Notices
Closed Thread
Page 102 of 102 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102
Results 3,031 to 3,046 of 3046

Thread: General Election 2017 - Discussion Thread

  1. #3031  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    ........ We've just shown the Conservatives borrow more than Labour. You've admitted you believe growing population is cause of debt. Then you say Labour spend more and yet I demonstrated actually Conservatives spend more.

    Now if the Conservatives spend more where do you think they get the money from? They borrow it. It's our currency anyway. Regardless your belief system is in complete tatters Ron and we'll leave it there.

    I asked you to prove Labour borrow more you couldn't. I asked you to prove Labour spend more on benefits you couldn't. I asked you to prove Labour grew the debt more than the Conservatives you couldn't.

    Use the word 'bod' all you like. Use phrases like 'living on the never, never' as much as you want. You're debating skills, your evidence, your position is shambolic. You can't provide evidence for any belief you've ever had.

    It's been enjoyable to discuss this with you but there's only so much you can try and share. If the other person says i don't believe the evidence, I can't prove my points i'll just say Labour bods and hope nobody notices I'm talking jibberish then we've come to an end.

    I'm sure we can pick it up when the next election is announced
    Stop humouring him by talking about borrowing, he has absolutely zero knowledge of what he is talking about. Ask him who we owe the debt to, ask him how the only issuer of pounds sterling in the world owes money in pounds sterling.

    You've spent 30 pages debating with someone....who was educated in a period where currency was not fiat currency and chartalism was not the process from which currency obtained its value.

    It's like trying to talk about gun control with a a white farmer from Alabama, don't waste your time.
    Last edited by Jannno; 16-6-17 at 08:52. Reason: quote edited
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #3032  
    dreams-come-true is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,408
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3033  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    28,075
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    The total value of all the wealth in the world is $75 trillion. The total value of all debt is $71 trillion.

    Money is "debt". It's not owed to anyone, it's a construct. Those figures above are impossible if debt was debt as people know it. People say we owe money to China but then China owes money to someone and that person owes money to someone, it's a fictitious concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Ron honestly, I'm not a fan of how corporations came about or the rights they have over people. In all honesty though I couldn't care less. If we have a government that invests in the population the corporations will be fine.

    I like humans Ron. I like to see humans do well. There's room for corporations also but the governments spends the populations currency. It's our money, our Britain and we should put ourselves first.

    We can call it new trickle down economics. You put the people on the top, invest the money in them and let it trickle down to the corporations. Beautiful.

    Coach's trickle down economics.

    I've got Coach's supply side economics as well. The UK supply's the labour for the labour market. Let's invest in labour capital and reduce barriers to skills and education. With a more skilled economy, more dynamic, we'll have growth and higher GDP and beautiful.

    That's probably Conservative v Labour debate in one question. Do you want to invest in capital or people?
    Gotta question you's three debating skills - as you say all these posts and you still haven't converted anyone......tut tut
    Mine as bad as they maybe, but I must of been pretty effective if it stops you getting your hate claws into others.......

    OH and your posts are more proof that you hate the poverty people more than anyone else on here
    coz the debt does matter
    You talk of printing money - that pushes up inflation, and you don't wanna do that - coz that hurts the people at the bottom
    You don't wanna make your investors panic - coz then you will cause people to withdraw their money.....
    Heres something to help you understand the National Debt
    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/49...t-debt-matter/
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #3034  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Gotta question you's three debating skills - as you say all these posts and you still haven't converted anyone......tut tut
    Mine as bad as they maybe, but I must of been pretty effective if it stops you getting your hate claws into others.......

    OH and your posts are more proof that you hate the poverty people more than anyone else on here
    coz the debt does matter
    You talk of printing money - that pushes up inflation, and you don't wanna do that - coz that hurts the people at the bottom
    You don't wanna make your investors panic - coz then you will cause people to withdraw their money.....
    Heres something to help you understand the National Debt
    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/49...t-debt-matter/
    Lol, "Economics Help" looks like a website to help 7 year olds doing school projects. Since I have a little red thingy, whatever that is, under my last post I'm not going to bother debating anymore as I may get a ban. But since you posted the article, what I will say is read the entire thing - and most importantly the very last statement:

