Increasing borrowing to reduce borrowing.

[I1L2T3]

But are dependant on the ability of the person in credit to be able to afford to pay his liabilities.

 

Such systems do not last for ever. They ALWAYS collapse eventually.

[Jim Graham]

Our debt grew rapidly because we bailed out the banks, because we sustained a massive and sharp loss of economic output (lowered tax receipts, increased welfare) and because we were at a point in the business cycle where deficits were increasing anyway.

 

 

Bailing out the banks was a one off and we should get plenty of it back eventually. Osborne will be aiming to get it back a year before the next election. RBS have already paid back what they borrowed.

 

When the banks went bust we were already living well beyond our means as a country. But what really racked up the debt quickly was Brown's refusal to cut government spending between 2007 & the election in 2010. In that time he borrowed over £400bn in the hope of winning the election. He lost and we all got stuck with the bill for his vanity and stupidity.

 

The thing you need to remember is that Labour have not grown the economy since the 1960s. Brown's efforts all turned out to be an illusion based on credit. So Balls' claims to be able to borrow more to stimulate growth are utter drivel.

[wednesday1]

Bailing out the banks was a one off and we should get plenty of it back eventually. Osborne will be aiming to get it back a year before the next election. RBS have already paid back what they borrowed.

 

When the banks went bust we were already living well beyond our means as a country. But what really racked up the debt quickly was Brown's refusal to cut government spending between 2007 & the election in 2010. In that time he borrowed over £400bn in the hope of winning the election. He lost and we all got stuck with the bill for his vanity and stupidity.

 

The thing you need to remember is that Labour have not grown the economy since the 1960s. Brown's efforts all turned out to be an illusion based on credit. So Balls' claims to be able to borrow more to stimulate growth are utter drivel.

 

 

Usual pack of porkies from our deranged friend.

[I1L2T3]

Bailing out the banks was a one off and we should get plenty of it back eventually. Osborne will be aiming to get it back a year before the next election. RBS have already paid back what they borrowed.

 

When the banks went bust we were already living well beyond our means as a country. But what really racked up the debt quickly was Brown's refusal to cut government spending between 2007 & the election in 2010. In that time he borrowed over £400bn in the hope of winning the election. He lost and we all got stuck with the bill for his vanity and stupidity.

 

The thing you need to remember is that Labour have not grown the economy since the 1960s. Brown's efforts all turned out to be an illusion based on credit. So Balls' claims to be able to borrow more to stimulate growth are utter drivel.

 

History will show that the Tories inherited an economy that was growing out of recession then flipped everything into reverse.

 

Everything Labour warned about has happened, almost exactly as they said it would.

 

Everything the Tories said would happen hasn't. 2012 was supposed to be a year of healthy growth, about 2.5% according to Osborne. Osborne's deficit reduction plans were predicated on this growth happening.

 

We'll be lucky if we see 0.5%. We may see even less.

 

For all the Tory bleating about how the Eurozone is to blame we musn't forget that the whole premise of the coalition is national stability in the face of threats to our economy from the Eurozone. If they really understood the threat why sign up to predictions of 2.5% growth?

 

But we have only just started with the cuts. More is to come. More choking off of demand. More people out of work. Less tax receipts. Dampened growth. More business failures.

 

It's a disaster Jim.

[heeleyson]

One day JG and the uphill gardener will live a long and very productive life , on there own plannet.

[chem1st]

If economy = 1 fish and 1 chips.

 

And it grew to 1.1 fish and 1.1 chips and the price was the same. No growth.

 

If it cost 10% more the year after. 10% growth.

 

If 2 lots of fish and 2 lots of chips, and twice as much trade, but at half the price. No growth.

 

Tis not prices, tis trade.

 

Strike for higher wages?

Make goods for fellow man?

 

You will be poorer if you do not work. What is the matter is the fruits of the labour.

 

Why work in a factory for landlord x/king when you can be your own man and work for yourself!

[MrSmith]

History will show that the Tories inherited an economy that was growing out of recession then flipped everything into reverse.

 

Everything Labour warned about has happened, almost exactly as they said it would.

 

Everything the Tories said would happen hasn't. 2012 was supposed to be a year of healthy growth, about 2.5% according to Osborne. Osborne's deficit reduction plans were predicated on this growth happening.

 

We'll be lucky if we see 0.5%. We may see even less.

 

For all the Tory bleating about how the Eurozone is to blame we musn't forget that the whole premise of the coalition is national stability in the face of threats to our economy from the Eurozone. If they really understood the threat why sign up to predictions of 2.5% growth?

 

But we have only just started with the cuts. More is to come. More choking off of demand. More people out of work. Less tax receipts. Dampened growth. More business failures.

 

It's a disaster Jim.

 

The economy had the illusion of growth before the banking crisis, but the growth was a result of borrowing and living beyond our means, I’m sure you have already agreed with this, so why do you think the same illusional growth funded by further borrowing after the crisis was a good thing? and how long would you like this illusion to keep going?

[I1L2T3]

The economy had the illusion of growth before the banking crisis, but the growth was a result of borrowing and living beyond our means, I’m sure you have already agreed with this, so why do you think the same illusional growth funded by further borrowing after the crisis was a good thing? and how long would you like this illusion to keep going?

 

I'm talking about 2010 not 2007. In 2010 the economy was recovering. Since 2010 we've had virtually no growth and now our economy is shrinking.

 

If anything the experience of Germany and the USA seems to show we didn't stimulate enough through 2008-10 and that choking off the stimulus in 2010 was a mistake.

 

It all boils down to a a couple of simple variables really - how much tax the Treasury gets and the level of welfare. You want to maximise the former (within reasonable limits) and minimise the latter. Osborne is doing the opposite on both counts.

[MrSmith]

I'm talking about 2010 not 2007. In 2010 the economy was recovering. Since 2010 we've had virtually no growth and now our economy is shrinking.

 

If anything the experience of Germany and the USA seems to show we didn't stimulate enough through 2008-10 and that choking off the stimulus in 2010 was a mistake.

 

It all boils down to a a couple of simple variables really - how much tax the Treasury gets and the level of welfare. You want to maximise the former (within reasonable limits) and minimise the latter. Osborne is doing the opposite on both counts.

 

I know, but it was recovering for the same reason that it was growing prior to 2007, increased debts to stimulate the economy. It was stimulated before 2007 with government and personal debts growing in order to fund the growth, how is a continuation of this illusion a good thing?

[I1L2T3]

I know, but it was recovering for the same reason that it was growing prior to 2007, increased debts to stimulate the economy. It was stimulated before 2007 with government and personal debts growing in order to fund the growth, how is a continuation of this illusion a good thing?

 

Two very different scenarios. In 2008-10 stimulus was applied to try and recover from a 6% fall in output.