A New Political Movement or Uprising?

[Webbo]

48 minutes ago, toddybad said:

5th richest country in the world. Spending nowhere near as much on health, education or housing as others. But yet to do so will apparently bankrupt the country. 

We're running a £50 billion a year deficit, if we're not spending it on health, education and housing, we;re spending it on something else. What are the figures on welfare?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're running a £50 billion a year deficit, if we're not spending it on health, education and housing, we;re spending it on something else. What are the figures on welfare?

They call it social protection in the eu. We're in the pack again...you'll notice the majority of it is state pension payments

 

[Guest]

Surely seeing these figures makes you question the fundamentals of your arguments? Our expenditure clearly isn't going on the people of this country. 

 

Particularly thracian as, far from it being the young and feckless on whom we spend our welfare budget - the majority goes to his generation 

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Surely seeing these figures makes you question the fundamentals of your arguments? Our expenditure clearly isn't going on the people of this country. 

 

Particularly thracian as, far from it being the young and feckless on whom we spend our welfare budget - the majority goes to his generation 

Whether It's pension or not it's still got to be paid. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Whether It's pension or not it's still got to be paid. 

Yeah but the old vote Tory en masse, so he'd rather they get nothing. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Whether It's pension or not it's still got to be paid. 

You're ignoring the point of these graphs - our expenditure of core public services is pretty mediocre. I'll add that we are just above average in terms of the cost of our debt repayments. The money clearly should be available but is being wasted in other areas - our military spend is ridiculously high, for example.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

You're ignoring the point of these graphs - our expenditure of core public services is pretty mediocre. I'll add that we are just above average in terms of the cost of our debt repayments. The money clearly should be available but is being wasted in other areas - our military spend is ridiculously high, for example.

We spend about 2% of our GDP on defence that is required as being part of NATO.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We spend about 2% of our GDP on defence that is required as being part of NATO.

True, but it is higher than other nato members in the eu. 

 

You're still ignoring my central point, we're a very rich country but yet we spend less by gdp than many of our neighbouring countries on core public services. At a time when our public services are falling apart are you really so determined to support one party that you can't see something isn't right.

 

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

True, but it is higher than other nato members in the eu. 

 

You're still ignoring my central point, we're a very rich country but yet we spend less by gdp than many of our neighbouring countries. At a time when our public services are falling apart are you really so determined to support one party that you can't see something isn't right.

 

You're ignoring my point. We're already spending £50 billion more a year than we're taking in. We spend more than twice as much in interest payments than we do on defence and you want to increase that debt even further.

[Thracian]

6 hours ago, davieG said:

.....and the old get chastised for living beyond 65 in house that has gone up through no fault of their own. 

 

It's the politicians and media lauding over and welcoming higher house prices not the oldies. I've never understood this obsession with how good it is that house prices keep going up it's certainly no benefit to me and only comes something when I die, I've not planned for it to be a legacy for my kids but I really don't see why it should be used against me when I've made many sacrifices in the first place to get hold of it.

 

Can't remember agreeing more wholeheartedly with any post on here. . 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're ignoring my point. We're already spending £50 billion more a year than we're taking in. We spend more than twice as much in interest payments than we do on defence and you want to increase that debt even further.

But this completely ignores that the only way to decrease the gdp% spent on debt is to increase aggregate demand. One way of doing this is for the government to spend more. Yes this may increase this deficit more in the short term but will enable increased growth reducing the deficit and also the proportionate size of the overall debt.

[Nalis]

Sadiq Khan on Grenfell Tower Fire:

 

Its the current government's fault.

Its the local council fault (a council in Greater london)

 

Basically everyone is at fault except him and his office.

 

I voted for him and Labour but his arrogance is wearing a bit thin.

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But this completely ignores that the only way to decrease the gdp% spent on debt is to increase aggregate demand. One way of doing this is for the government to spend more. Yes this may increase this deficit more in the short term but will enable increased growth reducing the deficit and also the proportionate size of the overall debt.

But it's increased demand based on govt spending, funded by debt. If you ignore the fact that increasing the deficit while we have decent growth and low unemployment will only cause inflation. Pumping in an extra £50 billion a year into the economy, which I believe is Labour's plan, will need to create £50 billion's worth of growth just to break even. How much of that money will leave the country? Spent on foreign made goods, sent abroad?If we don't break even, which I don't believe it will , we'll have even more interest to pay the following year.

[LiberalFox]

If you think of Leicester City, we wasted about £100million on getting in Sven and signing the wrong players for more than they were worth. We got a better and more prudent manager in (Pearson) but none the less spent more money and managed to put together a decent team which won the league. We've now won the Premier League and gone quite far in Europe and as a result the club has been making relatively large profits.

 

 

[Strokes]

Just now, LiberalFox said:

If you think of Leicester City, we wasted about £100million on getting in Sven and signing the wrong players for more than they were worth. We got a better and more prudent manager in (Pearson) but none the less spent more money and managed to put together a decent team which won the league. We've now won the Premier League and gone quite far in Europe and as a result the club has been making relatively large profits.

