Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Unemployment below 2 millon
Topic Started: Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM (1,920 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831

However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.

The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.

And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gnikkk
Oct 19 2014, 09:42 PM
C-too
Oct 17 2014, 08:44 AM
Gnikkk
Oct 17 2014, 05:54 AM
But, but, but,..., but we were screwed by the last government. What chance has a country that despite good news there will always be some who cannot move on from their childhood indoctrination.
We were screwed by the Tory voting? so called financial experts in the international financial markets who were far more concerned with the thickness of their wallets than in the value of what they were dealing with.

Blaming the last government is either a case of ignorance or pure political bias.

I have no political allegiance, shame on you for a cheap shot. Best engage brain before attacking I find. Maybe you don't understand that some don't need to rely on allegiances, we just get on and make do. I did pretty well under T Blair et al, but by anyone's reckoning he screwed the country in terms of economics and our ability to govern ourselves. Try and debate rather than attack.
Apologies, but this ground has been gone over time and time again, and we do have some six years of hindsight.

One question for you if you don't mind.

If there had been no misselling of the Sub-Prime mortgages in the US creating excessive toxic debts when the system collapsed, and those toxic debts had not been slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street doing serious damage to economies across the West. What do you think would have been the condition of the UK economy, debt and deficits around 2009/2010"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs.

Bullshit

(it's in the dictionary)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bullshit
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 17 2014, 10:15 PM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?


That's to look at it the wrong way round which is why Ctoo (and others) like to blame the bankers.

In real terms NewLab were increasing government spending recklessly when there should have been no need

Posted Image

Now they were able to 'justify' this because the overlending indicated GDP went up so much

Posted Image

But it was illusion, froth as RJD says. The bankers can be blamed for that and its part in preventing prompt government criticism for their idiocy of driving us up shit creek but it was the government wot did it.

C-too
Oct 17 2014, 08:02 PM
NL paid off the post WWII debt to America.

They reduced the debt to GDP from 42% to less than 30% and then began to repair the damage they inherited in 1997.

The UK debt to GDP in 2006, (the slide into the meltdown began in 2007) was 36%.

The UK deficit to GDP in 2006 was 2.6% which was lower than in Germany, France, the US and in many other countries.
The EU guideline for deficit to GDP was 3%.


Yes you keep using that "to GDP" line to defend their idiocy but it was hopelessly delusory GDP level compared to what we were earning and Gordon Brown was on the record warned it was so. But he kept on spending, after all he needed to make sure NewLab got re-elected in 2005 or he'd never get to the top step. And to Gordon that top step was far far more important than running an economy properly.
You appear to ignore the need for spending inherited by NL in 1997.

I'd like to ask you two questions.
If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?
Who caused that meltdown?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 12:28 PM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs.

Bullshit

(it's in the dictionary)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bullshit
Best check it out. Why not take a look at France with it's high public spending, lack of job creation and very high level of institutional unemployment for NEETs. You will find all the information you require in the public domain.
If you claim there is no correlation then you have to ask yourself why do countries limit the size of the State? I think a few first principle logic tests might help you.
As for Economists they have been long of the view that increasing public spending has a converse effect on job creation in the private sector. Plenty of research reports for you to ponder, but if you have certain knowledge that these are false I suggest you publish and await your certain Nobel Prize.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2: You appear to ignore the need for spending inherited by NL in 1997.


I have seen no substantiation of this. It is only an opinion trumped up after the spending commitments were made. None the less we should not borrow to fuel current consumption and nobody is complaining about CAPEX for infrastructure projects when sensibly justified and costed. The complaint is in the unfettered increase in running costs plus associated liabilities. Our problem, well this Gov. difficulty, is getting these running costs down to an affordable level.

C@: I'd like to ask you two questions.
If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?

No but they would have increased due to NL borrowing every year from 2002 to fuel current consumption. It is also true that a good deal of that which was forwarded to straighten out Banks will, I hope, be returned to the Exchequer, however, that borrowed and spent on wages in the Public Sector on jobs we no longer can afford has gone directly into the debt mountain ("Brown's Burden").


C2: Who caused that meltdown?


Wrong question. Who increased the running costs of the Public Sector to a greater amount than we can now afford? You see it is this element which is pumping up the national debt.

So blaming our problems on the dodgy Bankers may be convenient, but wrongheaded. You need to blame those that believed they had cured boom and bust, and believed they could pump up the size of the State, the running costs, with impunity.

Please do not try and imply that running costs and CAPEX are the same they are not, however, badly designed PFI projects under NL certainly did not help.

C2 you are going round in circles on this one and appear to be the only one in need of self delusion. Move on it is what it is!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 01:10 PM
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 12:28 PM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs.

