Cyclone Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 just admit i was right and you was wrong (oops i got my words wrong again) get the spelling police in :hihi: You weren't right. You've had to change what you said to make it correct now. That's pretty obvious in the later statement you've made. didnt the last labourgov inherit the debt from the tories ? Answer: No You then argue about the answer, finally. the tories still left a debt Should have just accepted the answer as now you're making yourself look silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is evidence that certain types of fiscal stimulus do offer long term net gains. Is there some reason these stimuli cannot be applied in conjunction with cutting spending in general? No it is not a logical conclusion at all. You could only apply so much stimulus before you would run out of reasonable and sensible target projects. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tories are spending money we don't have too. And this will increase as we go into recession, employment falls and with it revenue. They have little choice, there's only so much of a massive bureaucracy that can be cut at a time. As I stated earlier the major cause of our debt increase was reduced revenue due to a falling economic output. Indeed, and and I didn't disagree with that. The major problem though was that labour hadn't saved a bean whilst times were good and so there was no cash available to even maintain spending without borrowing, never mind to use to stimulate the economy. GB dropped the ball in a big way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is evidence that certain types of fiscal stimulus do offer long term net gains. I'm new to economics. You're making a reference to Keynes, or have I misunderstood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm new to economics. You're making a reference to Keynes, or have I misunderstood? Yes I'm arguing for Keynesian-style stimulus spending. But not jus spending for the sake of it but rather high quality infrastructure that will benefit us for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yes I'm arguing for Keynesian-style stimulus spending. But not jus spending for the sake of it but rather high quality infrastructure that will benefit us for decades. Such as the money on an Olympics opening ceremony is wasted, but the money on the tube expansion is investment? Or High Speed Rail is lasting sensible investment? Does this work only an isolationist context? Infrastructure is a wiser investment if it is UK workers and UK companies manufacturing for the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Such as the money on an Olympics opening ceremony is wasted, but the money on the tube expansion is investment? Or High Speed Rail is lasting sensible investment? Does this work only an isolationist context? Infrastructure is a wiser investment if it is UK workers and UK companies manufacturing for the UK? What car do you drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yes I'm arguing for Keynesian-style stimulus spending. But not jus spending for the sake of it but rather high quality infrastructure that will benefit us for decades. Funded by debt that we'll be paying off for decades... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 What car do you drive? A Ford. I'm not isolationist myself. My question was is Keynsian-stimulus isolationist? There seems little point on government spending highly on high-speed rail if all that money goes to German train manufacturers. I know British military spending has a clause that a proportion of the money goes to UK business. The London Olympics is supplied by business as close to London as possible. Funded by debt that we'll be paying off for decades... I think the logic is that the debt would be paid off quicker, rather than a smaller debt being paid off slower. I'm new to this though, I could've misunderstood. Like a man in debt buying a car on finance so he can travel to a better job. That's my basic understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 A Ford. I'm not isolationist myself. My question was is Keynsian-stimulus isolationist? But isn't that a foreign built car? "Infrastructure is a wiser investment if it is UK workers and UK companies manufacturing for the UK? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Can I rush you to your point, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.