Almost £4b more in cuts coming in the budget.

[L00b 441]

You went wrong because you are arguing that we are better placed now because the deficit has been reduced since 2010 wehereas if we were comparing the readiness of the economy to deal with another major shock the real comparison should be with 2008.

The datum for your Osbourne-criticizing logic is 2010 when Labour left office. Not 2008.

 

What was the deficit in 2010 and what spending commitments did Osbourne find on his desk when he took office?

Edited March 18, 2016 by L00b

[ricgem2002 11]

I said an economy built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions was always going to come crashing down, and there is no doubt that the economy crashed.

The cash injection into the bank bail outs wasn't part of the deficit.

The deficit increased because labour committed its self to massive spending on the public sector, spending that it couldn't afford after the economy built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions come crashing down.

 

No the country is in trouble and voting Labour will make matters worse.

what you should ask is would the people want a tory government hellbent on giving more money to the wealthy while imposing cuts on the poor and still not paying the national debt off

or do the people want a labour government hellbent on getting more out of the rich and giving the less well off a bit more cash and still not paying the national debt off the debt will never be paid off in my lifetime but the rich still get richer and the less well off get shafted

[I1L2T3 10]

The datum for your Osbourne-criticizing logic is 2010 when Labour left office. Not 2008.

 

What was the deficit in 2010 and what spending commitments did Osbourne find on his desk when he took office?

 

No, the benchmark is the state of the economy when crisis strikes. The benchmark is 2008. You can't benchmark this against 2010 because that was the back end of the acute phase of the crisis.

 

You are telling me that the economy is stronger than it was in 2008 pre-crisis and able to withstand the same shock. You're wrong. We're hobbling on crutches and we've run out of ammo.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2016 at 23:09 ----------

 

I said an economy built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions was always going to come crashing down, and there is no doubt that the economy crashed.

The cash injection into the bank bail outs wasn't part of the deficit.

The deficit increased because labour committed its self to massive spending on the public sector, spending that it couldn't afford after the economy built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions come crashing down.

 

 

Sorry, but this is complete rubbish. The housing bubble never popped. The housing market never truly crashed. The cash injected into banks was provided by the government. It wasn't off the balance sheet:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm

 

There was never 160bn of public sector spending commitments.

 

Like I said. Lie to yourself (or believe the lies of your puppet masters) and you will never understand the problem.

[redfox 10]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35848687

 

Where is Eric when you need him (your party needs you):help:

[L00b 441]

No, the benchmark is the state of the economy when crisis strikes. The benchmark is 2008. You can't benchmark this against 2010 because that was the back end of the acute phase of the crisis.[/Quote]It isn't, because Osbourne/the Tories were not in power until 2010, and the Brown/Osbourne comparison in policies is the apple of our dischord here (per your taking issue with my post in your #252 post), not the timing of the crisis.

You are telling me that the economy is stronger than it was in 2008 pre-crisis and able to withstand the same shock. You're wrong. We're hobbling on crutches and we've run out of ammo.

I most certainly did not. Back that up if you please, or retract it.

 

A comparison with the 2008 level is meaningless: Brown was caught flat-footed that year, and hadn't been battling the aftermath of the worst financial crisis since 1929 for 7-odd years. He'd completely and utterly failed to prepare public finances for it, planning instead on the gravy train never ending and the bubbles inflating further still.

Edited March 18, 2016 by L00b

[I1L2T3 10]

It isn't, because Osbourne/the Tories were not in power until 2010, and the Brown/Osbourne comparison in policies is the apple of our dischord here, not the timing of the crisis.

 

Back up to #252 and have a re-read. In particular:

Back that up if you please, or retract it.

 

It doesn't matter which party is/was in power. This is not a Labour vs Tory or a political thing. It is simple benchmarking of the capability of the economy to survive a 2008-style shock.

 

If you want to discuss the impact of another 2008-style shock your only possible benchmark can be 2008, not 2010. That is so blindingly obvious but somehow you are allowing your political inclinations to get in the way of understanding that.

 

There is nothing for me to retract. The only thing to prove is your fundamental error in how you have chosen to benchmark the situation now with completely the wrong date in the past. You used that as an unfortunate predicate for a very long-winded post and I called it. Get over it.

[L00b 441]

It doesn't matter which party is/was in power. This is not a Labour vs Tory or a political thing. It is simple benchmarking of the capability of the economy to survive a 2008-style shock.

 

If you want to discuss the impact of another 2008-style shock your only possible benchmark can be 2008, not 2010. That is so blindingly obvious but somehow you are allowing your political inclinations to get in the way of understanding that.

 

There is nothing for me to retract. The only thing to prove is your fundamental error in how you have chosen to benchmark the situation now with completely the wrong date in the past. You used that as an unfortunate predicate for a very long-winded post and I called it. Get over it.

Then we're done I'm afraid.

 

At no point have I claimed that current public finances are in better shape than 2008 or 2010.

 

I answered your hypothetical question with the self-evident truth that, with the deficit reduced as it is by now, the UK has spare capacity to emergency-borrow (again) if needed.

 

In your haste to score political attacks, you have completely overlooked -or misunderstood, or kept misrepresenting- my basic accounting point.

 

I have given you fair warning about it, but you don't consider it warranted.

 

OK.

