Austerity??

Austerity was always a political decision to ensure the lower classes stayed poor. Never anything to do with saving money.
 
TANGERINETOWERPOWER said:
WTF was that ten year shitstorm all about? One shake of the magic money tree and its raining pound coins...billions of them...the money was always there so why oh why did we go through austerity...its all just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The money is borrowed out of total necessity to avoid a complete collapse of our economy. The austerity years will return to repay this and thank god we had the ability to borrow for the rainy day that really did come in the form of covid, and we weren’t already borrowed up to the hilt.
 
Except the poorest 10% in society had a 38% cut in income while the richest 10% lost only 5%. The very richest actually saw incomes rise. Hardly a fair way of treating a problem caused by international bankers by victimising the poorest is it? The source is an Oxfam case study on the true cost of austerity, just in case anyone thinks I'm making more "offensive" political points
 
catinstalbans said:
Except the poorest 10% in society had a 38% cut in income while the richest 10% lost only 5%. The very richest actually saw incomes rise. Hardly a fair way of treating a problem caused by international bankers by victimising the poorest is it? The source is an Oxfam case study on the true cost of austerity, just in case anyone thinks I'm making more "offensive" political points
Click to expand...
No Cat, you're right. The Coalition Govt, with the blood brothers Cameron and Osborne running the show got us ordinary people, together with the poor and the disabled, to pay for austerity. As Ry Cooder put it:
No banker, no banker, no banker could I find
They were all down at the station. No banker left behind.
 
Austerity was a belief system about how money works.

Magic money trees is another belief system about how money works.

The funny thing is that austerity, magic money trees, and indeed money are all human constructs (inventions if you like) that are less real than melting snow (a physical reality).

Now could you please pass me another mushroom (no BFC interpretation intended) dude.

👍
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Austerity was a belief system about how money works.

Magic money trees is another belief system about how money works.

The funny thing is that austerity, magic money trees, and indeed money are all human constructs (inventions if you like) that are less real than melting snow (a physical reality).

Now could you please pass me another mushroom (no BFC interpretation intended) dude.

👍
Click to expand...
They are indeed, but it’s not easy to imagine an alternative way in this age. We don’t hunt and pick berries to survive anymore so there has to be some form of viable trading currency surely.
And that’s why borrowing, lending, debt and prosperity and therefore needing a healthy economy means something, even if the actual reality of hard cash is a construct.
 
Lala said:
They are indeed, but it’s not easy to imagine an alternative way in this age. We don’t hunt and pick berries to survive anymore so there has to be some form of viable trading currency surely.
And that’s why borrowing, lending, debt and prosperity and therefore needing a healthy economy means something, even if the actual reality of hard cash is a construct.
Click to expand...
And with that level of economic awareness you no doubt understand that balancing the books is a meaningless Tory go-to phrase meant to work on the lower middle-classes through the pages of the Express and Mail.
 
Austerity was a political rather than an economic policy. Osbourne and Cameron saw it as the perfect opportunity to roll back the state in some sort of perverse tribute to Thatcherism. It was blindingly obvious that It was a perfect time to invest for growth (with interest rates at historic lows) rather than choke demand.
Fortunately the current Conservative government have realised austerity was an experiment that failed and have decided to adopt a more left wing economic policy.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
And with that level of economic awareness you no doubt understand that balancing the books is a meaningless Tory go-to phrase meant to work on the lower middle-classes through the pages of the Express and Mail.
Click to expand...
All governments have to manage the books, if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for such books.
If you’ve found a way to just spend borrow and incur no consequences then your level of awareness is exceptionally unique, ground breaking and would solve centuries of poverty internationally.
 
Lala said:
All governments have to manage the books, if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for such books.
If you’ve found a way to just spend borrow and incur no consequences then your level of awareness is exceptionally unique, ground breaking and would solve centuries of poverty.
Click to expand...
They technically don't have to balance the books and historically Tory Governments have increased borrowing far more than decreasing it. This lot are breaking records, of course, having been elected on reducing spending and trashing Labour plans, which they've now wholeheartedly embraced.
 