 

 

And on the other hand you QPR and Portsmouth. 

[Strokes]

No model is without its flaws and most people's beliefs lie in ideology rather than logic. We ignore the flaws in our own way and fixate on the flaws of our adversaries. The best way lies probably somewhere in the middle and we seem to historically have our best growth a couple of years after a change of government. Maybe it's time for that change. Whoever is going to handle this brexit bomb could well be out of government for a long time after, it might be right to loosen the purse strings to encourage growth for this period. 

[LiberalFox]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No model is without its flaws and most people's beliefs lie in ideology rather than logic. We ignore the flaws in our own way and fixate on the flaws of our adversaries. The best way lies probably somewhere in the middle and we seem to historically have our best growth a couple of years after a change of government. Maybe it's time for that change. Whoever is going to handle this brexit bomb could well be out of government for a long time after, it might be right to loosen the purse strings to encourage growth for this period. 

What are your views on Brexit now? I think you were quite passionate about leave? 

[Thracian]

46 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Surely seeing these figures makes you question the fundamentals of your arguments? Our expenditure clearly isn't going on the people of this country. 

 

Particularly thracian as, far from it being the young and feckless on whom we spend our welfare budget - the majority goes to his generation 

Have I commented on the welfare budget? Or called anyone "feckless"?

 

As for the "welfare budget" you mention my mother she's 94, lives alone and is as independent as I am.

 

Welfare?  Yes, she gets some minor benefits that have to be paid for but not nearly what she gives back. .

 

Instead, having worked all her life and lived sparingly,  this supposedly welfare-draining old lady you seem to envy or begrudge so much spends her money on the younger generations - her children and grandchildren - plus all sorts of deserving, mainly local, causes .  

.    

It's what gives a lot of old people pleasure when their lives are coming to an end.

 

Not the value of their house or some smug feeling that they're somehow better than the youngsters they'd actually give anything to join on a fun run or a game of tennis rather than sitting forlornly wondering about the progress of their crippling arthritis       

  

One day you'll perhaps understand. And appreciate the value of the elderly which is actually expressed in countless ways that are not necessarily noticed.    

 

[Thracian]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Sadiq Khan on Grenfell Tower Fire:

 

Its the current government's fault.

Its the local council fault (a council in Greater london)

 

Basically everyone is at fault except him and his office.

 

I voted for him and Labour but his arrogance is wearing a bit thin.

We all make mistakes.  

[josh_baskin]

On 17/06/2017 at 10:12, ozleicester said:

Unemployment rate 3.5 % in early 1970s

Unemployment rate 7.0% end of the 80's  (following the beginning of Thatcher "trickle down")

Currently its still double what it was in the 70s

 

The rich are paying less than ever

 

Corporate tax in 1970 - 40%

Corporate tax in 2017 - 19%

 

Why on earth doesnt the UK have enough money?... oh wait its the dole bludgers and immigrants

And that's just the few that haven't established offshore subsidiaries.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Thracian said:

Have I commented on the welfare budget? Or called anyone "feckless"?

 

As for the "welfare budget" you mention my mother she's 94, lives alone and is as independent as I am.

 

Welfare?  Yes, she gets some minor benefits that have to be paid for but not nearly what she gives back. .

 

Instead, having worked all her life and lived sparingly,  this supposedly welfare-draining old lady you seem to envy or begrudge so much spends her money on the younger generations - her children and grandchildren - plus all sorts of deserving, mainly local, causes .  

.    

It's what gives a lot of old people pleasure when their lives are coming to an end.

 

Not the value of their house or some smug feeling that they're somehow better than the youngsters they'd actually give anything to join on a fun run or a game of tennis rather than sitting forlornly wondering about the progress of their crippling arthritis       

  

One day you'll perhaps understand. And appreciate the value of the elderly which is actually expressed in countless ways that are not necessarily noticed.    

 

You're reading what I'm saying wrong. I'm not criticising anybody for receiving their pension. I'm just pointing out that you spent pages complaining about layabout wasters getting benefits but out of work benefits are a tiny proportion of the welfare bill.

 

I am critical of the system that has allowed rampant buy to let. I am critical of a system that hasn't allowed councils to build new houses when right to buy decimated housing stocks - selling the houses wasn't the problem, not building more was.

 

You were the one that made a series of judgements about younger generations and i have simply showed the hypocrisy of your opinions. The only thing i criticise the tory voting older generation for is not recognising the huge disparity between the generations in terms of wealth and opportunity and voting to do someting about it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

But it's increased demand based on govt spending, funded by debt. If you ignore the fact that increasing the deficit while we have decent growth and low unemployment will only cause inflation. Pumping in an extra £50 billion a year into the economy, which I believe is Labour's plan, will need to create £50 billion's worth of growth just to break even. How much of that money will leave the country? Spent on foreign made goods, sent abroad?If we don't break even, which I don't believe it will , we'll have even more interest to pay the following year.

