UK austerity facing possiblity of triple-dip recession

[fskimospy]

Links to said GP sites that have these articles on them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/opinion/krugman-hawks-and-hypocrites.html

As John Maynard Keynes said three-quarters of a century ago, “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” But since the deficit scolds have in fact been demanding that we make deficits the priority even when the economy is depressed, they can’t go there.

First one that popped up, the op-ed pages of the nation's most influential newspaper. Took me five seconds. Why don't you use Google yourself?

Oh, another one and in this one it's the very first line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=0

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as F.D.R. was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy — which had been steadily recovering up to that point — into a severe recession. Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.

The #1 proponent of Keynesian economics in America today came right out on the pages of the nation's greatest paper and said straight out that austerity should be imposed once the economy recovers.

 

[BoberFett]

Are you guys clear on what austerity is? I am against a decrease in deficits until the economy has recovered. We've all seen what happens when you try to decrease deficits in a depression, and the results aren't pretty.

I might agree, except that the economy will not recover. Not in the way you expect it to. We have built a house of cards, and it has to contract. That contraction is painful, but when things come crashing down after we continue deficit spending with no end in sight, it will be far worse.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The elephant in the room that few want to discuss and even less attempt to fix.

You mean a continued policy of QE which they have enacted that has put them in this position and has caused stealth inflation to hit most English people as they see a decline in the quality and quantity of goods they can purchase.

Horse meat anyone?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/horsemeat-scandal

As for manufacturing they have steadily seen declines in that industry for good while and the construction sector of their economy was hit hard due to the global credit crisis which hit all major industrialized nations who engaged in stupid shit that aided the banking industries profits and increased stupid levels of risk taking such as pegging artificial interest rates at ridiculously low levels which made getting into debt easier and thus created a false housing boom.

 

[chucky2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/opinion/krugman-hawks-and-hypocrites.html



First one that popped up, the op-ed pages of the nation's most influential newspaper. Took me five seconds. Why don't you use Google yourself?

Oh, another one and in this one it's the very first line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=0



The #1 proponent of Keynesian economics in America today came right out on the pages of the nation's greatest paper and said straight out that austerity should be imposed once the economy recovers.

First, bonus points for finding a partisan hack who has creds. Still a hack, but, at least he's got creds. The entire link drips in left wing jizz, I'm sure you didn't use Google to find it, you probably use it to wack off with. Hell, it even sounds like you.

Second, where are the qualifiers? I'm not wanting links to articles that are advocating Spend Spend Spend!!!, I'm wanting links where it says 'We need to spend in the bad times, cut back in the good. However, here are the 20 qualifiers with that approach...'

I...I seem to be missing those not only from your useless quotes, but also, amazingly, from your links themselves. LOL! You just provided examples that make my point, not yours! :biggrin::thumbsup:

I'll just stop here Spender, I think it's been shown the "logic" you all will use, and the lengths you'll go to getting it pushed. You just made my case for me, from a huge Spender advocate. Ouch...

Chuck

 

[uclaLabrat]

First, bonus points for finding a partisan hack who has creds. Still a hack, but, at least he's got creds. The entire link drips in left wing jizz, I'm sure you didn't use Google to find it, you probably use it to wack off with. Hell, it even sounds like you.

Second, where are the qualifiers? I'm not wanting links to articles that are advocating Spend Spend Spend!!!, I'm wanting links where it says 'We need to spend in the bad times, cut back in the good. However, here are the 20 qualifiers with that approach...'

I...I seem to be missing those not only from your useless quotes, but also, amazingly, from your links themselves. LOL! You just provided examples that make my point, not yours! :biggrin::thumbsup:

I'll just stop here Spender, I think it's been shown the "logic" you all will use, and the lengths you'll go to getting it pushed. You just made my case for me, from a huge Spender advocate. Ouch...

Chuck

Dude, stop, seriously. You're getting owned so hard the mods should make your sig say "yes, massuh!"

 

[chucky2]

Dude, stop, seriously. You're getting owned so hard the mods should make your sig say "yes, massuh!"