Lala said:
All governments have to manage the books, if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for such books.
If you’ve found a way to just spend borrow and incur no consequences then your level of awareness is exceptionally unique, ground breaking and would solve centuries of poverty.
Click to expand...
There is no need for books dude (accounting books I mean - books of ideas are good 👍).

Balance sheets are fiction based on a reality. Maths is real. Money isn’t. Cooooollll!!!!
 
They have to balance eventually, what advice would you give to nations like Zimbabwe who were unable to balance their books, had to devalue their currency by not doing and now have absolute economic crisis.
There is no magic wand to spend and borrow without consequences, and we will see those consequences a couple of years from now, whichever party governs us.
I’m happy to entertain alternatives that actually make sense but not so bothered about debating criticism of the current system without hearing a valid alternative. So I may go quiet on this one for a bit 🤔
 
Actually, Lala, they don't. They borrow money (capital) and pay back only interest, some loans are not repaid for hundreds of years (the slave one came out recently) by which time the value is much smaller.

Secondy, if the economy was growing a la Keynsian Economics, the percentage value of all these loans reduces. There was always an alternative to austerity 10 years ago, as above, it was a political decision to reduce public services and screw the public sector employees ( your good self included).

The irony for me about all these economic arguments recently is that Gordon Brown's Government decided to reduce the chance of a recession in 2009 by continuing to invest in big projects, to produce a soft landing, and was derided by the Right for so doing, Our man Rishi, with similar desperate economic and unemployment outcomes, is doing the same, and being lauded by those same figures.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Actually, Lala, they don't. They borrow money (capital) and pay back only interest, some loans are not repaid for hundreds of years (the slave one came out recently) by which time the value is much smaller.

Secondy, if the economy was growing a la Keynsian Economics, the percentage value of all these loans reduces. There was always an alternative to austerity 10 years ago, as above, it was a political decision to reduce public services and screw the public sector employees ( your good self included).

The irony for me about all these economic arguments recently is that Gordon Brown's Government decided to reduce the chance of a recession in 2009 by continuing to invest in big projects, to produce a soft landing, and was derided by the Right for so doing, Our man Rishi, with similar desperate economic and unemployment outcomes, is doing the same, and being lauded by those same figures.
Click to expand...
Fair points politically Mossy. My main point though that there are consequences to spending and borrowing at some point in the future. Therefore spending and borrowing has an eventual impact.
And the ‘economy‘ factor is real and a major concern for those who voted remain, but now the same people declare economic interactions as irrelevant when it comes to austerity.
It’s either relevant or it isn’t..
 
Portugal cast aside its harsh austerity measures in 2015 leading to record foreign investment and increased economic confidence, managing to achieve this while raising public sector wages, the minimum wage and pensions. It was expected to post a surplus for the first time in 25 years this year. That was of course before Covid but shows that the Tory driven cuts were more of ideological strategy than necessity.
 
Wizaard said:
They technically don't have to balance the books and historically Tory Governments have increased borrowing far more than decreasing it. This lot are breaking records, of course, having been elected on reducing spending and trashing Labour plans, which they've now wholeheartedly embraced.
Click to expand...
Are you still peddling that horseshit about the government adopting Corbyn’s policies? Give it a rest ffs. It’s extraordinary times which call for extraordinary measures which wouldn’t be used in normal circumstances even by a Labour government. So stop talking nonsense
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
Are you still peddling that horseshit about the government adopting Corbyn’s policies? Give it a rest ffs. It’s extraordinary times which call for extraordinary measures which wouldn’t be used in normal circumstances even by a Labour government. So stop talking nonsense
Click to expand...
Yet last December Labour's spending plans of building up the country through infrastructure development were fantasy magic money tree spending. That's not the plan now?
 
Lala said:
All governments have to manage the books, if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for such books.
If you’ve found a way to just spend borrow and incur no consequences then your level of awareness is exceptionally unique, ground breaking and would solve centuries of poverty internationally.
Click to expand...
Manage the books, yes. Balance the books, no. It's just a hackneyed phrase meant to impress the Micawber's of this world.
In fact, the Government's accounts are balanced everyday but the idea that a Government cannot spend more than it receives from taxation is simply not true.
 