    In the early 1950s, UK national debt was over 200% of GDP (in 2012, it is 63% of GDP). But, this level of debt didn’t burden the UK. It was a legacy of the Second World War and spending on the Welfare State and nationalising industries. It laid a foundation for three decades of economic prosperity.
    This statement alone renders the entire article preceding it wrong, they just spent a thousand words saying how high debt is dangerous and bad and we can't have it and then they finish with, "oh by the way, everything we have just being arguing against actually happened in real life and it actually led to the largest sustained period of economic prosperity in modern history".
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #3035  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    You didn't vote labour - shock horror

    You need to check your history - coz Blair was the labour Party - Sorry i forgot, your hands are clean - it was someone else's fault....
    Blair is a Neo Conservative
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #3036  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    So population expansion is the problem? That's definitely a possible contributing factor. Take the following

    Edward Heath (Conservative) 1970-74 - Spending rose from 22 billion to 44 billion. That's an 100% increase in public spending in 4 years.
    Harold Wilson (Conservative) 9174-76 - Spending rose from 44 billion to 64 billion. That's an increase of around 48% but over half the term (2 years) so almost identical to Heath
    James Callaghan (Labour) 1976-79 - Spending rose from 64 billion to 78 billion. That's a significantly lower spending increase than previous Conservatives approx 15% in 3 years
    Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1979-1990 Spending rose from 78 billion to 210 billion. That's a 300% rise however over and 11 year period.
    John Major (Conservative) 1990-1997 Spending rose from 210 billion to 322 billion. That's a fairly modest 50% rise but over 3 years.
    Tony Blair (Labour) 1997-2010 Spending rose from 322 billion to 671 billion. That's 104% rise over 13 years (half the increases seen in spending than Thatcher in 2 fewer years)
    David Cameron (Conservative) Spending rose from 671 billion to 755 billion. That's a very small percentage spending rise of 15% in 6 years.

    Now please note the the annual spending increases are up until Cameron significantly higher for Conservatives. For example Heath and Wilson had higher rates of spending increase than Callaghan. John Major and Margaret Thatcher (massively under Thatcher) were significantly higher spenders than Blair.

    That's just part of the maths.

    Another set of figures show than in 1978 under Labour the amount that government spent on welfare was around 11 billion. The reason the figure was so low was because with strong unions and good working condition plus plenty of jobs very few people claimed benefits.

    That is until Thatcher destroyed industry, crashed the economy, took away workers rights, started supply side economics and trickle down economics and then what happened by the time Thatcher left in 1990?

    The welfare system trebled under Thatcher. By the time she left office it was now over 30 billion per year. That's a 300% increase in benefits Ron.

    Now let's look at John Major. He took over and the benefits bill was 30 billion and within 7 years by the time John Major left office it was over 64 billion. That's over a 100% increase in 7 years.

    Now I'm certainly not a Tony Blair fan. I dislike the man and what he stood for. When he arrived in 1997 the benefits bill was 64 billion. In 2007 (just before the financial crash) 7 years after Blair came to power the benefits bill had risen to 78 billion. That's a 20% increase.

    How do you explain these figures Ron? If Labour spend massively more, if they are the party of benefits then why is it the Conservatives were massively bigger spenders and increased benefits massively?

    Now Ron...........................you do the maths. See if you can defend your 'belief' that Labour spend more, Labour caused rise in benefits with actual evidence.
    Harold Wilson was Conservative?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #3037  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,803
    Quote Originally Posted by seasonedtraveller View Post
    All this hassle is down to lefties,stop opponents and remainers. Well done you fools.you were worried about a hard brexit. .....This is going to be much worse now. Ha ha ha
    Do you want a Conservatory too ST?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #3038  
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    28,841
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    Harold Wilson was Conservative?
    Amazing, isn't it… and we always thought…
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #3039  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Ron people will think I try and change your mind here. That's not the case. The lady is not for changing. What I do is systematically break down every point you make and show it for what it really is. That does two things. Firstly will rouse those who are apathetic but socialist by nature or working class and secondly there are some other Conservative posters here.

    I can't change their minds either. They're younger, smarter, debate stronger than you but when they read your posts your views will hold as a mirror to their own and they may not like what they see. Or they may carry on.
    Or if it doesn't serve as a mirror perhaps they are not really smarter?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #3040  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Gotta question you's three debating skills - as you say all these posts and you still haven't converted anyone......tut tut
    Mine as bad as they maybe, but I must of been pretty effective if it stops you getting your hate claws into others.......