Let me guess...another fellow Spender? Amirite?

 

[uclaLabrat]

Let me guess...another fellow Spender? Amirite?

Neither, actually, see I considre myself a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't force his world to be confined by preformed ideologies and then detest something when it doesn't conform to my prejudiced opinions. The evidence that eskimo has presented is pretty overwhelming. You decrying it as "liberal jizz" because it proves you wrong doesn't make your points right or you intelligent.

It makes you a moron.

 

[chucky2]

Neither, actually, see I considre myself a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't force his world to be confined by preformed ideologies and then detest something when it doesn't conform to my prejudiced opinions. The evidence that eskimo has presented is pretty overwhelming. You decrying it as "liberal jizz" because it proves you wrong doesn't make your points right or you intelligent.

It makes you a moron.

No, actually, it makes you a moron for not reading the thread before responding. I've never said I completely disagree with the Spender approach. Making him quoting it meaningless. I certainly don't prefer it, but, if we were actually going to for real cut back as they advocate, I'd seriously consider it.

And hence there is the problem with the Spenders, and my problem with them specifically: They advocate for what he quoted (which was never in doubt as ever having been relayed, which, again, makes your posts here...entertaining to say the least), but they never give the qualifiers for it.

So the General Public dupe who is listening to it, wanting some Uncle Sugar like the rest of the GP, starts nodding their head at the idea, god, it sounds so good!, but, poof!, off the article/talking head goes and just coincidentally, never tells the GP all the little catches with the Spender logic. Amazingly, eski posts links after I ask him for said links, and then proclaims, Ha!, there you go dirty conservative, that proves you wrong! Except, his own links prove me right and him wrong. Hahahaha!

Then you come in here with your posts...too funny man, too funny.. :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

First, bonus points for finding a partisan hack who has creds. Still a hack, but, at least he's got creds. The entire link drips in left wing jizz, I'm sure you didn't use Google to find it, you probably use it to wack off with. Hell, it even sounds like you.

Second, where are the qualifiers? I'm not wanting links to articles that are advocating Spend Spend Spend!!!, I'm wanting links where it says 'We need to spend in the bad times, cut back in the good. However, here are the 20 qualifiers with that approach...'

I...I seem to be missing those not only from your useless quotes, but also, amazingly, from your links themselves. LOL! You just provided examples that make my point, not yours! :biggrin::thumbsup:

I'll just stop here Spender, I think it's been shown the "logic" you all will use, and the lengths you'll go to getting it pushed. You just made my case for me, from a huge Spender advocate. Ouch...

Chuck

It is absolutely no surprise to me that when given what you asked for you simply move the goalposts.

 

[nephilim2k]

One thing all governments could do to recoup a massive amount of money...I wrote my political thesis on this FYI but here is a condensed version.

Raise Corporate tax to 20.5% (would bring in approximately £13billion per year)
Raise VAT (Sales tax) to 20.5% (would bring in approximately £22.9billion per year)
Cut basic welfare allowance from £71 a week to £50 a week (saving around £1.2billion per year)
Raise personal allowances before tax threshold to £12000 per year (or £1000 per month)
Raise tax amounts on PAYE/Self Employed people to the following thresholds. £12000-£41999.99 at 11%. £42000 - £249999.99 at 25%. £250000-£999999.99 at 34%. £1million+ at 40%
Put VAT on HOT FOOD from any establishment.
Cut housing benefit by 10%
Cut council tax benefit by 10%

The totals alone, would recoup around £90billion per year (my figures based on 2002 figures from my thesis), and stacking up to current figures, would be around £110billion (inflation adjusted etc). The thesis itself was looked at by the labour government when they were in power and they deemed it too radical, but look now hey!

 

[chucky2]

It is absolutely no surprise to me that when given what you asked for you simply move the goalposts.

I asked for links, and what I was talking about before asking for those links you said were out there were the total absence of all the qualifiers to the Spender mantra, which you denied, saying They're out there by the hundreds..which, again, prompted my to ask you for those links showing the qualifiers were given to the GP.