Bullshit

(it's in the dictionary)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bullshit
Best check it out. Why not take a look at France with it's high public spending, lack of job creation and very high level of institutional unemployment for NEETs. You will find all the information you require in the public domain.
If you claim there is no correlation then you have to ask yourself why do countries limit the size of the State? I think a few first principle logic tests might help you.
As for Economists they have been long of the view that increasing public spending has a converse effect on job creation in the private sector. Plenty of research reports for you to ponder, but if you have certain knowledge that these are false I suggest you publish and await your certain Nobel Prize.


First off, Thank you for the considered reply.

I would entertain the the idea of further research if I had more time - but don't really need to.
Norway has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, and I have no intention of looking beyond the developed world for such evidence. Norway cancels out France .... so neither of us can present an example to prove the case either way (you tried first).

But let's not be distracted. What you were saying is that the State reduces employment (prospects) when it increases spending (on public services) ........ do you include those public services provided for by the private sector but paid for from the public purse?
If you are then I just might start to agree with you ...... but can't agree that it is money well spent.

time has run out ...... I have to go.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa: First off, Thank you for the considered reply. I would entertain the the idea of further research if I had more time - but don't really need to.
Norway has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, and I have no intention of looking beyond the developed world for such evidence. Norway cancels out France .... so neither of us can present an example to prove the case either way (you tried first).


I think you have completely and conveniently ignored the effect of North Sea Oil on the economy of this small country. Norway is not an acceptable yardstick.

Affa: But let's not be distracted. What you were saying is that the State reduces employment (prospects) when it increases spending (on public services) ........ do you include those public services provided for by the private sector but paid for from the public purse?
If you are then I just might start to agree with you ...... but can't agree that it is money well spent.

Economists have measured jobs created in the private sector as a function of Public spending. basically increase Public Spending by ~1% and you reduce GDP growth by ~0.2% but this varies. I do not think they bothered to determine what portion of this private sector activity went into State consumption as they considered it no different from a private sector arms manufacturer selling it's goods to the Army.
The point is that Public Spending comes at a cost and that is job creation in the private sector. If you want any rebalancing of the economy away from consumption to creation in order to combat our dire imbalances then you should know what is to be done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 01:23 PM
C2: You appear to ignore the need for spending inherited by NL in 1997.


I have seen no substantiation of this. It is only an opinion trumped up after the spending commitments were made. None the less we should not borrow to fuel current consumption and nobody is complaining about CAPEX for infrastructure projects when sensibly justified and costed. The complaint is in the unfettered increase in running costs plus associated liabilities. Our problem, well this Gov. difficulty, is getting these running costs down to an affordable level.

C@: I'd like to ask you two questions.
If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?

No but they would have increased due to NL borrowing every year from 2002 to fuel current consumption. It is also true that a good deal of that which was forwarded to straighten out Banks will, I hope, be returned to the Exchequer, however, that borrowed and spent on wages in the Public Sector on jobs we no longer can afford has gone directly into the debt mountain ("Brown's Burden").


C2: Who caused that meltdown?


Wrong question. Who increased the running costs of the Public Sector to a greater amount than we can now afford? You see it is this element which is pumping up the national debt.

So blaming our problems on the dodgy Bankers may be convenient, but wrongheaded. You need to blame those that believed they had cured boom and bust, and believed they could pump up the size of the State, the running costs, with impunity.

Please do not try and imply that running costs and CAPEX are the same they are not, however, badly designed PFI projects under NL certainly did not help.

C2 you are going round in circles on this one and appear to be the only one in need of self delusion. Move on it is what it is!

See Wanless 2007 report on the NHS, it gives a clear indication of the mess the NHS in, in 1997.
The referbishment and reeqipping of schools was also a necessary requirement inherited in 1997. The refurbishment of schools was stopped by this government resulting in at least one Tory counsellor leaving the Party because of the dire need for refurbishment to her local school.

Borrowing was deliberately reduced during the first two to three years of the Labour government in order to lay down the financial foundations for the work that needed to be done. Borrowing only peaked at 40% for a very short period of time.
Some cooling of the economy began around 2004, I see no reason for that not to continue given normal circumstances. There is certainly no suggestion that either the deficit or the debt would have increased by a factor of four+.

Who caused the meltdown IS the right question, blame cannot be fairly attributed unles all factors are considered. We cannot afford the costs of running the country because of the meltdown.
In 2006, the Tory party were talking about continuing NL spend on the Likes of the NHS. The Financial Services/Free Market Economy appeared to be working well, it is reputed to be the case that the Germans put in an offer to buy the Stock Market.
It was thought by people in the UK to be a new way of earning a living, it was not considered to be a boom in the sense that a bust must follow, in fact it took a international financial meltdown to cause a bust.

The situation is what it is, it is just a pity you refuse to see certain elements of the equation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2: See Wanless 2007 report on the NHS, it gives a clear indication of the mess the NHS in, in 1997.

Read it and we debated this at the last place. A report required post the decision to increase spending. A report that demanded improvements in productivity in parallel with investment. A report that did not demonstrate that the NHS was a disaster only that if we were to spend the same as other countries then we had some head room. Not really what you would call a strategic planning document. Why do you not mention subsequent reports? Why not the one buried during the year of the GE? Don't bother answering as I already know.

