Osborne, £1.5 Trillion, worse debt since world wars

[I1L2T3]

The debt may double in cash terms from 2009/10 to 2019/20.

It will not get anywhere near doubling after correction for inflation.

It will not get within a country mile of doubling as a fraction of GDP.

 

You were wrong about the current debt and you're miles off on projected future debt. Just sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.

 

P.S. I post plenty of links.

On the very rare occasions when one pdf reader on my linux machines can't read a particular file, I try one of the others:

xpdf, evince, firefox, chrome ...

I don't get into a panic and assume that the uk government has put malware into their official documents.

If you're still interested, I suggest you download the file with wget or curl -O. You should then have no trouble finding an app on your system which can open it cleanly. Failing that, you could try running it through gs to either convert it to ps or regenerate the pdf to gs standards, which you system would probably like better.

 

I wasn't in a panic. The PDF caused some strange stuff to happen. Like I said I'll report it separately. It was right to report it.

 

Now, back to the point in hand. Even if you fail to accept that there has been, at the very least, a near doubling of debt in cash terms (even adjusted for inflation of which we've had little and now have deflation) then there is a serious underling point.

 

The point is that Osborne never intended to increase the debt by so much and that he made serious errors. His austerity experiment failed and he's the most profligate and spendthrift chancellor we've ever had. Big chunks of the deficit reduction so far have only be achieved by one-offs such as the transfer of Royal Mail pension funds to the Treasury.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

 

It can't be defended. The problems he has and is creating for the future are incalculable.

[betterman]

I wasn't in a panic. The PDF caused some strange stuff to happen. Like I said I'll report it separately. It was right to report it.

 

Now, back to the point in hand. Even if you fail to accept that there has been, at the very least, a near doubling of debt in cash terms (even adjusted for inflation of which we've had little and now have deflation) then there is a serious underling point.

 

The point is that Osborne never intended to increase the debt by so much and that he made serious errors. His austerity experiment failed and he's the most profligate and spendthrift chancellor we've ever had. Big chunks of the deficit reduction so far have only be achieved by one-offs such as the transfer of Royal Mail pension funds to the Treasury.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

 

It can't be defended. The problems he has and is creating for the future are incalculable.

 

I don't think Osborn makes all the disisions on government spending, he is part of a government and untill recently it was a coalition of two differnt parties with differnt policies. He wanted to impliment policies that would have reduced borrowing more than he reduced it, but he was prevented from doing so.

[unbeliever]

I wasn't in a panic. The PDF caused some strange stuff to happen. Like I said I'll report it separately. It was right to report it.

 

Now, back to the point in hand. Even if you fail to accept that there has been, at the very least, a near doubling of debt in cash terms (even adjusted for inflation of which we've had little and now have deflation) then there is a serious underling point.

 

The point is that Osborne never intended to increase the debt by so much and that he made serious errors. His austerity experiment failed and he's the most profligate and spendthrift chancellor we've ever had. Big chunks of the deficit reduction so far have only be achieved by one-offs such as the transfer of Royal Mail pension funds to the Treasury.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

 

It can't be defended. The problems he has and is creating for the future are incalculable.

 

 

Nonsense on all counts. Even using cash, 1487 is 155% of 960. Which is a very long way from 200%.

Read the document. Then you might have a clue what you're talking about.

 

People with sense and/or manners don't report things just because they don't understand how their computer works.

How would you react if I reported your bbc link just because my browser struggled with it?

Given that you don't know enough maths to understand what doubling is, Linux may be too difficult for you. Perhaps you should get an etch-a-sketch.

 

In addition, since you've now decided that cash without adjustment is the proper metric for state funds...

Point to some front line government service which has received a reduction in funding in cash terms since 2010.

Otherwise your claims of austerity are blatantly false.

Edited November 28, 2015 by unbeliever

[Eric Arthur]

His austerity experiment failed

 

There hasn't been any meaningful austerity. Be careful what you wish for.