You gave me links that regurgitated the Spender mantra, something I never - not once - questioned was done (why would I? The Spender mantra has been repeated a trillion times over by now), but exactly what I claimed, that none of the qualifiers to the Spender mantra, were in your own links. You made my case for me via your own links. Haha.

And now, after having done so, want to claim I moved the goalposts. <AceVentura>All Righty Then!</AceVentura>

Chuck

 

[mwilliams8705]

One thing all governments could do to recoup a massive amount of money...I wrote my political thesis on this FYI but here is a condensed version.

Raise Corporate tax to 20.5% (would bring in approximately £13billion per year)
Raise VAT (Sales tax) to 20.5% (would bring in approximately £22.9billion per year)
Cut basic welfare allowance from £71 a week to £50 a week (saving around £1.2billion per year)
Raise personal allowances before tax threshold to £12000 per year (or £1000 per month)
Raise tax amounts on PAYE/Self Employed people to the following thresholds. £12000-£41999.99 at 11%. £42000 - £249999.99 at 25%. £250000-£999999.99 at 34%. £1million+ at 40%
Put VAT on HOT FOOD from any establishment.
Cut housing benefit by 10%
Cut council tax benefit by 10%

The totals alone, would recoup around £90billion per year (my figures based on 2002 figures from my thesis), and stacking up to current figures, would be around £110billion (inflation adjusted etc). The thesis itself was looked at by the labour government when they were in power and they deemed it too radical, but look now hey!

So your solution to overreaching, inefficient government and it's poor spending is to raise taxes on people?

 

[WelshBloke]

So your solution to overreaching, inefficient government and it's poor spending is to raise taxes on people?

The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes as well as cut spending.

 

[Spungo]

The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes as well as cut spending.

Try explaining this to my dad. He thinks we can simply grow our way out of debt. The scary part is that lots of people agree with him. Democracy will be the death of America.

 

[hal2kilo]

"The problem with pure capitalism is you eventually run out of poor people to step on"

touché!

 

[nephilim2k]

My solution, cuts taxes on lower incomes, raises the tax threshold level, so some families will not pay tax and therefore be better off, it raises taxes on higher incomes, thus helping to balance the books better.

Cutting loopholes for corporations also prevents people paying "shell" taxes. This is a big chunk of money that the government is losing out on. Take Amazon for example, they pay less tax, and the government miss out on around £35mil per year from their tax avoidance. Never mind bigger companies like Google and Apple (who combined are paying less than 3% of what they should be paying).

My plan (in a test simulation environment) works, and works well, the UK government would be out of its current deficit in 7 years, and would have a surplus of close to £200billion in 10 years.

The US would take around 15 years to fix with my plan and would be in a surplus of $200billion by 18 years.

The plan works, and this would also allow people to have more public sector jobs because the public sector could afford it, and the private sector would employ more as spending would be up.

This could work, if it was implemented!

 

[fskimospy]

Try explaining this to my dad. He thinks we can simply grow our way out of debt. The scary part is that lots of people agree with him. Democracy will be the death of America.

I know, what nonsense. It's not like this is how the US has dealt with its debt numerous times in the past or anything.

Oh wait.

 

[Spungo]

I know, what nonsense. It's not like this is how the US has dealt with its debt numerous times in the past or anything.

And when was that? The period after the war when tax rates were extremely high compared to what they are right now? We certainly "grew" our way out of that one. No need to cut spending or anything silly like that.

 

[piasabird]

While all these financial problems were happening Bernanke spent Billions on foreign banks. Meanwhile people in the USA were layed off and their jobs were lost and their houses were foreclosed on. Good Work Communist Federal Government.

 

[Incorruptible]

While all these financial problems were happening Bernanke spent Billions on foreign banks. Meanwhile people in the USA were layed off and their jobs were lost and their houses were foreclosed on. Good Work Communist Federal Government.

I doubt many people even know about this. People complain about corporate welfare which they should but where is the outrage over the Fed?

There have been many reports that the Fed has given TRILLIONS in bailouts to foreign corporations and banks without authorization by the government. Its a shame people are too ignorant to care about this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceyg...the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/