This is not how the economy - or money - works. They are genuinally entirely different to what people imagine - including most of our politicians.

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/the-production-of-money-ann-pettifors-lse-lecture

 

Selected quotes:

 

"There is no such thing as debt-free money, or if there is, it is very likely something quite different – a grant or a gift."

 

 

"In a developed monetary system, all money is based on a system of claims: assets and liabilities backed up by collateral. 

All money is a claim on another – an obligation to be reciprocated – or a debt. 

The Italian economist Andrea Terzi has it right: in a monetary economy saving is different from the business of building up a surplus of corn, and then lending it on. The corn can be saved without it ever affecting others. Only if you decide to lend it will you establish a relationship with others. 

However, saving in an economy based on money always ‘affects others’ because it is always an act that sets up a financial relationship with others: a claim. Terzi again: 

'In a monetary economy, saving is not a real quantity that anyone can independently own, like corn or gold or a collection of rare stamps. In a monetary economy, as opposed to a non-monetary economy, saving is an act that [establishes a relationship with others] … in the form of a financial claim.'

Given this, it is the case that if savings in an economy are to expand, then it will be necessary for debt to expand too. 

That is what orthodox economists find so difficult to grasp as they battle to cut government debt, in the vain hope of accumulating savings. 

That is the very reverse of what they should do: for savings to expand, then it will be necessary for debt (either private or public) to expand too. 

Savings need to be funded, and if the money supply has shrunk, because the private sector has lost confidence, then the best way to fund savings would be for governments or private banks to issue new debt. 

Don’t hold your breath. These are difficult concepts for our politicians to grasp, and so dear friends, austerity is with us for a little longer. 

At a time of economic failure or slump, when unemployment rises, incomes and tax revenues fall – that is the time for the government to increase both private economic activity and savings in the economy, by issuing debt. 

So debt is vital to the monetary system, and to the health of the economy."

[Strokes]

45 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

What are your views on Brexit now? I think you were quite passionate about leave? 

Oh I still am, however I've no confidence in Theresa May. I just Hope David Davis plays a key role in the negotiations because despite not liking the EU, it would still be better to have a FTA with them. Although I'm certain brexit will prove right in the long term (I'm not talking economics), I think it's important, that it isn't dreadful to begin with (which it could be). I didn't expect it to divide the country quite so viciously as it has, naively I thought the opposite would be more likely.

I do think the more vocal remainers, would be more appeased if Labour/Corbyn delivered the brexit, and if he is committed to leaving the single market, I could vote for that (as it could be best for the country at that time). Like I said earlier it's a bit of a crossroads, both paths look troublesome  

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is not how the economy - or money - works. They are genuinally entirely different to what people imagine - including most of our politicians.

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/the-production-of-money-ann-pettifors-lse-lecture

 

Selected quotes:

 

"There is no such thing as debt-free money, or if there is, it is very likely something quite different – a grant or a gift."

 

 

"In a developed monetary system, all money is based on a system of claims: assets and liabilities backed up by collateral. 

All money is a claim on another – an obligation to be reciprocated – or a debt. 

The Italian economist Andrea Terzi has it right: in a monetary economy saving is different from the business of building up a surplus of corn, and then lending it on. The corn can be saved without it ever affecting others. Only if you decide to lend it will you establish a relationship with others. 

However, saving in an economy based on money always ‘affects others’ because it is always an act that sets up a financial relationship with others: a claim. Terzi again: 

'In a monetary economy, saving is not a real quantity that anyone can independently own, like corn or gold or a collection of rare stamps. In a monetary economy, as opposed to a non-monetary economy, saving is an act that [establishes a relationship with others] … in the form of a financial claim.'

Given this, it is the case that if savings in an economy are to expand, then it will be necessary for debt to expand too. 

That is what orthodox economists find so difficult to grasp as they battle to cut government debt, in the vain hope of accumulating savings. 

That is the very reverse of what they should do: for savings to expand, then it will be necessary for debt (either private or public) to expand too. 

Savings need to be funded, and if the money supply has shrunk, because the private sector has lost confidence, then the best way to fund savings would be for governments or private banks to issue new debt. 

Don’t hold your breath. These are difficult concepts for our politicians to grasp, and so dear friends, austerity is with us for a little longer. 

At a time of economic failure or slump, when unemployment rises, incomes and tax revenues fall – that is the time for the government to increase both private economic activity and savings in the economy, by issuing debt. 

So debt is vital to the monetary system, and to the health of the economy."

Not going great for Greece.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not going great for Greece.

That's the best you can come up with? I've given you a lengthy lse endorsed essay about the reality of money and you come back with a remark based on what's in your head rather than what is real.

 

So far today I've given you a raft of evidence and all you have in return is your opinion.