[I1L2T3]

Nonsense on all counts. Even using cash, 1487 is 155% of 960. Which is a very long way from 200%.

Read the document. Then you might have a clue what you're talking about.

 

People with sense and/or manners don't report things just because they don't understand how their computer works.

How would you react if I reported your bbc link just because my browser struggled with it?

Given that you don't know enough maths to understand what doubling is, Linux may be too difficult for you. Perhaps you should get an etch-a-sketch.

 

In addition, since you've now decided that cash without adjustment is the proper metric for state funds...

Point to some front line government service which has received a reduction in funding in cash terms since 2010.

Otherwise your claims of austerity are blatantly false.

 

If somebody suspects a dodgy link has been posted it is right to report it. If you thought I'd done the same then you would be right to report that too. I would encourage you to do that.

 

Cash without adjustment is one metric. It might not be the most helpful metric but as a headline for the economic damage Osborne is doing to the UK its a very good one. Even if you claim it is 55% which it isn't (the debt is now 1.523 trillion and will be 1.6 trillion this time next year) then that is way off what Osborne planned. He missed his targets by miles.

 

I don't think any of the other metrics make for pretty reading either. If we went through them, which I intend to do as we progress this thread, then they point to clear failure. Serious failure.

 

As an aside, less of the aggression please. We can debate this in a civil way.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

There hasn't been any meaningful austerity. Be careful what you wish for.

 

I agree as it happens. He has not been able to make meaningful cuts in many areas precisely because of his own policy failures. Tax credits and housing benefits are examples, and the cost of those is kept high mainly because housing costs have continued to increase. There are many things he has (or hasn't done) that have contributed to that. A little is happening now maybe but too late for lots of people.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2015 at 10:44 ----------

 

I don't think Osborn makes all the disisions on government spending, he is part of a government and untill recently it was a coalition of two differnt parties with differnt policies. He wanted to impliment policies that would have reduced borrowing more than he reduced it, but he was prevented from doing so.

 

In some respects he had been lucky that the LibDems put the brakes on some stuff. If he had been allowed to fully pursue his expansionary fiscal contraction experiment in 2010 I think it would have been very serious for us all.

[unbeliever]

If somebody suspects a dodgy link has been posted it is right to report it. If you thought I'd done the same then you would be right to report that too. I would encourage you to do that.

 

Cash without adjustment is one metric. It might not be the most helpful metric but as a headline for the economic damage Osborne is doing to the UK its a very good one. Even if you claim it is 55% which it isn't (the debt is now 1.523 trillion and will be 1.6 trillion this time next year) then that is way off what Osborne planned. He missed his targets by miles.

 

I don't think any of the other metrics make for pretty reading either. If we went through them, which I intend to do as we progress this thread, then they point to clear failure. Serious failure.

 

As an aside, less of the aggression please. We can debate this in a civil way.

 

 

My tone may be aggressive, but it remains civil.

You had inadequate grounds to consider my link "dodgy" and I take offence. I would suggest that you consider the matter more carefully next time.

That said, I think we can take a step back and resume good spirited debate.

 

1523/960 is 159%. Miles away from 200%.

1600/960 is 167%. Getting closer but still a long way short.

 

 

What would you do with government macro-economic policy given Osbourne's job?

 

You're criticism of the level of state debt suggests that you would have taken action to immediately eliminate the structural deficit and begin to reduce total debt levels.

You're unlikely to find any other socialists or social democrats on this forum to support that position.

What would you have cut? What taxes would you have created or increased?

In 2009/10 there was a budget deficit of £154 billion or 10% of GDP.

In 2014/15 there was a budget deficit of £90 billion or 5% of GDP.

You obviously take a severe dislike to the current Chancellors approach. What would you change?

[betterman]

 

In some respects he had been lucky that the LibDems put the brakes on some stuff. If he had been allowed to fully pursue his expansionary fiscal contraction experiment in 2010 I think it would have been very serious for us all.