C2: The referbishment and reeqipping of schools was also a necessary requirement inherited in 1997. The refurbishment of schools was stopped by this government resulting in at least one Tory counsellor leaving the Party because of the dire need for refurbishment to her local school.

CAPEX C2 CAPEX absolutely nothing to do with doubling running costs. Why do you not mention the benefits of doubling running costs? Don't answer as I already know.

C2: Borrowing was deliberately reduced during the first two to three years of the Labour government in order to lay down the financial foundations for the work that needed to be done. Borrowing only peaked at 40% for a very short period of time.
Some cooling of the economy began around 2004, I see no reason for that not to continue given normal circumstances. There is certainly no suggestion that either the deficit or the debt would have increased by a factor of four+.

I will no longer waste my breath with those who design history to suit their dogma.

C2: Who caused the meltdown IS the right question, blame cannot be fairly attributed unles all factors are considered. We cannot afford the costs of running the country because of the meltdown.


It is only the right question as far as it goes, but it is not the question one should ask if one wishes to understand the magnitude of the public deficit.

C2: In 2006, the Tory party were talking about continuing NL spend on the Likes of the NHS. The Financial Services/Free Market Economy appeared to be working well, it is reputed to be the case that the Germans put in an offer to buy the Stock Market.
It was thought by people in the UK to be a new way of earning a living, it was not considered to be a boom in the sense that a bust must follow, in fact it took a international financial meltdown to cause a bust.

I am am not the Tory Party. Buying the London Stock Market is only a facilitation business and not particularly relevant to your claims. The Germans were not buying all of the stock listed there.

C2: The situation is what it is, it is just a pity you refuse to see certain elements of the equation.

But I do, you on the other hand cannot see what the rest of the Planet have long accepted and that is the NL were culpable. Please do not comment as I am bored to death with your myopia and desperate desire to distort the truth. You will no doubt go to your grave proclaiming that NL were not culpable for the financial mess we find ourselves in and that the mayhem that was caused by trade unions in the 1970s was entirely justifiable, if only Mrs T had done as she was told all would be fine and dandy. Be my guest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Do a google search - several.

Just put in a different country each time.

'bank crisis Who do they blame in *******'
America is a good place to start, try France, Germany ....... China

And then employ the talents for spin and blame Gordon Brown.

Edited by Affa, Oct 20 2014, 05:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 07:28 AM
Lewis
Oct 20 2014, 07:16 AM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
papasmurf
Oct 19 2014, 08:38 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
It is exactly for that reason and no other. You seem to be disinterested in the plight of those that are unemployed, capable and willing to work. My impression is that you have already written off employment as a life style. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs. I do not wish to condemn people to the high levels of unemployment experienced by France which seems to be the objective of the UK left today.
One of your leadership, namely Iain Duncan Smith, is obviously pulling your strings this time. Note the false concern for the unemployed, so obvious it is almost laughable.
Tripe you should have noted by now, if you had an open mind, that from day one my priority has been for jobs, real ones mind.
Well you obviously don't have an open mind, quite the opposite!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 12:47 PM
You appear to ignore the need for spending inherited by NL in 1997.

I'd like to ask you two questions.
If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?
Who caused that meltdown?



Yes there was a need for the spending increase in 1997 to 2000, there was a wish to keep increasing the spend after that. Good management knows the difference between wished fors and essentials.

you asked

If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?
Taken literally then yes because there would have been one by now, just later in time. If I take what I think is the spirit of your question - that there had been no meltdown at all then the trite answer is no. But you might as well ask would we need aeroplanes if humans can fly. That hopelessly inflated boom to 2007 was always false, was always going to have a correction.

Who caused that meltdown? Governments by allowing, encouraging and in some cases knowingly creating the boom bubble that preceded it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 12:17 AM
Steve K
Oct 19 2014, 09:34 PM
"In his March 2010 budget Darling put up taxes (worth £8bn pa to the Treasury) - Osborne did not reverse any of them."

And your point is?


The only point that can be made ....... Budget in March, Election in May, New Government - no reversal of the taxes introduced ........... ergo there was no Tax & Spend from Labour unless you want to include the Tories who DID increase taxes by increasing VAT. . .
I really do not understand the point you are making with this. And FWIW when did "tax and spend" come into it? Maybe you are confusing my posts with another's.

We were discussing that Darling's plan was to leave more money in the economy and close the deficit over a longer timeframe than Osborne's plan. So if Osborne did not reverse any of Darling's tax hikes would surely be about as surprising as the sun rising each day. Osborne wanted to more aggessively close the expenditure - revenue gap and you don't do that by tax cuts in your first year.