    OH and your posts are more proof that you hate the poverty people more than anyone else on here
    coz the debt does matter
    You talk of printing money - that pushes up inflation, and you don't wanna do that - coz that hurts the people at the bottom
    You don't wanna make your investors panic - coz then you will cause people to withdraw their money.....
    Heres something to help you understand the National Debt
    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/49...t-debt-matter/
    I don't need to add much but I want to. Jared has already pointed out the glaringly obvious contradiction in the article you posted and having read it this article is like a basic guide for kids but still can be useful.

    However let me point out that Tejvan Pettinger is not an economist. He's a Conservative, an A Level teacher and a cyclist. His degree isn't even in Economics it is in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (with Economics being basic) and despite the wonderful Oxford University education couldn't manage a 1st.

    So we would expect some political bias but let's see what he says.

    He starts the first line with a political bias. He says high debt can cause investors to lose confidence leading to higher bond yields putting pressure in governments to 'slash' spending.

    Any time you see somebody use the word 'slash' in economics know there's a political motive in their work. However Ron whilst what he says is theoretically plausible here's the problem................you think he's talking about the UK when he says this don't you? He's not.

    Do you remember the fact we own our own currency and we have our money supply? Good

    Tejvan Petting then goes on to give a vague example of some Eurozone inflation problems in 2012. Those countries do not control their money supply. They use the Euro. So they absolutely can run out of money. Simple.

    Then he gives an alarming example of Germany in 1920's. After World War I the Allies decided to pretty much crush Germany. They loaded huge reparations (debt) believing it would end Germany as an industrial force. Unfortunately despite Keynes saying the reparations were too harsh they were applied.

    Amazingly the Germans met their repayments. So the London Ultimatum happened. The Allies now demanded the debt be paid on gold, foreign currency and Germany pay 26% of all exports. Germany was paying back extreme loans with marks through manufacturing and exporting.

    The Allies now took 26% of exports removing their ability to repay. They then demanded Germany pay in foreign currency. Germany ran out of gold, had exports crushed and had to print huge amounts of money to buy foreign currency quickly and repeatedly without an economy capable of backing it up.

    You see how ridiculous these examples are Ron right? They are literally nothing related to the UK which owns its own currency and hasn't just lost a war to the allies trying to now crush it.

    Investors have not lost any confidence in UK. We have 7 billion in assets. Any investors buying gilts/bonds will expect to be repaid in pounds sterling of which we have an unlimited supply.

    Sp the question is Ron who owns our debt? Who do we have to pay interest to? The Bank of England owns around 30%. Do you know who owns the Bank of England Ron? We do.

    About another 30% of debt is owned by banks and insurance companies and there's absolutely no need to worry about them as we pay 3% interest and they need us as much we need them and lets not forget the bail out.

    Finally 30% is held overseas. Even this isn't worth worrying about because we have an unlimited supply of pounds and every nation has systems of owing money to every other nation. Its a bit of a scam to make the debt seem real. If you owe yourself money that sounds ridiculous but if everybody thinks they owe everybody else that makes it seem real.

    So let's look at what else heavy petting says........................

    "However, in many cases, high levels of government debt do not cause instability – but can actually prevent a deeper recession."

    Hang on a minute Ron. Here's a Conservative Economist saying increasing debt and spending in a recession causes stability through investment (Jared has pretty much said this for past few years. Don't you find that interesting that the guy you have posted an article from disagrees with you and agrees with Jared?)

    "In a recession, generally people save more and so wish to buy government debt. This means governments can often borrow cheaply to finance public sector works."

    Things are getting crazy now Ron with your link because he's actually saying as spending is down in recession, interest rates are lower and that's the best time to borrow. He's making a brilliant case for spending here Rone.

    Wait a minute Ron it gets better............

    "In the 1950s, national debt in the UK reached 200% of GDP, but it did not compromise economic growth or inflation. The UK was able to reduce this debt burden over several decades of economic growth."

    The greatest period of economic prosperity came after huge borrowing, after a huge war and the debt isn't a problem. That's me sold Ron. If we can take on massive debt after a huge war and rebuild the entire country and that is completely manageable, not only that it is absolutely the foundations for economic success in our history. That's a compelling case isn't it Ron?

    Ron, the amazing thing is you posted that article thinking is supported your position. I have said this many times Ron, I love your data dumps. Every time you post evidence it always and I mean always supports my position.

