Cameron Is A Buffoon!

#1
Most economists understand the need to keep spending as this encourages growth. Cameron's plan of making cuts in all areas will deter investment, cause mass unemployment and ruin the fragile economy. I'd rather have quality of life now and live with a massive deficit than have to endure years of penny pinching under investment. Bearing in mind that any savings will be mismanaged anyway and given away in aid to the likes of Pakistan.
 
#2
Bollox
There isn't anymore money to spend, even Darling and Brown knew that before the election.
When there is no more money in the pot you can't spend it.
 
#3
Economists? People who can guess the result of something to seven decimal places? A profession whereby if you get four economists in a room and ask for their opinions you get five answers?
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
Most economists understand the need to keep spending as this encourages growth. Cameron's plan of making cuts in all areas will deter investment, cause mass unemployment and ruin the fragile economy. I'd rather have quality of life now and live with a massive deficit than have to endure years of penny pinching under investment. Bearing in mind that any savings will be mismanaged anyway and given away in aid to the likes of Pakistan.
Some of them believe it to be the case. Given that nobody has ever produced a watertight econimic theory its hard to say that hes wrong. Nobody has solved the problem of what happens to the markets when it transpires that countries can no longer service their sovreign debt (as very nearly happend in the Euro zone). Also, at what stage in this artificial growth do you make the even larger cuts that need to happen?
 
#7
One reason we have a lack of money to spend is Brown. He is the one who sold of a huge chunk of our gold reserves but announcing it before hand causing the price to crash.

And your quality of life now but with massive debt will lead to huge problems in the future as it is unsustainable. We have to repay it eventually, better now when it wont hurt much rather than later when it could break us.
 
#9
Bollox
There isn't anymore money to spend, even Darling and Brown knew that before the election.
When there is no more money in the pot you can't spend it.
You didn't quite get the ideas behind quantitative easing at all, did you?

Yes I do. I just don't believe it is wise.
Printing money to piss away on shite we don't need (ID cards etc etc) is not the answer to the financial mess the UK is in. Cutting spending to a level that matches income is the only reasonable course of action and I am pleased to see it happening.
Quantative easing is a euphamism for financial lunacy.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Blah blah shite and blah!

Next time I max out my credit card and the bailiffs are knocking, I'll just tell them that I'm in the process of spending my way out of the shit. I'm sure they'll understand.

I'd personally much rather that the economy is based more on reality than lies and spin for a change. Reality being - let's pay off sufficient loans so that we haven't got £35,000,000,000 to find per year simply to cover the interest, let alone the principle of the national debt. Once we've got that horse back in the stable, well, fuck my old boots, we've got £35,000,000,000 more to spend every year than we did before!!
 
#11
Yes I do. I just don't believe it is wise.
Printing money to piss away on shite we don't need (ID cards etc etc) is not the answer to the financial mess the UK is in. Cutting spending to a level that matches income is the only reasonable course of action and I am pleased to see it happening.
Quantative easing is a euphamism for financial lunacy.
You would appear to subscribe to a non-Keynesian economic model. You should appreciate that economics is not a clear cut thing, and like Cuddles said, ask four economists for an opinion, and you'll get five different answers.

And biped, I'm sure you understand that what works for macro-economics differs from that of individuals.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
You would appear to subscribe to a non-Keynesian economic model. You should appreciate that economics is not a clear cut thing, and like Cuddles said, ask four economists for an opinion, and you'll get five different answers.

And biped, I'm sure you understand that what works for macro-economics differs from that of individuals.
Indeed I do. However, micro or macro, giving 35,000,000,000 of taxed funds to coporate and national lenders each year in debt interest is bad for tax payers. It's not as good as holding that £35,000,000,000 and then spending it directly on government service provision.
 