Darling's plan assumed the wider world economy would stay more buoyant, that other countries would keep borrowing money to buy UK products. But the world GDP had collapsed and so much of the first world also went into spending cuts that Darling was always going to have to change that plan. Luckily for him he was out of office.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 20 2014, 09:31 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 12:47 PM
You appear to ignore the need for spending inherited by NL in 1997.

I'd like to ask you two questions.
If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?
Who caused that meltdown?



Yes there was a need for the spending increase in 1997 to 2000, there was a wish to keep increasing the spend after that. Good management knows the difference between wished fors and essentials.

you asked

If there had been no international financial meltdown in 2007/08 would we have the debts and deficits we have today?
Taken literally then yes because there would have been one by now, just later in time. If I take what I think is the spirit of your question - that there had been no meltdown at all then the trite answer is no. But you might as well ask would we need aeroplanes if humans can fly. That hopelessly inflated boom to 2007 was always false, was always going to have a correction.

Who caused that meltdown? Governments by allowing, encouraging and in some cases knowingly creating the boom bubble that preceded it.
There was no spending increase for the first two to three years of NL. Debt was lowered significantly in preparation for the cost of repairs to come. Repairing and re equipping state schools that had fallen into disrepair thanks to Thatcher's two tier education system. i.e. the introduction of the Grant Maintained system, was a necessity. Addressing the mess of the NHS was IMO also a necessity.

Are you suggesting the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the US and the financial poison it inflicted on the international financial markets was inevitable?

I don't think there is anything trite in asking about a once in a lifetime international financial meltdown. Or as some are saying the worst international financial mess in 100 years.

(((The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time?))) CORRECTION. How could the actions of some governments screw up all Western economies at the same time.

A treble AAA rating of a boom bubble? I think your comment is based upon hindsight.
Edited by C-too, Oct 20 2014, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 20 2014, 09:31 PM


Who caused that meltdown? Governments by allowing, encouraging and in some cases knowingly creating the boom bubble that preceded it.


Complicity!
So very many that can be accused of it ...... let's start somewhere.
A time? When did the conditions that led to it created? 1986? Few serious observers would disagree.
So virtually everybody in government since then is complicit it.
A Place? America - well the USA does accept that as a fact. They have a list of culprits, none of them British, all of them Bankers.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877339,00.html
An institution? Why not the Press? These publish reams and reams of information (daily), profess to be watching, to have the inside info ....... but made no serious claims to warn or alert us.
The opposition Parties here? Well sure, it's their remit to criticise, but were they warning of what the bankers were up to? No they were not!

So many were complicit it becomes hard to blame anyone - I know of only one person that told of this crisis coming, and he was predicting a far worse result. When Brown did stave off that catastrophe, his reaction then was ....... "just delaying the inevitable".

A comforting thought for you.


Edited by Affa, Oct 20 2014, 10:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM
. .The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time? . .
Perhaps you missed the 's' in Governments. There was collective idiocy by so many of them. They wanted their growth at all costs, to an extent they wanted to outgrow each other and that's exactly what they got - growth. But bubble based growth is always going to burst.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM
I don't think there is anything trite in asking about a once in a lifetime international financial meltdown. Or as some are saying the worst international financial mess in 100 years.

(((The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time?))) CORRECTION. How could the actions of some governments screw up all Western economies at the same time.

A treble AAA rating of a boom bubble? I think your comment is based upon hindsight.
Steve is correct.

Western Governments - including Labour - caused it.

The desire to show growth, at any costs to make it look like they were worth another term in office led to all governments - including Labour - taking risks, allowing processes, and turning a blind eye to activities that any government that cared about the interests and welfare of its people, rather than itself, would never have permitted.

It might be argued that all such governments were to some extent a victim of the prevailing economic paradigm; but as a counter-argument I suggest that governments that genuinely care about the interests and welfare of their people - rather than just themselves - are not afraid to try and remould the prevailing paradigm.

Greed for continued power, the wealth it brings and political cowardice caused the Financial Meltdown - and Labour were just as guilty as anyone else.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 20 2014, 10:05 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM
. .The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time? . .
Perhaps you missed the 's' in Governments. There was collective idiocy by so many of them. They wanted their growth at all costs, to an extent they wanted to outgrow each other and that's exactly what they got - growth. But bubble based growth is always going to burst.

I did miss the 's but corrected it before noticing your correction.

Your so called bubble based growth was not thought of as a bubble, in fact it was being encouraged by many professionals in many areas of finance and politics.
It was recognised that the economy was overheating that's why interest rates were raised to 5%, and letters of explanation were being demanded by the government from the Bank of England.

Even so, your explanation still ignores the fact that it was the toxic debts seeping out of America that brought everything tumbling down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 20 2014, 10:23 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM
I don't think there is anything trite in asking about a once in a lifetime international financial meltdown. Or as some are saying the worst international financial mess in 100 years.

(((The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time?))) CORRECTION. How could the actions of some governments screw up all Western economies at the same time.

