Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Conservatives CnutsFollow

#1 Oct 09 2009 at 1:56 AM Rating: Good
The Tory Party, our future Overlords, have finally ended their annual Party Conference, where they announced they would impose all sorts of cuts on public spending in order to reduce the national debt. Examples of some of these "cuts" include freezing all public sector pay for one year, reducing defense spending by 25%, and attempting to cut back on public sector pensions.

Their premise is that Britain is broke, burdened by debt, and that we will have to face a decade of savage and brutal cuts on all sector of the economy. Especially the ones that affect the poor, although this is presumably just an unfortunate coincidence. This is pretty much the received wisdom of all 3 main parties in the UK.

I looked into this debt thing, and britain is not really worse off than the US. Or its European partners, like France and Germany. So why all the hysteria? Is the same kind of debate going on in the US?

I also stumbled upon this article, which I thought was quite good:

Quote:
We thought the fever of this autumn was going to be swine flu, but we were wrong. It has turned out to be National Debt Hysteria. Our entire political class has taken to their beds with this fever, crying for nurse to bring cuts, cuts, cuts. The symptoms are simple: the sufferer becomes convinced that debt levels lower than almost all other wealthy nations, and lower than almost all of modern British history, are "a disaster", and so we must immediately slash our spending. They keep up this wail even though the most qualified doctors, like the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Economics, Professor Paul Krugman, stand by their beds and tell them this will bring our real sickness, the recession, back with a vengeance.

The hysteria will reach a Cameroonian crescendo today when the Tory leader delivers his party conference speech promising Austerity For All. (Except for millionaires like himself, of course, who will receive a massive inheritance tax cut.) So let's calmly study the patient – and see how this National Debt Hysteria is going to do us far more harm that the real national debt ever could.

Let's start with a few facts that have been forgotten. Britain went into this recession with one of the lowest debt levels in the developed world. According to the International Monetary Fund, Japan's debt in 2008 was 198 per cent of national GDP, Italy's was 104 per cent, Germany's was 76 per cent, France's was 65 per cent, the US's was 61 per cent, and Britain's was 43 per cent. All countries have rapidly increased borrowing during this recession – for very good reasons we'll get to in a second – and Britain has nudged closer to the middle of the league table. But to claim, as Cameron does, that Gordon Brown had "racked up debts in the good times" so we "can't afford more" is simply untrue.


I don't know about you, but it seems to me as though the next 4-8 years in the UK are going to be unnecessarily harsh. Especially on poor people, but also on society in general. It's almost like, dare I say it, a return to the Thatcher years...

Thoughts?

Edit: not in the title, thanks.

Edited, Oct 11th 2009 10:33am by Darqflame
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#2 Oct 09 2009 at 2:14 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
It ain't Thatcherite if it ain't breaking to death the unions and hospitals too.

As for Australia, we're doing too well. Our Reserve bank just put interest rates up, to contain inflation.
#3 Oct 09 2009 at 2:16 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
For the first time, in a long time, I'm completely at odds as to where to vote in the up-coming general election.

I heard snippets from Cameron's speech on 5 Live on the way home and to be honest, aside from the obvious risk taking by disenfranchising 130,000+ public sector workers, he really has nowhere else to go with the national debt.

GB's view that we need to invest in our economy to get ourselves out of recession is a tough one to swallow too. Who's right and who's wrong?

Liberal Democrats anyone?
#4 Oct 09 2009 at 2:25 AM Rating: Good
Goggy wrote:
Liberal Democrats anyone?


That's who I would vote for if I could.

Without any great enthusiasm, though.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#5 Oct 09 2009 at 3:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You know, I look around the world, and I honestly believe we have the best dipshit out of any of us.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Oct 09 2009 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
Wait, Labour wants cuts too? Last I heard (Brown's speech at the labour conference) they were advocating increased taxation and spending and the lib dems were promising the harshest cuts of all.

Honestly, it's just so fucking retarded. I hate this country so much sometimes.
#7 Oct 09 2009 at 5:54 AM Rating: Good
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Wait, Labour wants cuts too? Last I heard (Brown's speech at the labour conference) they were advocating increased taxation and spending and the lib dems were promising the harshest cuts of all.


Yes, but Brown is the good cop.

Quote:
Honestly, it's just so fucking retarded. I hate this country so much sometimes.


Yeah, me too.

The flipside to this point of view, of course, is Helen Mirren's breasts.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#8 Oct 10 2009 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I heard about the notorious Caligula a long time ago, and decided I didn't need to see it. I just found out recently that Helen Mirren was in it. Several Google Images later for my Helen Mirren collection, I'm considering hunting it down.
#9 Oct 10 2009 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I heard about the notorious Caligula a long time ago, and decided I didn't need to see it. I just found out recently that Helen Mirren was in it. Several Google Images later for my Helen Mirren collection, I'm considering hunting it down.


