to be fat administrators and feckless chavs - pump priming investment should be targeted at improving infrastructure, not shoring up Labour's core vote.

Depends what you mean by infrastructure. The heartbeat of conservatism ensured rusting buckets were used to catch the rain drops in crumbling schools still at the end of their long tenure. Let’s not flatter the Tories’ record which was penny pinching and destructive of some industries – not because of good economics but rather political showboating acolytes of Friedman. France, Germany and Japan are not in recession is because they have a balanced economy that makes as well as buys.

Of course Nicholas Ridley gave carte blanche to the supermarkets’ desire for green field sites. There’s an infrastructure legacy to be proud of.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

the public debt crises is a myth - if there's a normal economic recovery it will solve it - if there are cuts it will make it worse - FT as quoted just now by Meacher in Economic Recovery and Welfare Debate on Parliament Channel.


It was shown retrospectively that the 1979 finances were added up wrong by Healey's cibil servant number crunchers (ref Barnett or Berstein). To the effect that Britain was nowhere near the dire straits Snatcher traded on.

What the FT and I believe others are saying who know how cash flows work is that cuts by the Tories will be catastrophic to economy.

But we know that Labour are alrteady planning cuts at the same level as the Tories have suggested are needed. What we do know is that Labour cuts are always on front line services because the public must always pay for the loss of government jobs. The big problem is that Gordion didn't save during the good years because he was so arrogant that he claimed to have ended boom and bust thus saving for a rainy day was not needed. Having been governed by spin for so long it is bad enough but when your realise the PM actually believes his own spin now that gets scary.

The realityy is taht a significant number od government jobs add no contribution to societythey just shuffle paper for the sake of shuffling paper. Weed even some of them out and you save money with no impact on front line services.

So, Gordon Brown believes that we should spend our way out of the crisis but he is making public service cuts.
The Tories say we should economise to get our way out of the crisis and that is what they plan to do.
Why should we vote for a Labour Government who believe one thing but do the opposite (the way they say leads to ruin) just to gain popularity?

Originally Posted by Alsacien

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Public-Borrowing-Soars-By-148bn-In-September-Office-for-National-Statistics-Says/Article/200910315409506?lpos=Business_Top_Stories_Header_0 &lid=ARTICLE_15409506_Public_Borrowing_Soars_By_%3 F14.8bn_In_September_Office_for_National_Statistic s_Says

The 175bn quoted has already been exceeded.


..and given the importance of the property market in UK, I don't see much fast action going on in that sector for a while:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...rtgage_Lenders

..especially as FSA are putting reality into the equation:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...nsumer_Lending

What’s critical is UK debt as % of GDP is 56.6%. Japan is 194%, Italy is over 100%. The US national debt is close to 71% of GDP. UK GDP after WWII was 150%.

Tories’ ‘kitchen economics’ will cool the economy at the wrong time slowly raising unemployment and putting relatively sound businesses to the wall whose order books were not too bad but couldn’t secure the a decent line of credit or couldn’t get a slice of govt contracts. The only fat cats will be the Tory grandees stroking their legacy of securing Small Govt at the price of your child’s education.

AS opposed to Labours fat cats gatting rich out of moving goalposts.

The tories will be not much better, but this government is morally and pschologically corrupt and they have bankrupt the country.

You may take the piss out of Maggies kitchen economics all you want but it was those policies which enabled Brown to go on his spending spree.