Mecky Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The OP seems to have a mistaken belief that a new government can make the profligacy of the previous government disappear in a couple of years. Ah, that must be why borrowing is up since the last election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Ah, that must be why borrowing is up since the last election Take a few moments out of your day to bring yourself up to speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Take a few moments out of your day to bring yourself up to speed. I'm light years in front of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Ah, that must be why borrowing is up since the last election I do belive this explain the situation pretty well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/6769268/Pre-Budget-report-Alistair-Darling-cuts-growth-forecasts-for-2009.html In the widely-anticipated pre-Budget report, the Labour government is under pressure from financial markest to lay out a credible plan to cut Britain's budget deficit wtihout jeopardising a fragile recovery. Mr Darling said today that the country's Budget deficit this year will be £178bn, up from a forecast of £175bn he made in the Budget. The Chancellor added that borrowing will edge lower to £176bn in the next financial year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Borrowing & spending on pointless things has a temporary effect, but ultimately it's useless & leaves you worse off. If it's borrowing to invest in projects that will bring a much higher return than the interest you're paying on the loan, then that's pretty sensible. Obviously. But which infrastructure project falls in which category? I was in Northern Ireland last year and nipped across the border to the West Coast. I drove past a few EU funded infrastructure projects - mostly roads leading to nowhere. Sure they must have provided jobs in the short run, but government investment in infrastructure is rarely the "kick start" or "stimulus" that will turn the economy around. Ask the Irish. The "solution" to the economic crisis is boring old balance. Let's balance the books and live within our means. Once the projects were complete we'd have more efficient businesses. They have to be carefully costed. There has to be hope of realising a return on the investment. Otherwise we're just passing on a burden of debt for more white elephants to the next generation. I suspect the High Speed Rail project falls into this category. How much are future journey time savings, reduced crowding and improved reliability worth to us now? These are desparate times and we must keep a clear head to make the right decisions. If more borrowing and goverment spending is what the economy needs - why hasn't it worked with £1tn worth of borrowing? How much more do we need to throw at our ailing economy before it starts to grow on its own without state aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 A temporary effect is good in the short term & that's what's important, getting people off the dole & doing some useful work. The people employed to build these projects have extra money to spend & that gets spent with other businesses, that effect can't be underestimated. If you're giving money to normal working people they're likely to spend it. It's better than just giving billions to banks. It's not really money spent, it's money pumped into the economy that's going to come straight back when those extra workers spend their wages. Projects like the High Speed Rail network could be brought forward & expanded. Better internet infrastructure could be built. Congested roads could be improved. Bypasses could be built. Dams, wind turbines, nuclear power stations could be built. Airports could be built or expanded. Tax cuts. Grants & loans to expanding businesses. Once these projects are built there is an enormous benefit to all kinds of businesses, by making transport, communications & energy cheaper, faster, more reliable & more available. I'm sure people can think of other things they could do with a 10 year bond issue @ 2% that will pay itself back in increased economic activity (and therefore increased tax revenue) over 10 years. The reason it hasn't worked so far is because it's just been borrowing to finance current spending, rather than increasing spending or reducing taxes they've done the opposite, which has made the situation worse, so tax takes are down, it's gone into a negative spiral. There hasn't really been a lot of borrowing to fund an economic stimulus, except that which was just given to the big banks & had no effect whatsoever. We need to throw a hell of a lot of money at it, fire up the presses! The longer we leave it the more it'll cost. If we print too much money we just inflate away some of our debts & help exporters by devaluing the currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazmartinn Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 A small dip in output is unlikely to be enough to trigger a reassessment of Britain's top rating, which will come as a relief to the government after the mass downgrade of euro zone nations' sovereign ratings by credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's earlier this month. But with overall debt still rising, some analysts warn that it is only a matter of time before the UK finds itself under scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 'They have to be carefully costed' Fairdooz? You mean like the Olympics which was costed at 2 billion, and is now reaching upwards of 9 billion? How many civil servants did it take to come up with that gross underestmate? Does anyone ever get sacked for incompetance in these cases, or do we just hand them a massive salary and a knighthood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 'They have to be carefully costed' Fairdooz? You mean like the Olympics which was costed at 2 billion, and is now reaching upwards of 9 billion? How many civil servants did it take to come up with that gross underestmate? Does anyone ever get sacked for incompetance in these cases, or do we just hand them a massive salary and a knighthood? Their civil servents... if they were private business then they could be held to account easier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Which department of the Civil Service was responsible for costing the Olympics? Did they decide to do that all on their own, or did the government of the day (the government which was so keen to get the Olympics) tell them to do it and tell them what answers to produce? When a private business fails (or screws up) the people who carry the can are usually the BOD. Who is responsible for the Civil Service? Which organisation do they report to, and which organisation is responsible for their performance? - You wouldn't have something as vital as the Civil Service reporting to a bunch of people who couldn't even fill out expense claims, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.