A treble AAA rating of a boom bubble? I think your comment is based upon hindsight.
Steve is correct.

Western Governments - including Labour - caused it.

The desire to show growth, at any costs to make it look like they were worth another term in office led to all governments - including Labour - taking risks, allowing processes, and turning a blind eye to activities that any government that cared about the interests and welfare of its people, rather than itself, would never have permitted.

It might be argued that all such governments were to some extent a victim of the prevailing economic paradigm; but as a counter-argument I suggest that governments that genuinely care about the interests and welfare of their people - rather than just themselves - are not afraid to try and remould the prevailing paradigm.

Greed for continued power, the wealth it brings and political cowardice caused the Financial Meltdown - and Labour were just as guilty as anyone else.

All The Best
Totally disagree, it is the duty of governments to attempt to raise the economic health along with the state of the country. Only governments with a crystal ball could have seen the meltdown coming, and not one Western government escaped the meltdown.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 10:30 PM
Totally disagree,
Well of course you do.

You'll never accept that Labour carry some of the blame.

But they do, and that is a fact.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 10:24 PM
I did miss the 's but corrected it before noticing your correction.

Your so called bubble based growth was not thought of as a bubble, in fact it was being encouraged by many professionals in many areas of finance and politics.
It was recognised that the economy was overheating that's why interest rates were raised to 5%, and letters of explanation were being demanded by the government from the Bank of England.

Even so, your explanation still ignores the fact that it was the toxic debts seeping out of America that brought everything tumbling down.
Yes you were correcting as I was responding but the quote snapshot had taken the original. It happens

I think Pro V has answered for me - ta Pro V

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 10:30 PM
Pro Veritas
Oct 20 2014, 10:23 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 09:58 PM
I don't think there is anything trite in asking about a once in a lifetime international financial meltdown. Or as some are saying the worst international financial mess in 100 years.

(((The government DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN. If you actually think it did perhaps you can explain how the UK government managed to screw up all Western economies at the same time?))) CORRECTION. How could the actions of some governments screw up all Western economies at the same time.

A treble AAA rating of a boom bubble? I think your comment is based upon hindsight.
Steve is correct.

Western Governments - including Labour - caused it.

The desire to show growth, at any costs to make it look like they were worth another term in office led to all governments - including Labour - taking risks, allowing processes, and turning a blind eye to activities that any government that cared about the interests and welfare of its people, rather than itself, would never have permitted.

It might be argued that all such governments were to some extent a victim of the prevailing economic paradigm; but as a counter-argument I suggest that governments that genuinely care about the interests and welfare of their people - rather than just themselves - are not afraid to try and remould the prevailing paradigm.

Greed for continued power, the wealth it brings and political cowardice caused the Financial Meltdown - and Labour were just as guilty as anyone else.

All The Best
Totally disagree, it is the duty of governments to attempt to raise the economic health along with the state of the country. Only governments with a crystal ball could have seen the meltdown coming, and not one Western government escaped the meltdown.
Of course it is but with prudence, with a balance and someone up the rigging looking for Pirates and storm clouds. NL threw action to the wind and that is why we of the G20 were least prepared.
Labour are addicted to splurging, it is what they do and Brown was a master at it. He was reckless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 21 2014, 07:52 AM
Of course it is but with prudence, with a balance and someone up the rigging looking for Pirates and storm clouds. NL threw action to the wind and that is why we of the G20 were least prepared.
Labour are addicted to splurging, it is what they do and Brown was a master at it. He was reckless.

Of the G20 the UK was the most 'exposed' due to this reliance on the Service Sector for most of our wealth.

The Bail-out of Ireland by George Osborne was justified for this same reason - if the Irish banks folded, it was the UK taking the big hit.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 21 2014, 11:38 AM
Of the G20 the UK was the most 'exposed' due to this reliance on the Service Sector for most of our wealth.

The Bail-out of Ireland by George Osborne was justified for this same reason - if the Irish banks folded, it was the UK taking the big hit.

All this demonstrates was that Labour, like the Tories before and after them had failed in their duty to rebalance the economy away from having all its eggs in one basket.

Labour had 13 years in which to do something about this, and did precisely nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing - they let the FSS get away with murder.

And RJD is delusional if he thinks only Labour are addicted to splurging; the Tories are too, they just spend the money on those who already have more than enough.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 20 2014, 10:32 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 10:30 PM
Totally disagree,
Well of course you do.

You'll never accept that Labour carry some of the blame.

But they do, and that is a fact.

All The Best
Can you prove any deliberate UK involvement in slipping the US toxic debts into the international financial markets via Wall Street ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 21 2014, 11:52 AM
Affa
Oct 21 2014, 11:38 AM
Of the G20 the UK was the most 'exposed' due to this reliance on the Service Sector for most of our wealth.

The Bail-out of Ireland by George Osborne was justified for this same reason - if the Irish banks folded, it was the UK taking the big hit.