    When you understand which parts of that article relate to the UK and which don't what the article is actually saying is right now would be a good time to spend. We should be taking on more debt because costs are lower for credit and you should spend in a recession and we manage debt fine and in fact the last time we took on significant debt it was followed by 3 decades of economic prosperity.
    Last edited by Coach791; 16-6-17 at 11:50.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #3041  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    Harold Wilson was Conservative?
    Haha I got him and Heath mixed up, just readjust still works out same
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #3042  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Haha I got him and Heath mixed up, just readjust still works out same
    Yeah I know it doesn't change anything just thought id point out the 'typo'.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #3043  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    Yeah I know it doesn't change anything just thought id point out the 'typo'.
    It's definitely best of Wilson up there somewhere I don't imagine he'd have been too happy about that mistake
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #3044  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    17,815
    In terms of Coach's figures the average annual percentage rise is as follows. Formula is Highest Value/Lowest Value to the power of 1/number of years -1 and rounded to 2 significant figures.

    Heath 19%
    Wilson 21%
    Callaghan 6.8%
    Thatcher 9.4%
    Major 15%
    Blair 5.8%
    Brown 2.0%
    Cameron 8.8%

    What we should also be wary off is the inflation rates at the time so how do the PMs rank based on the real increase of government spending over the periods in question

    Along with when it was decided by the spending ministries they didn't really need as much in year n+x as they had in year n due to a significant reduction in the money required for the projects.

    So whilst Brown has the best figures at 2.0% but it may be a case that Wilson has the most appropriate level of spending increase even though he is at 21%.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #3045  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by paul143 View Post
    In terms of Coach's figures the average annual percentage rise is as follows. Formula is Highest Value/Lowest Value to the power of 1/number of years -1 and rounded to 2 significant figures.

    Heath 19%
    Wilson 21%
    Callaghan 6.8%
    Thatcher 9.4%
    Major 15%
    Blair 5.8%
    Brown 2.0%
    Cameron 8.8%

    What we should also be wary off is the inflation rates at the time so how do the PMs rank based on the real increase of government spending over the periods in question

    Along with when it was decided by the spending ministries they didn't really need as much in year n+x as they had in year n due to a significant reduction in the money required for the projects.

    So whilst Brown has the best figures at 2.0% but it may be a case that Wilson has the most appropriate level of spending increase even though he is at 21%.
    Your figures show pretty much the same thing. It doesn't take into account how long each were in office but Heath or Wilson? No real difference.

    Thatcher, Major more than Blair and Brown.

    Inflation can be affected by something like an oil crisis. The major reason for inflation in the 1970's. People in the UK don't see to see that at the same time we were experiencing inflation in the 1970's so was the U.S. Did they have a Labour government?

    Of course not it was due to the oil crisis. Now forget inflation for a moment the real thing to take from this is this. Is there any evidence at all Labour spends more and acquires more debt than the Conservatives? The answer is categorically and emphatically NO.

    There is also significant evidence that the ONLY way to get out of a recession is by investment. Austerity has never worked in a weakened economy ever, anywhere and that's according to the IMF who advised it.

    Labour debt, Labour spending, austerity works all myths and this is pretty much Conservative fantasy. So what is the difference between Labour or typical socialist spending/economic policy and Conservative spending/economic policy. You can define it in a nutshell

    Socialist spending invests money into people. Protects their rights wants health, education, skills and industries to be built and what this does is raise the standard of living for the population. It does mean higher wages, it does mean lower profits for corporations and capital. This is because investing in people and labour quality strengthens labour in the labour vs capital exchange

    The Conservatives have a series of policies labour instability (removing workers rights, job security, driving down wages) they instead reduce investment in education, they want fewer skills, a less qualified population and they instead use supply side economics/trickle down economics to invest in capital rather than labour. This strengthens capital over labour in the labour vs capital exchange.

    There's absolutely no real difference in spending, debt, benefits or anything else. Socialist policies invest in the labour skills and industries to strengthen the hand of labour in the market and Conservative policies invest in capital and attack labour rights to strengthen the influence of capital in the labour market.

    That's it in a nutshell. Austerity is nonsense, complete nonsense in a weakened economy and if people knew the truth there would not be a Conservative Party close to election. Education cuts, health cuts, police cuts, budget cuts are all based on an economic lie.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #3046  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,380
    Thanks to all who contributed to the last 102 pages.

    New thread now open.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •