Has Britiain always been in debt ?

[Prospective]

Well get paid by cheque then or use a building society.

 

It still does not explain anything about whether or not britain has always been in debt.

 

Oh btw, can someone on please post something from an actual reliable media source as oppose to some unsourced propaganda website on this issue or there is simply no point attempting a serious discussion.

 

Don't you fancy putting the effort in?

[chem1st]

Well get paid by cheque then or use a building society.

 

It still does not explain anything about whether or not britain has always been in debt.

 

Oh btw, can someone on please post something from an actual reliable media source as oppose to some unsourced propaganda website on this issue or there is simply no point attempting a serious discussion.

 

Demutualised, basically banks. Part of the problem.

[Prospective]

Loads of good stuff here

 

http://www-histpol.hist.cam.ac.uk/papers/policy-paper-95.html

[Rampent]

Loads of good stuff here

 

http://www-histpol.hist.cam.ac.uk/papers/policy-paper-95.html

 

That sent me to a porn site. You dirty :rant:

[Prospective]

That sent me to a porn site. You dirty :rant:

 

Night shift dragging?

[Rampent]

Night shift dragging?

 

I'm lost?

[ANGELFIRE1]

And LIEbours solution is - to borrow even more. The policy of lunatics. Millibore and Balls would bankrupt the Country given half a chance. Millibore, Balls and Clown made a bloody good attempt at it when they were in Government. But of course we now know, the banks are best friends with whoever is in power, even Boy Dave and his mottley crew.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

[I1L2T3]

And LIEbours solution is - to borrow even more. The policy of lunatics. Millibore and Balls would bankrupt the Country given half a chance. Millibore, Balls and Clown made a bloody good attempt at it when they were in Government. But of course we now know, the banks are best friends with whoever is in power, even Boy Dave and his mottley crew.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

 

Somebody has got to borrow or Osborne's plan will never work. Either the government has to borrow and then spend to create demand. Or the public will have to increase personal debt to get the money to spend to generate the demand.

 

So should the government get in more debt or should households get in more debt? If neither where will the demand come from?

[HeadingNorth]

Has the nation always been in debt? It's hard to answer, since it's hard to say exactly what "the nation's" finances are. When we used to have a king who was, by and large, an absolute monarch, and Parliament was little more than a rubber stamp, the King was invariably in debt, usually to barons and merchants who got into Parliament as a reward for lending him his money. Certainly the Treasury's accounts have been in debt for at least two centuries. Essentially, it's probably true to say that "the country" has always been in debt.

 

 

Is being in debt a bad thing? Well, it may not be. Suppose that the rate of interest you have to pay on your debt is five per cent, and that you can invest money in some project that yields a ten per cent return. You would be wise to borrow money in order to invest, since your return pays your debt interest with profit left over.

 

The problems arise when you have so much debt that the lenders (banks, foreign countries, pension companies holding government bonds....) begin to think you won't be capable of paying the interest due on it. Then the rates go sky-high, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that ends with the country going bankrupt and complete economic disaster. (Close the NHS, we can't afford to pay any doctors...)

 

Are we in that bad a state? We're not bankrupt. If we continue to borrow money at the rate we have done so over the last decade, we would be in the end. The political argument basically covers two options; reduce spending as much as possible in order to pay off debt and cut the overall interest bill; or, borrow to invest as I've described in my second paragraph. There are some circumstances where it's completely obvious that borrowing to invest is a good move; there is a point beyond which only a complete moron would argue that we should still borrow more money. Our current economic position is not at either extreme; Tories consider it's too far towards the bankruptcy position, and left-wingers generally argue that it isn't.

[*_ash_*]

Has the nation always been in debt? It's hard to answer, since it's hard to say exactly what "the nation's" finances are. When we used to have a king who was, by and large, an absolute monarch, and Parliament was little more than a rubber stamp, the King was invariably in debt, usually to barons and merchants who got into Parliament as a reward for lending him his money. Certainly the Treasury's accounts have been in debt for at least two centuries. Essentially, it's probably true to say that "the country" has always been in debt.

 

 

Is being in debt a bad thing? Well, it may not be. Suppose that the rate of interest you have to pay on your debt is five per cent, and that you can invest money in some project that yields a ten per cent return. You would be wise to borrow money in order to invest, since your return pays your debt interest with profit left over.

 

The problems arise when you have so much debt that the lenders (banks, foreign countries, pension companies holding government bonds....) begin to think you won't be capable of paying the interest due on it. Then the rates go sky-high, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that ends with the country going bankrupt and complete economic disaster. (Close the NHS, we can't afford to pay any doctors...)

 

Are we in that bad a state? We're not bankrupt. If we continue to borrow money at the rate we have done so over the last decade, we would be in the end. The political argument basically covers two options; reduce spending as much as possible in order to pay off debt and cut the overall interest bill; or, borrow to invest as I've described in my second paragraph. There are some circumstances where it's completely obvious that borrowing to invest is a good move; there is a point beyond which only a complete moron would argue that we should still borrow more money. Our current economic position is not at either extreme; Tories consider it's too far towards the bankruptcy position, and left-wingers generally argue that it isn't.

 

Given what I read in here by so many posters, you're wasting your breath talking sense.