All this demonstrates was that Labour, like the Tories before and after them had failed in their duty to rebalance the economy away from having all its eggs in one basket.

Labour had 13 years in which to do something about this, and did precisely nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing - they let the FSS get away with murder.

And RJD is delusional if he thinks only Labour are addicted to splurging; the Tories are too, they just spend the money on those who already have more than enough.

All The Best
NL, after a few years spent reducing the debt went about sorting the problems inherited in 1997.

17 years of high.mass unemployment.
12 to 18 month waiting lists for operations on the NHS.
Most state schools falling into disrepair and using dilapidated text books thanks to the introduction of the Grant Maintained system.
Reducing the serious increase in the number of people living in relative poverty.

Started around 2001/02 ended or greatly reduced in 2008.

Screwed by an unforeseeable international financial tsunami, and you want to blame NL?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 21 2014, 11:52 AM
Affa
Oct 21 2014, 11:38 AM
Of the G20 the UK was the most 'exposed' due to this reliance on the Service Sector for most of our wealth.

The Bail-out of Ireland by George Osborne was justified for this same reason - if the Irish banks folded, it was the UK taking the big hit.

All this demonstrates was that Labour, like the Tories before and after them had failed in their duty to rebalance the economy away from having all its eggs in one basket.

Labour had 13 years in which to do something about this, and did precisely nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing - they let the FSS get away with murder.

And RJD is delusional if he thinks only Labour are addicted to splurging; the Tories are too, they just spend the money on those who already have more than enough.

All The Best

Every word is true ....... most refreshing!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 21 2014, 08:52 PM
Pro Veritas
Oct 21 2014, 11:52 AM
Affa
Oct 21 2014, 11:38 AM
Of the G20 the UK was the most 'exposed' due to this reliance on the Service Sector for most of our wealth.

The Bail-out of Ireland by George Osborne was justified for this same reason - if the Irish banks folded, it was the UK taking the big hit.

All this demonstrates was that Labour, like the Tories before and after them had failed in their duty to rebalance the economy away from having all its eggs in one basket.

Labour had 13 years in which to do something about this, and did precisely nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing - they let the FSS get away with murder.

And RJD is delusional if he thinks only Labour are addicted to splurging; the Tories are too, they just spend the money on those who already have more than enough.

All The Best

Every word is true ....... most refreshing!

The problem was that before the international financial meltdown the --- Financial Services/Free Market economy --- appeared to be working well and was backed by many top economists including the 'City of London' and it had a treble A rating. To now throw in a "rebalancing of the economy" comment, not forgetting that rebalancing did begin after the meltdown, is IMO pure hindsight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 22 2014, 08:39 AM
The problem was that before the international financial meltdown the --- Financial Services/Free Market economy --- appeared to be working well and was backed by many top economists including the 'City of London' and it had a treble A rating. To now throw in a "rebalancing of the economy" comment, not forgetting that rebalancing did begin after the meltdown, is IMO pure hindsight.
Anyone with an IQ in double figures has been saying for a decade or more PRIOR to the financial meltdown that having all our eggs in one economic basket was a disaster waiting to happen.

Labour had almost a decade to do something about that, and chose not to.

The were part of the problem, and no amount of partisan revisionist rhetoric is going to change that.

Labour were not the only British government to blame - the Tories before them were happy to do the same.

You mean many top economists didn't want to downscale the importance of their specific sector of the economy?
Can't imagine why, can you?
Oh, wait...  ::)

And anyone who believes the Ratings Agencies on anything is an idiot.

They sell those ratings - they get paid less for giving bad ratings, is it really any wonder almost everything that was, and is, rotten about the economics sector had, and in many cases still has, an AAA rating?

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Oct 22 2014, 08:51 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
WE DID NOT HAVE ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET!!

We did have changes in the economy that were considered to be a better way of earning a living when compared to the manufacturing of the less expensive commodities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 22 2014, 08:51 AM
C-too
Oct 22 2014, 08:39 AM
The problem was that before the international financial meltdown the --- Financial Services/Free Market economy --- appeared to be working well and was backed by many top economists including the 'City of London' and it had a treble A rating. To now throw in a "rebalancing of the economy" comment, not forgetting that rebalancing did begin after the meltdown, is IMO pure hindsight.
Anyone with an IQ in double figures has been saying for a decade or more PRIOR to the financial meltdown that having all our eggs in one economic basket was a disaster waiting to happen.





Labour were not the only British government to blame - the Tories before them were happy to do the same.



And anyone who believes the Ratings Agencies on anything is an idiot.

They sell those ratings - they get paid less for giving bad ratings, is it really any wonder almost everything that was, and is, rotten about the economics sector had, and in many cases still has, an AAA rating?

All The Best
Quote:
 
Labour had almost a decade to do something about that, and chose not to.
Not until after the unforseeable international financial meltdown that is.
Where would the economy be today without that meltdown with its quadrupling(?) of the deficit and debts?