 

You didn't even know that he hadn't doubled the debt, so I will take your opinion that it would have been very serious for us all if not for the LibDems with a pinch of salt.

[I1L2T3]

You didn't even know that he hadn't doubled the debt, so I will take your opinion that it would have been very serious for us all if not for the LibDems with a pinch of salt.

 

Up to you unbeliever

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2015 at 12:22 ----------

 

My tone may be aggressive, but it remains civil.

You had inadequate grounds to consider my link "dodgy" and I take offence. I would suggest that you consider the matter more carefully next time.

That said, I think we can take a step back and resume good spirited debate.

 

1523/960 is 159%. Miles away from 200%.

1600/960 is 167%. Getting closer but still a long way short.

 

 

What would you do with government macro-economic policy given Osbourne's job?

 

You're criticism of the level of state debt suggests that you would have taken action to immediately eliminate the structural deficit and begin to reduce total debt levels.

You're unlikely to find any other socialists or social democrats on this forum to support that position.

What would you have cut? What taxes would you have created or increased?

In 2009/10 there was a budget deficit of £154 billion or 10% of GDP.

In 2014/15 there was a budget deficit of £90 billion or 5% of GDP.

You obviously take a severe dislike to the current Chancellors approach. What would you change?

 

I don't agree that you are being civil. Your etch-a-sketch comment was straight out the Jim McDonnell playbook of juvenile jokes. There were others too in that post but hey-ho I'm sure you can up your game a bit.

 

Indeed I would have started to eliminate the deficit, but in a growth promoting way. As for services there wad massive room for efficiencies without badly compromising front line services. Still is.

 

Osborne took a very different view, that as he removed demand from the economy the private sector would step in to fill the void. It was growth-stifling nonsense. It caused the economy to expand less quickly that it could have, it cost us the AAA rating, it cost us a lot in tax receipts and it led to us borrowing way more than expected.

 

It was a stupendously crazy policy to pursue. He pursued it for over two years. It's hard to believe he got away with it really. His response to failure was stoking levels of personal debt in this country, pumping up the housing bubble a bit more, a policy of debt-transference from public to private sector. Basically repeated many of Labour's major mistakes.

 

I think that history will judge him as probably the worst chancellor we ever had. Very dangerous.

Edited November 28, 2015 by I1L2T3

[betterman]

Up to you unbeliever

 

Why not just say thankyou for providing a link and sorry for getting it wrong, instead of the veiled accusation that I and unbeliever are the same person.

[unbeliever]

 

I don't agree that you are being civil. Your etch-a-sketch comment was straight out the Jim McDonnell playbook of juvenile jokes. There were others too in that post but hey-ho I'm sure you can up your game a bit.

 

Indeed I would have started to eliminate the deficit, but in a growth promoting way. As for services there wad massive room for efficiencies without badly compromising front line services. Still is.

 

Osborne took a very different view, that as he removed demand from the economy the private sector would step in to fill the void. It was growth-stifling nonsense. It caused the economy to expand less quickly that it could have, it cost us the AAA rating, it cost us a lot in tax receipts and it led to us borrowing way more than expected.

 

It was a stupendously crazy policy to pursue. He pursued it for over two years. It's hard to believe he got away with it really. His response to failure was stoking levels of personal debt in this country, pumping up the housing bubble a bit more, a policy of debt-transference from public to private sector. Basically repeated many of Labour's major mistakes.

 

I think that history will judge him as probably the worst chancellor we ever had. Very dangerous.

 

My "game" is just fine. So far I've completely disproven the central premise of your case. That's a pretty good start by any standard.

 

Ignoring your neo-Keynesian clap-trap for a moment.

 

You've not in any way answered the questions.

 

What would you have cut and/or taxed in 2010 or even 2015 to eliminate a £153billion or £90billion deficit?

Edited November 28, 2015 by unbeliever