The still only mildly hot lady?
#10 Oct 10 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,971 posts
Make sure to get the non-edited version for maximum......stuff.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#11 Oct 10 2009 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I think I've got a video clip of the good scenes of Caligula in my **** folder.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Oct 10 2009 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I heard about the notorious Caligula a long time ago, and decided I didn't need to see it. I just found out recently that Helen Mirren was in it. Several Google Images later for my Helen Mirren collection, I'm considering hunting it down.


I don't want to resurrect the topic, but the plot of Caligula goes like this.

1. *******.
2. Beheadings.
3. *******.
3. Beheadings.
4. HELEN MIRREN TOPLESS
5. Beheadings.
6. fin.
#13 Oct 10 2009 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Nobody will be happy about it. I can't imagine any situation where people will be happy about public spending cuts.
#14 Oct 11 2009 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
McGame wrote:
Nobody will be happy about it. I can't imagine any situation where people will be happy about public spending cuts.


Well yes, but that's hardly the point. The point is that we're bring told (mostly by the Tories) we're deep in deficit ****, that there is no choice but to undertake gigantic cuts in public services, and lay-off people and cut state spending, etc...

When in fact, the UK's level of debt is not that high compared to other EU countries, or even to the UK's historical level of debt. The linked article also goes on to state that the "remedy" to this high level of debt, cuts in public spending and public sector, might actually make the disease even worse. Which is interesting because it is an argument we very rarely hear in the UK.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#15 Oct 11 2009 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
People en masse are not very bright and are easily buffaloed. This isn't new.

It's the politics of fear, just turned around to be about the economy.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Oct 12 2009 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I heard about the notorious Caligula a long time ago, and decided I didn't need to see it. I just found out recently that Helen Mirren was in it. Several Google Images later for my Helen Mirren collection, I'm considering hunting it down.


Oddly enough, they had the new blu-ray special edition for sale at Fry's. Kinda surprised me...



As to the OP? Why is cutting spending somehow a strange response to a deficit problem? It would seem to be the first and most obvious way to address the issue. If your family spends more than you earn, what should you do? Borrow money on your credit card? Or find ways to spend less money?


Most sane people will agree that the second option is the responsible way to go. And yeah, it'll mean that some niceties are lost. But that's because you really couldn't afford them in the first place. Crying about it is kinda childish IMO...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17REDACTED, Posted: Oct 12 2009 at 2:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#18 Oct 12 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,

Quote:
People en masse are not very bright and are easily buffaloed. This isn't new.

It's the politics of fear, just turned around to be about the economy.


And this is why Obama was elected.

and Bush before that

and Bush before that

and Clinton before that

and Bush before that


I'll never understand why you think that stupid people voting is new to the last election.
#19 Oct 12 2009 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I'll never understand why you think that stupid people voting is new to the last election.


Sure, but can we agree that the proposed action is kinda relevant? We can go back and forth about who got elected when and for what reasons, but at the end of the day the proposed idea of "spend less" by us crazy conservatives, while put forth out of a "fear" of horrific economic consequences, is still a very rational and reasonable solution to the problem at hand.


To put this concept into focus (using a US example), has health coverage as a percentage of US workers gone down, stayed the same, or increased over the last 20 years? Do you even know the answer? If the answers are anything but "gone down" and "yes", then what is the source of the sudden critical nature of the health care "crisis"? Isn't this really a case of creating fear over something that isn't new and hasn't changed?

Meanwhile, we can absolutely look at economic factors and show how spending is far outstripping revenue. This is a relatively new thing, made dramatically worse over the last year or so. That is a real crisis. It's always interesting to me that the Left is perfectly ok with telling people they'll have to sacrifice in order to pay for better health care, or greener power, or whatever social improvement they want, but it's somehow an impossible demand to suggest that we should sacrifice anything at all to avoid economic disaster. Nope. That's just too much to ask I suppose...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Oct 12 2009 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I heard about the notorious Caligula a long time ago, and decided I didn't need to see it. I just found out recently that Helen Mirren was in it. Several Google Images later for my Helen Mirren collection, I'm considering hunting it down.


Oddly enough, they had the new blu-ray special edition for sale at Fry's. Kinda surprised me...

As to the OP? Why is cutting spending somehow a strange response to a deficit problem? It would seem to be the first and most obvious way to address the issue. If your family spends more than you earn, what should you do? Borrow money on your credit card? Or find ways to spend less money?

Most sane people will agree that the second option is the responsible way to go. And yeah, it'll mean that some niceties are lost. But that's because you really couldn't afford them in the first place. Crying about it is kinda childish IMO...


Has it ever occurred to you that the finances of a single household should not be run in the same way as those of an entire nation?
#21 Oct 12 2009 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that the finances of a single household should not be run in the same way as those of an entire nation?


Of course. But the core components and their relationship to each other remains the same:

1. Revenue

2. Spending

3. Deficit/Surplus


Revenue - Spending = Surplus (negative surplus is deficit).


It's a very simple equation. The same math applies whether we're talking about your finances, or the government's. If you run a deficit, you can borrow money to cover it, but you have to pay interest on it. Just like the government does. No real difference. Spending is spending. It's the same as well.


The biggest difference is that for you to increase your revenue, you typically have to increase the amount of production you do for others (ie: increase the total value or quantity of your labor). When the government increases its revenue it subtracts productivity from the economy as a whole. We don't pay more to the government because the government offered a service for sale and we thought it was a sufficient value to justify buying it. We pay more because the government raised taxes in some way. Period. And that money comes out of the productive output we generated.


It's dumb to equate revenue mechanics between private citizens and the government, but that only reinforces my position. If you have to choose between increasing revenue, decreasing spending, or increasing deficit (leading to increased debt), you should choose to decrease spending. As I've argued in the past, a small amount of deficit is acceptable (just as a small amount charged on credit), but when those may become unmanageable, you should make a responsible choice. And that choice should *always* be to decrease spending.

The alternative is raising taxes (increasing revenue) which would be a huge mistake. It's a bad idea even in good economic times, it's a horrible idea when the economy is teetering on the brink already.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 12 2009 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
It's dumb to equate revenue mechanics between private citizens and the government, but that only reinforces my position. If you have to choose between increasing revenue, decreasing spending, or increasing deficit (leading to increased debt), you should choose to decrease spending. As I've argued in the past, a small amount of deficit is acceptable (just as a small amount charged on credit), but when those may become unmanageable, you should make a responsible choice. And that choice should *always* be to decrease spending.


Do you actually read the things you write?
#23 Oct 12 2009 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
It's dumb to equate revenue mechanics between private citizens and the government, but that only reinforces my position. If you have to choose between increasing revenue, decreasing spending, or increasing deficit (leading to increased debt), you should choose to decrease spending. As I've argued in the past, a small amount of deficit is acceptable (just as a small amount charged on credit), but when those may become unmanageable, you should make a responsible choice. And that choice should *always* be to decrease spending.


Do you actually read the things you write?


Yes. Did you? I'm not sure what about that paragraph you have an issue with.

The "dumb" aspect of revenue mechanics is to make the mistake that increasing revenue (which is a good thing when private citizens do it), is just as good of an option when the government does it. The day the government simply provides services and lets us buy what we want (with an option to not buy) and uses that as the only way it makes revenue, you could make an equivalence between the two. But that's not how it works.


Was that too confusing for you? I thought it was fairly clear cut. Government gains revenue via taxes, which is money taken out of the productive output of the economy. People gain revenue via employment and earnings, which is (barring government intervention or loopholes) always as a result of producing an equal or greater amount of productive increase than they're taking in the form of revenue. So while it makes sense in hard economic times to increase your personal revenue by perhaps getting a second job, this concept does *not* translate to government.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Oct 12 2009 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
It's dumb to equate revenue mechanics between private citizens and the government, but that only reinforces my position. If you have to choose between increasing revenue, decreasing spending, or increasing deficit (leading to increased debt), you should choose to decrease spending. As I've argued in the past, a small amount of deficit is acceptable (just as a small amount charged on credit), but when those may become unmanageable, you should make a responsible choice. And that choice should *always* be to decrease spending.


Do you actually read the things you write?


Yes. Did you? I'm not sure what about that paragraph you have an issue with.

The "dumb" aspect of revenue mechanics is to make the mistake that increasing revenue (which is a good thing when private citizens do it), is just as good of an option when the government does it. The day the government simply provides services and lets us buy what we want (with an option to not buy) and uses that as the only way it makes revenue, you could make an equivalence between the two. But that's not how it works.


Was that too confusing for you? I thought it was fairly clear cut. Government gains revenue via taxes, which is money taken out of the productive output of the economy. People gain revenue via employment and earnings, which is (barring government intervention or loopholes) always as a result of producing an equal or greater amount of productive increase than they're taking in the form of revenue. So while it makes sense in hard economic times to increase your personal revenue by perhaps getting a second job, this concept does *not* translate to government.


Your first sentence, which was retarded, had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.
#25 Oct 12 2009 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Your first sentence, which was retarded, had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.


Except to relate the paragraph before it with the content of the paragraph in question. Have you never written an essay before in your life?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Oct 12 2009 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yeah, it'll mean that some niceties are lost. But that's because you really couldn't afford them in the first place. Crying about it is kinda childish IMO...
New China for the Queen is a nicety. Social programs are not.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 681 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (681)