Quote:
 
They were part of the problem, and no amount of partisan revisionist rhetoric is going to change that.
NL absolutely did not cause the meltdown.

It is purile nonsense to imply that top economist, governments/chancellors would deliberately destroy so many economies for short term gain.

If not AAA ratings at that time then what accepted indicators were there to be had?

I think your rather pessimistic approach is being exposed onec again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]


Whilst rating agencies might be questionable i think Ctoo's stance regarding NL (all the members should have been canonised the moment they departed the uterus) gives a pretty unambigious rating of his credibility.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 22 2014, 09:42 AM

Whilst rating agencies might be questionable i think Ctoo's stance regarding NL (all the members should have been canonised the moment they departed the uterus) gives a pretty unambigious rating of his credibility.
Ugh!

Neither of these two are wrong, neither of them exonerate Labour of any blame, and neither give them all the blame - they just can't agree how much blame should go where - which is pointless.
What they ought to be looking at is 'what should have been done', and then ask 'why hasn't it still been done'?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 22 2014, 12:07 PM
What they ought to be looking at is 'what should have been done', and then ask 'why hasn't it still been done'?

What should have been done?

Diversification of the economy. The Service Sector contributes almost 78% of ALL GDP. This is dangerous in the extreme. It means we are far, far more vulnerable to short-term economic down-turns than we need, or can afford, to be. Given the broad range of economic activities it is unlikely that we will ever see less than 50% of GDP coming from the Service Sector - but we should really be amining as close to that as possible.


Why hasn't it been done?

The three main parties are all committed to us remaining in the EU, and two of them would like to see closer links, one would love us to cease being a discrete Nation State entirely. There has, for a long time, been this assumption that our economy lurches from boom to bust, and see a continual shift of wealth towards the top 10% almost by accident - the so called "cock up not conspiracy" theory.

I don't buy that; I find it hard to believe that "cock ups" can by accident repeat over and over again and at the same time best serve the interests of those whose hands are on the rudder.

Nothing has been done because continuing economic decline is a great "Shock Doctrine disaster" that will be used - as it was in Greece - to undermine basic workers' rights, to erode pay and conditions, and to ensure the "1%" keep a tight hold on the reins of power by buying up ever more state and corporate assets for pence in the pound.

For the "cock-up not conspiracy" theory to be correct those who have control would, at least occasionally, see their interests undermined, see their wealth diminished - relatively speaking, and see their grasp on power slip.

This hasn't happened, not once in my lifetime.

Nothing has been done, because that is what those with real power want.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 22 2014, 12:41 PM


Nothing has been done because continuing economic decline is a great "Shock Doctrine disaster" that will be used - as it was in Greece - to undermine basic workers' rights, to erode pay and conditions, and to ensure the "1%" keep a tight hold on the reins of power by buying up ever more state and corporate assets for pence in the pound.

For the "cock-up not conspiracy" theory to be correct those who have control would, at least occasionally, see their interests undermined, see their wealth diminished - relatively speaking, and see their grasp on power slip.

This hasn't happened, not once in my lifetime.

Nothing has been done, because that is what those with real power want.

All The Best


Take this a step further - I have, and been labled a conspiracy theorist (I hate them lol) ...... you have already declared that you do not believe in the 'accidental' cock-up theory.

This crisis was not unforeseen, it was created, designed, orchestrated, as part of a larger (global) plan to rebalance the global economy. A balancing act that is not complete, and will require further amendments in the near future.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
avagrumble
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Unemployment they say has dropped below two million, but manufacturing in this country is

well below what it was thirty years ago. So not that many of those leaving school will be

offered apprentiships,making them take unskilled dead-end jobs like working in retail.
You see them in your travels young persons working at Sports Direct...Asda.. and other

supermarkets, and lots more working in other shops. They get money in their pocket, and it

probably seems a lot at their young age enabling them a certain independence. They find

though they hit the wall when they hit mid-twenties, when they discover on their current

wage they will never be able to break away and buy a house say. Then it becomes so much

harder to find a better paid job because they then find out theres competition from so

many EU immigrants, there could be as many as one hundred applicants for one position.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 22 2014, 09:42 AM

Whilst rating agencies might be questionable i think Ctoo's stance regarding NL (all the members should have been canonised the moment they departed the uterus) gives a pretty unambigious rating of his credibility.
Why post an unsubstantiated accusation instead of addressing the points I make. Is it the case that your bias overwhelms your logic?

While I attempt to get at the truth about NL there is nothing I would like better than proof of where I'm wrong, that way we all get nearer the truth. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 22 2014, 12:41 PM
Affa
Oct 22 2014, 12:07 PM
What they ought to be looking at is 'what should have been done', and then ask 'why hasn't it still been done'?

What should have been done?

Diversification of the economy. The Service Sector contributes almost 78% of ALL GDP. This is dangerous in the extreme. It means we are far, far more vulnerable to short-term economic down-turns than we need, or can afford, to be. Given the broad range of economic activities it is unlikely that we will ever see less than 50% of GDP coming from the Service Sector - but we should really be amining as close to that as possible.


Why hasn't it been done?

The three main parties are all committed to us remaining in the EU, and two of them would like to see closer links, one would love us to cease being a discrete Nation State entirely. There has, for a long time, been this assumption that our economy lurches from boom to bust, and see a continual shift of wealth towards the top 10% almost by accident - the so called "cock up not conspiracy" theory.

I don't buy that; I find it hard to believe that "cock ups" can by accident repeat over and over again and at the same time best serve the interests of those whose hands are on the rudder.

Nothing has been done because continuing economic decline is a great "Shock Doctrine disaster" that will be used - as it was in Greece - to undermine basic workers' rights, to erode pay and conditions, and to ensure the "1%" keep a tight hold on the reins of power by buying up ever more state and corporate assets for pence in the pound.

For the "cock-up not conspiracy" theory to be correct those who have control would, at least occasionally, see their interests undermined, see their wealth diminished - relatively speaking, and see their grasp on power slip.

This hasn't happened, not once in my lifetime.

Nothing has been done, because that is what those with real power want.

All The Best
For those who are unsure and perhaps think the Service Sector means the Financial Sector, the Service Sector includes; health, education, information technology, retail and so on.

It is true that this sector did grow under NL but that appears to have been caused by the closing down of much of our industrial base, an act that put millions out of work and saw high/mass unemployment for some 17 years.
This was the situation inherited by NL, to say it needed rebalancing is absolutely true unfortunately no government can tell people what to do with their own money, no government could force people to invest in industry when money was to be made elswhere.
The die was cast in the 1980s, just as a die was cast in the 1940s with nationalisations. A change of direction needed a watershed just as in 1979, and in 2008. Both the government and the opposition recognised and verbalised the need for rebalancing --- after --- the meltdown.

2006 saw less than a million unemployed and the economy doing reasonably well, no one forcast what would/did happen in 2008.
Edited by C-too, Oct 22 2014, 04:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 22 2014, 04:29 PM
Pro Veritas
Oct 22 2014, 12:41 PM
Affa
Oct 22 2014, 12:07 PM
What they ought to be looking at is 'what should have been done', and then ask 'why hasn't it still been done'?

What should have been done?

Diversification of the economy. The Service Sector contributes almost 78% of ALL GDP. This is dangerous in the extreme. It means we are far, far more vulnerable to short-term economic down-turns than we need, or can afford, to be. Given the broad range of economic activities it is unlikely that we will ever see less than 50% of GDP coming from the Service Sector - but we should really be amining as close to that as possible.


Why hasn't it been done?

The three main parties are all committed to us remaining in the EU, and two of them would like to see closer links, one would love us to cease being a discrete Nation State entirely. There has, for a long time, been this assumption that our economy lurches from boom to bust, and see a continual shift of wealth towards the top 10% almost by accident - the so called "cock up not conspiracy" theory.

I don't buy that; I find it hard to believe that "cock ups" can by accident repeat over and over again and at the same time best serve the interests of those whose hands are on the rudder.

Nothing has been done because continuing economic decline is a great "Shock Doctrine disaster" that will be used - as it was in Greece - to undermine basic workers' rights, to erode pay and conditions, and to ensure the "1%" keep a tight hold on the reins of power by buying up ever more state and corporate assets for pence in the pound.

For the "cock-up not conspiracy" theory to be correct those who have control would, at least occasionally, see their interests undermined, see their wealth diminished - relatively speaking, and see their grasp on power slip.

This hasn't happened, not once in my lifetime.

Nothing has been done, because that is what those with real power want.

All The Best
For those who are unsure and perhaps think the Service Sector means the Financial Sector, the Service Sector includes; health, education, information technology, retail and so on.

It is true that this sector did grow under NL but that appears to have been caused by the closing down of much of our industrial base, an act that put millions out of work and saw high/mass unemployment for some 17 years.
This was the situation inherited by NL, to say it needed rebalancing is absolutely true unfortunately no government can tell people what to do with their own money, no government could force people to invest in industry when money was to be made elswhere.
The die was cast in the 1980s, just as a die was cast in the 1940s with nationalisations. A change of direction needed a watershed just as in 1979, and in 2008. Both the government and the opposition recognised and verbalised the need for rebalancing --- after --- the meltdown.

2006 saw less than a million unemployed and the economy doing reasonably well, no one forcast what would/did happen in 2008.

I've not edited your post, because like that of PV it really is worth reading again.

You two do very well when you stop fighting and begin to be constructive.

Now i'm sounding like a schoolmaster ....... sorry for that. All I'm trying to express is my thanks for enriching the debate in a very positive (and new) way that gives reason for more thought.
And it gets away from that awful blame game.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa.

Thanks for your comment, much appreciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply