• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

superblue24

Director
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,538
Location
Ipswich
*yawn*

Knew it wouldn't be long before you piped up with this one. Kudos for restraining yourself from using yet another tiresome Guardian link....
 

Neil_F

Coach
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
849
Location
Islington
It's always nice to be proved right.:winking:

One of the major problems with economics is the difficulty in applying controls; how do we know what would have happened if we had chosen another course?

That aside, if we had followed the course advocated by the like of Barna - borrow more money and spend it on anything, even digging holes and then filling them - the UK would have suffered a sovereign default, interest rates would have risen, deflation would have taken a grip, mortgage defaults would have rocketed and GDP would have been about 30% lower than it is.

It is an odd victory you claim...
 

Tangled up in Blue

Certified Senior Citizen⭐
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
33,216
Location
Sant Cugat del Vallès

dloman

Manager
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,373
As previous posters have said wait for Q1 , i would have a little bet it won't happen.
 

Neil_F

Coach
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
849
Location
Islington
Even the IMF can see that Osborne's strategy has failed.Why can't you?

I do wonder sometimes how much of a post you read before deciding to reply with a link from the guardian.

The strategy has clearly failed to meet the projected forecasts. We have discussed before my thoughts on the limits of growth forecasts but let's not go over that again. I do not disagree, nor can anyone, that actual GDP performance is lower than the forecast based on the fiscal strategy.

My point is that alternative strategies may not have faired any better. You are of the opinion that borrowing more money is a risk free assured path back to trend growth. I think you are wrong.

I have always said that the pace of fiscal consolidation is about right. Osborne's plan differed by 2% originally from Darling's (did you agree with the Darling plan, Barna?). Osborne then lengthened the period such that it was less ambitious than Darling's.

Whilst I agreed with the general pace I have always disagreed with some of the actual spending decisions. I would have cut taxes (either an aggressive tax cut for the lowest paid or eliminating corporation tax entirely) to be funded through more revenue spending cuts. Some of the things that are protected (aid spending, pensioner benefits, the NHS) I would have cut.

There is no evidence to suggest that borrowing more money would work. We are at the point now where every pound borrowed adds less than 10p to GDP and the interest owed on that pound just about equals what the government recovers in taxes from the extra GDP. In other words, the extra growth just about funds the extra borrowing. That trend has been heading down for some time and will soon turn negative.

You can argue that spending has been poorly directed and I would agree. Spending on infastructure that adds capacity or improves productivity will improve medium run GDP. We've discussed this before and my position is that it is a great idea but there are no such projects. Name me a major infastructure project that could be started in 3 months? It is so difficult to develop infastructure due to the burden of regulation.

You won't have read this far, Barna. No doubt you've already produced a guardian link to the thoughts of Ed Balls, but just in case, it is always worth considering the path not taken before complaining about the one you did follow.
 

superblue24

Director
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,538
Location
Ipswich
It's always nice to be proved right.:winking:

What exactly have you been proven "right" on?

You're insinuating that the Tories being in power has caused the financial dip and that having Labour still in power we'd be in a better situation.

Why don't you go back and read what Neil had to say in his second paragraph instead of completely disregarding a completely valid argument.

Or perhaps you'd rather change the subject again.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
15,089
Location
Rayleigh
How anyone can feel smug in this situation is just beyond me - I genuinely cannot get my head around it. As for being right, there is no guarantee that any other course of action would have been more or less 'successful'. All we do know for sure is that the previous lot served up a pretty nasty **** sandwich for us all, and it's no surprise that we can still taste it now and for the foreseeable future.
 

EastStandBlue

Life President
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
15,490
Neil's systematic and concise put-downs of Barna are a thing of beauty. If SZ really does need to fill its own budget deficit, I'd thoroughly recommend compiling them and flogging the resulting book online.
 
Top