Wizaard said:
Yet last December Labour's spending plans of building up the country through infrastructure development were fantasy magic money tree spending. That's not the plan now?
Click to expand...
What you're saying is the government have adopted these policies during a national crisis because they've realised Corbyn was right all along. That's utter nonsense and just shows how unbalanced and one sided your views are.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
What you're saying is the government have adopted these policies during a national crisis because they've realised Corbyn was right all along. That's utter nonsense and just shows how unbalanced and one sided your views are.
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Government have gone from deriding to adopting.
 
It's exactly what you're saying so stop trying to backtrack. They've adopted the policies in a time of crisis. They aren't policies any government (apart from a band of idiots led by Corbyn) would use under normal circumstances. You're saying it proves Corbyn's policies have been proved right which is utter nonsense.
Anyone would deride paying all this money out under normal circumstances as it would be utter lunacy to do so. Which of course is why Corbyn and his cronies are known as the loony left.
 
Shandypants said:
I believe in balancing the books but what I can't accept is the disproportionate impact it had on the poor. Austerity a policy paid for by the poor whilst the mega wealthy substantially increased their wealth. That's not right.
Click to expand...
So you believe in balancing the books. So I take it you didn't vote Labour at the last election?
 
Lala said:
All governments have to manage the books, if they didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for such books.
If you’ve found a way to just spend borrow and incur no consequences then your level of awareness is exceptionally unique, ground breaking and would solve centuries of poverty internationally.
Click to expand...
Governments do not need to balance the books, and every government with its own currency can just print money, and it seemigly has no consequences. That the money is distributed almost exclusively to major corporations and the very wealthy shows that we have a system is broken.
 
Wizaard said:
They technically don't have to balance the books and historically Tory Governments have increased borrowing far more than decreasing it. This lot are breaking records, of course, having been elected on reducing spending and trashing Labour plans, which they've now wholeheartedly embraced.
Click to expand...

I am thinking that you really aren't that anti Government/stupid Wiz.
 
Lala said:
They have to balance eventually, what advice would you give to nations like Zimbabwe who were unable to balance their books, had to devalue their currency by not doing and now have absolute economic crisis.
There is no magic wand to spend and borrow without consequences, and we will see those consequences a couple of years from now, whichever party governs us.
I’m happy to entertain alternatives that actually make sense but not so bothered about debating criticism of the current system without hearing a valid alternative. So I may go quiet on this one for a bit 🤔
Click to expand...
Hyper inflation like in Zimbabwe is always created by Governments, in the case of Zimbabwe it was designed to bankrupt white landowners, but as with all economic policy the people who really suffer are those at the base of the economic tree.
 
if anyone really wants to understand austerity read Mark Blythes book Austerity: the history of a dangerous idea,

In esence the idea of austerity is that it is an economic growth mechanism and the theory works thus: by tightening the purse strings of government now, the general public will understand that they have less tax liability in the future and are therefore encouraged to continue spending and hence bring the economy back into growth.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
if anyone really wants to understand austerity read Mark Blythes book Austerity: the history of a dangerous idea,

In esence the idea of austerity is that it is an economic growth mechanism and the theory works thus: by tightening the purse strings of government now, the general public will understand that they have less tax liability in the future and are therefore encouraged to continue spending and hence bring the economy back into growth.
Click to expand...
I will read that definitely to get a better understanding.
Thanks Costero 👍 Infact am on leave this coming week and due a trip to Waterstones, if they have it I will treat myself 🤗
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Buy a history book.

And read how the 1930s depression and mass unemployment was brought to an end by massive public spending.

And I don’t buy this “exceptional measures for exceptional times” argument. If it can be done in a time of war, then it can be done in a time of peace.
Click to expand...
This. ^
Plus the fact this Government admitted as much last week.
 
What we should be doing, is treating the economy like any successful business - if we can reduce waste, then the business / country will become more efficient and profitable.
We tend to fall into the habit of bad practices and not learn lessons when they are needed.

Just one example off the top of my head:
The NHS. There is no function in this country to charge or take payments from visitors or people from outside the U.K. using the NHS, for free, while they are here. If I went to the US and broke my arm, with or without insurance, I’d expect to pay. Not here. We don’t even have a function in the payment system to charge for treatment. Must cost the U.K. a fortune and it’s been going on for years.

And don’t get me started on foreign aid payments to China & India.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top