 

I've enjoyed our many exchanges, but I don't debate with people who misrepresent my posts, and then refuse to acknowledge their error when called -nicely- on it.

 

Welcome to my ignore list. I don't think you'll like the company, but hey-ho, only yourself to blame. KTB.

Edited March 19, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27 10]

what you should ask is would the people want a tory government hellbent on giving more money to the wealthy while imposing cuts on the poor and still not paying the national debt off

or do the people want a labour government hellbent on getting more out of the rich and giving the less well off a bit more cash and still not paying the national debt off the debt will never be paid off in my lifetime but the rich still get richer and the less well off get shafted

 

They might vote for that but they won't get it, what will happen if labour are voted in is they will get less from the rich which will leave less to give to the poor.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2016 at 07:50 ----------

 

 

Sorry, but this is complete rubbish. The housing bubble never popped. The housing market never truly crashed. The cash injected into banks was provided by the government. It wasn't off the balance sheet:

 

In which post did I say the housing bubble popped, I said the economy crashed, and the economy crashed because it was built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions, when the housing bubble stalled, the economy crashed because the economy was only growing because of the inflating housing bubble.

 

The economy crashed, that's the economy not the housing bubble, the housing bubble stalled but also deflated, and that crashed the economy. It crashed the economy because the economy was built on the housing bubble. In other words there wouldn't have been a growing economy prior to the crash if there hadn't been an housing bubble to grow it.

 

So once again the economy crashed because the housing bubble that was feeding it stalled and deflated. So when people stopped speculating in the housing bubble it crashed the economy.

Edited March 19, 2016 by sutty27

[I1L2T3 10]

Then we're done I'm afraid.

 

At no point have I claimed that current public finances are in better shape than 2008 or 2010.

 

I answered your hypothetical question with the self-evident truth that, with the deficit reduced as it is by now, the UK has spare capacity to emergency-borrow (again) if needed.

 

In your haste to score political attacks, you have completely overlooked -or misunderstood, or kept misrepresenting- my basic accounting point.

 

I have given you fair warning about it, but you don't consider it warranted.

 

OK.

 

I've enjoyed our many exchanges, but I don't debate with people who misrepresent my posts, and then refuse to acknowledge their error when called -nicely- on it.

Welcome to my ignore list. I don't think you'll like the company, but hey-ho, only yourself to blame. KTB.

 

What a shame. Oh well.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2016 at 09:33 ----------

 

They might vote for that but they won't get it, what will happen if labour are voted in is they will get less from the rich which will leave less to give to the poor.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2016 at 07:50 ----------

 

 

In which post did I say the housing bubble popped, I said the economy crashed, and the economy crashed because it was built on an housing bubble of biblical proportions, when the housing bubble stalled, the economy crashed because the economy was only growing because of the inflating housing bubble.

 

The economy crashed, that's the economy not the housing bubble, the housing bubble stalled but also deflated, and that crashed the economy. It crashed the economy because the economy was built on the housing bubble. In other words there wouldn't have been a growing economy prior to the crash if there hadn't been an housing bubble to grow it.

 

So once again the economy crashed because the housing bubble that was feeding it stalled and deflated. So when people stopped speculating in the housing bubble it crashed the economy.

 

Nope, housing was just one part of it. Sub-prime loans failing to be paid triggered the crash in the USA but there was also issues with commercial indebtedness and speculation by banks. Banks got jumpy and they stopped lending to eachother.

 

The moderate deflation of the UK housing bubble did not cause the crash here. It was a symptom not the cause.

[ricgem2002 11]

They might vote for that but they won't get it, what will happen if labour are voted in is they will get less from the rich which will leave less to give to the poor.

what you talking about labour just like the tories will print money and give it to the poor and guess what the national debt will still not be paid off.

[sutty27 10]

Nope, housing was just one part of it. Sub-prime loans failing to be paid triggered the crash in the USA but there was also issues with commercial indebtedness and speculation by banks. Banks got jumpy and they stopped lending to eachother.

 

The moderate deflation of the UK housing bubble did not cause the crash here. It was a symptom not the cause.

 

And because the lending stopped people could no longer inflate the already inflated housing bubble which had been the driving force behind the growing economy, the economy was fuelled by debt and that debt was used to fuel an housing bubble, once the debt dried up the housing bubble stopped inflating and the economy couldn't do anything other than crash.

 

It was an economy fuelled by debt and an housing bubble and without the debt and housing bubble there wouldn't have been a growing economy in the first place. The economy crashed because that which was causing it to grow went into reverse.

[I1L2T3 10]

And because the lending stopped people could no longer inflate the already inflated housing bubble which had been the driving force behind the growing economy, the economy was fuelled by debt and that debt was used to fuel an housing bubble, once the debt dried up the housing bubble stopped inflating and the economy couldn't do anything other than crash.

 

It was an economy fuelled by debt and an housing bubble and without the debt and housing bubble there wouldn't have been a growing economy in the first place. The economy crashed because that which was causing it to grow went into reverse.

 

Fuelled by debt for sure, and yes housing was a part of that, but the trigger was the collapse of sub-prime in the USA and the subsequent issues at the banks. Our crash was not triggered alone by our housing bubble.

 

But, if you think it was then surely you should have issues with Osborne who has pumped the bubble back up. But you continue to hero worship him.