maxmaximus Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 that would be rather like crediting a grand prix driver for managing 8 laps of a race before loosing control & hitting the barriers, or a builder for putting up 6 floors of a 13 storey block of flats before it collapsed. ................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I think it is pretty well know that in the crash Britain crashed rather more than most. Brown & Darling managed a staggering 7.3% fall in GDP. There are few countries that can rival that. Perhaps you might ask one of the adults in your institution to find you some proper data for reference. And I do believe I said for the nth why GDP is an unreliable figure and not the true state of the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingus Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 And I do believe I said for the nth why GDP is an unreliable figure and not the true state of the economy Brown & Darling certainly left the economy in a state after their block of flats collapsed. So what would you think a reliable indication? How about the deficit between tax revenues and government spending? I think the record figure for spending beyond your means was again down to Brown & Darling in 2009 with a staggering £159.6 billion overspend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMoon Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Or to put it another way: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-blanchflower-george-osborne-has-ruined-1556720?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Brown & Darling certainly left the economy in a state after their block of flats collapsed. So what would you think a reliable indication? How about the deficit between tax revenues and government spending? I think the record figure for spending beyond your means was again down to Brown & Darling in 2009 with a staggering £159.6 billion overspend. Well I'm sorry mate but when Brown and Darling left power I was personally considerably better off than when the previous administration left. I would also add that when this current administration leaves office (hopefully) that I expect to be worse off than when they came to power. I'm sorry that you haven't experienced the same, clearly you are doing so much better under this lot than the previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 You criticize him for continuing a policy carried on by the previous administration, how do you justify this double standard.? ---------- Post added 14-07-2013 at 08:51 ---------- They inherited a very healthy economy from Clarke and Major, they maintained the Tory policies throughout their first term, that impetus took them through to, about 2004 when, to maintain momentum Brown started to borrow, when the crash came, we had no insufficient reserves due to Labour profligacy. ---------- Post added 14-07-2013 at 08:55 ---------- Just because you repeat it doe not make it true, objectively, Osborne is doing a good job under very difficult circumstances. Balls has stated that, if elected Labour will maintain all Tory economic policies. That says everything. Objectively he's responsible for a long string of disasters. I can start listing them if you like and we can discuss each disaster point by point. Be prepared, it could take a long time. ---------- Post added 14-07-2013 at 11:28 ---------- Its that rise that was and still is the root cause of the UK's problems. So why is Osborne trying to re-inflate the housing bubble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Objectively he's responsible for a long string of disasters. I can start listing them if you like and we can discuss each disaster point by point. Be prepared, it could take a long time. ---------- Post added 14-07-2013 at 11:28 ---------- So why is Osborne trying to re-inflate the housing bubble? Probably because he's a dick. Or perhaps to appease the idiots that think house prices should always go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted July 14, 2013 Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 It would be interesting to know what he thinks of the chancellors in Germany, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Cyprus etc who have economies running in reverse whilst ours is growing. No doubt if they are socialists he will think they are doing a good job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 No doubt if they are socialists he will think they are doing a good job! If by 'he' you mean me then I'll tell you what I think. The head finance ministers in those countries are locked into whatever happens in the Eurozone. It doesn't matter how good those finance ministers are, the Eurozone will screw em over. Do I think the Euro was a bad idea? Yes I do? Am I glad we didn't join? Absolutely. And we have politicians from all UK parties to thank for our overall reluctance to join. That said, Osborne has managed to take what relative strengths we had compared to Eurozone countries and piddle them up the wall with three years of disastrous economic policy. By his own targets he has failed. Only the truly blind will refuse to recognise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Brown & Darling certainly left the economy in a state after their block of flats collapsed. So what would you think a reliable indication? How about the deficit between tax revenues and government spending? I think the record figure for spending beyond your means was again down to Brown & Darling in 2009 with a staggering £159.6 billion overspend. It doesn't matter who says what on any side of the political divide, it is still an inaccurate figure to measure the state of the economy. The few at the top have all the money while the masses have far far less. Since the figure is an average it gives a false viewpoint of the economy by upping the state for most people ... and that is not relective of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.