Amount of homeless children in the UK rises by 11% - NIMBY success!

[I1L2T3]

That doesn't alter the fact that consumers aren’t spending as much as they did during the credit boom, if consumers aren’t spending then company profits will be lower and taxes will be lower, lower government income should be met by lower government spending, I agree the government are borrowing too much but that is just to keep pace with the commitments and over spend of the last government, Osborne should cut more, not borrow more.

 

If he needs people to spend then generating fear about the economy is not the way to do it.

 

The more he cuts the more he sucks demand out of the economy. The more the economy shrinks or fails to grow the more he has to borrow.

 

People need to recognise that we are right in the eye of an economic storm. Radical action is needed.

[Wynkle]

That doesn't alter the fact that consumers aren’t spending as much as they did during the credit boom, if consumers aren’t spending then company profits will be lower and taxes will be lower, lower government income should be met by lower government spending, I agree the government are borrowing too much but that is just to keep pace with the commitments and over spend of the last government, Osborne should cut more, not borrow more.

Nail. Head.

 

However, leave the lefties to blame the guy trying to shut the stable door.

[MrSmith]

If he needs people to spend then generating fear about the economy is not the way to do it.

People can't spend because they already have too much debt and housing is too expensive, what we need is for everyone to cut consumption and live within their means.

 

The more he cuts the more he sucks demand out of the economy. The more the economy shrinks or fails to grow the more he has to borrow.

 

The government also need to learn how to spend within its means, excessive borrowing got us into the mess, it won't get us out of it in the long term.

 

People need to recognise that we are right in the eye of an economic storm. Radical action is needed.

 

I agree, but you are just suggesting more of what got us here.

[I1L2T3]

People can't spend because they already have too much debt and housing is too expensive, what we need is for everyone to cut consumption and live within their means.

 

 

 

The government also need to learn how to spend within its means, excessive borrowing got us into the mess, it won't get us out of it in the long term.

 

 

 

I agree, but you are just suggesting more of what got us here.

 

No, I'm suggesting something that could get us out of this. You are suggesting more of what got us here - unproductive borrowing to support policy failure.

[MrSmith]

No, I'm suggesting something that could get us out of this. You are suggesting more of what got us here - unproductive borrowing to support policy failure.

 

No I'm suggesting significantly less borrowing, the government is borrowing too much and should cut further, you want more borrowing, look back over the decades and each government borrows more, and spends more just to keep the economy growing, its madness, unsustainable and needs to stop.

You cannot solve a debt crisis with more debt.

[I1L2T3]

No I'm suggesting significantly less borrowing, the government is borrowing too much and should cut further, you want more borrowing, look back over the decades and each government borrows more, and spends more just to keep the economy growing, its madness, unsustainable and needs to stop.

You cannot solve a debt crisis with more debt.

 

Osborne is trying to solve a debt crisis with more debt. That is the elephant in the room. He knows that his policy failure is causing debt to grow much more quickly than he forecast. Yet he won't change course.

 

If borrowing is done for the right reasons and generates an increase in GDP beyond the borrowing costs then that has to be a real option. Your option would leave us with poorly maintained crumbling infrastructure that would make sustainable growth impossible.

[MrSmith]

Osborne is trying to solve a debt crisis with more debt.

No he isn't, he's trying to keep the public services going and welfare system going with more debt, the public sector is too big and wasteful, as is the welfare system, and they need cutting to an affordable level.

 

 

If borrowing is done for the right reasons and generates an increase in GDP beyond the borrowing costs then that has to be a real option.

 

But it won't work and will just leave us with more debt and a bigger problem.

 

 

Your option would leave us with poorly maintained crumbling infrastructure that would make sustainable growth impossible.

 

My option will be more painful in the short term but will leave us with a more sustainable population and cheaper living costs.

[I1L2T3]

No he isn't, he's trying to keep the public services going and welfare system going with more debt, the public sector is too big and wasteful, as is the welfare system, and they need cutting to an affordable level.

 

 

 

 

But it won't work and will just leave us with more debt and a bigger problem.

 

 

 

My option will be more painful in the short term but will leave us with a more sustainable population and cheaper living costs.

 

The Tories aren't cutting welfare. They've given up on the idea.

 

Why won't infrastructure spending work?

[MrSmith]

The Tories aren't cutting welfare. They've given up on the idea.

 

Why won't infrastructure spending work?

 

 

 

It will give us a short term boost to the economy whilst the money is being spent, it will die once the debt fuelled boost is over, then you will be calling for more borrowing for more infrastructure projects, and an even larger working population will be required to service the interest on the debt, its pyramid economics and fails once population expansion can’t be maintained. Every bit of land you build on here means more dependence on the rest of the world, and many of the countries we depend on for food and energy will require it for their own expanding populations.

[I1L2T3]

It will give us a short term boost to the economy whilst the money is being spent, it will die once the debt fuelled boost is over, then you will be calling for more borrowing for more infrastructure projects, and an even larger working population will be required to service the interest on the debt, its pyramid economics and fails once population expansion can’t be maintained. Every bit of land you build on here means more dependence on the rest of the world, and many of the countries we depend on for food and energy will require it for their own expanding populations.

 

Short-term boost?

 

There is stimulus during the construction phase that is true. But the impact of the right projects lasts well into the future. It's not pyramid economics. It's laying the foundations for sustainable economics.

 

Do some research on the multiplier effect in economics. You will then hopefully understand that I am describing a process that will fuel sustainable growth if the right projects are selected.

 

You will also hopefully understand that Osborne has created in effect a reverse multiplier, effectively talking us into a slow motion downward spiral where huge debt is accumulated with nothing to show for it, where more people are driven to the breadline, where future generations are handed the debt and being the inheritors of crumbling infrastructure have limited options for paying it back.