#14
Most economists understand the need to keep spending as this encourages growth. Cameron's plan of making cuts in all areas will deter investment, cause mass unemployment and ruin the fragile economy. I'd rather have quality of life now and live with a massive deficit than have to endure years of penny pinching under investment. Bearing in mind that any savings will be mismanaged anyway and given away in aid to the likes of Pakistan.
Three things you obviously do not understand: a) The government is not the economy - in most cases they are mutually exclusive. And b) All money that the government takes out of the economy by way of taxes immediately stops being profitable in two ways 1: The taxed person cannot spend it and 2: It cannot be invested in the sense of delivering a return on investment.
Third: The governments deficit is MASSIVELY expensive since it is in essence a loan. The government has to pay interest on that loan. A lot of interest. Since the government cannot use -here we go again- use its profits to pay off the loan it has to increase taxes to do so.

The quicker the government stops overspending and gets rid of the debts the more money the citizens will have left, because the government won't have to tax so much.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
#17
You would appear to subscribe to a non-Keynesian economic model. You should appreciate that economics is not a clear cut thing, and like Cuddles said, ask four economists for an opinion, and you'll get five different answers.

And biped, I'm sure you understand that what works for macro-economics differs from that of individuals.
The problem is that no economic policy is effective unless it is pursued long term.

Keynesian theory is that government spending should be counter cyclical, i.e. cut spending when the economy is doing well and increase it when the economy is doing badly.

If Gordon had followed this, he would have been cutting government spending for the entire time he was chancellor. Hence, the productive part of the economy would now be in much better shape and the government would have large reserves to fund a temporary deficit.

In fact the moron increased spending so much that he had to increase taxes and borrowing. With the result that the productive part of the economy was almost destroyed and the government has huge debts and no reserve.
 

udipur

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
John Maynard Keynes has had more mentions in the press in the past six months than any economist since Adam Smith. Since Cameron's team are firmly in Milton Friedman's camp, I am surprised that he's the one that hasn't really been referenced.

Cameron is no buffoon, he's a politician. Not an economist and not a businessman. He knows about the deals and the compromises and the power games. What he doesn't appreciate first hand is the impact of his policies. He also shares the stage with some economic lightweights (Merkel, Sarkozy, Obama, to name but a few) and they tend to stick together as it appears easier to paint with the same brush.

If you look at the balance sheet model of recession, we are in for a whole heap of poo. If you look at the debt restructuring model, we are in for an equal amount of poo. However, if you look at the public finance model you will see a whole heap of equally brown and smelly stuff. You could look at them all from the other side and feel warm and fuzzy.

There is no true theory that has ever been proved right in economics. The emperor will get his new clothes, hindsight will make us all wise and life will go on. Truth is, you have to vote with your feet and if you see an opportunity in the pain of the recession then leap and surf the rising tide. If you haven't the plums, put a cork in it and go back to your cubicle.
 
#19
It would also help if the banks started lending again, they have gone into full reverse, even if you or a company have a gold plated credit rating. Getting a loan/overdraft, now involves interviews less pleasant than a chat with the SS, and they'll still probably say no.

On hearing a Business bank manager saying, he'd seen many a good company go to the wall because they wouldn't extend their line of credit, is not what you want hear.

Banks and Businesses create growth, not the government, the government can only tinker with the investment appeal of the country.
 
#20
Another non-Keynesian who thinks that those who disagree with him are stupid.
That's the pot calling the kettle black, that is! Government budgetting in the late '70-ies and early '80-ies have shown that the Keynesian method of countercyclic spending on the macro-economic model doesn't work. Later experience has shown that the recovery of the economies in North Western Europe in the 1980's was due to the rise of a strong service economy. NOT due to the financing of dying heavy industry by the government.

The fact that I do not agree with the Keynesian model doesn't mean I think people who subscribe to that model and the often accompanying Social Democrat political agenda are stupid. They're just easily misled!
The government (and most lefties) should lose the illusion that something as complicated and fluent as a society and the accompanying economy can be either reshaped or steered. I think that will do us all a lot of good.
 

Similar threads

Top