Jump to content

For the economists in our midst


bridge too far
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seeing as around 30% of our GDP comes from financial services and that's the sector worldwide which has somewhat collapsed (...banking), it's little surprise that %public debt of GDP has gone up, both as the growth of GDP has fallen (and will not grow at the same rate in the future with a more conservative banking system... hopefully) as well as exorbitant spending taking place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do those figures include the liabilities from PFI?

 

Good question! AFAIK PFI is still 'off balance' in accordance with advice from HMRC and the big audit bods. I'm no accountant so my understanding is amateurish to say the least.

 

I think that means that the assets are 'off balance' (i.e. the value of the hospital / school buildings) but, as they're being paid for rather like a mortgage over time (usually 30 years), I'm not sure where the monthly repayments are accounted for. Also some of that repayment covers service provision i.e. hard and soft FM, energy costs etc.

 

I guess one sort of balances the other out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice ours has doubled te rest seems to have gone up gradually in comparison.We are not officially out of recession the others are.

Figures can be read many ways.

I still feel this coming year is going to be very bumpy.I hope Mr Brown gets in to reap what he has sowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice ours has doubled te rest seems to have gone up gradually in comparison.We are not officially out of recession the others are.

Figures can be read many ways.

I still feel this coming year is going to be very bumpy.I hope Mr Brown gets in to reap what he has sowed.

 

If you add in the fact that in our "boom" (fuelled by consumer debt, not by the merits of socialism), the growth in our economy was higher than in many of the rest and as such we should have been in a better position to face this economic crisis - i.e we shouldn't have needed to borrow as much as we have, but what do you expect with our glorious leader and his interpretation of the word "prudence"?

 

Either he believed in "no more boom and bust" or he didn't. Either way, this either makes him a fool or a liar and for this reason - I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434545.stm

 

I'm surprised and pleased at how we're doing

 

Well, our debt as a percentage of GDP is reasonable when compared to the other major economies (excluding China). However, our budget deficit tells the bigger story...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8214272.stm

 

-13.3% in 2010, ouch, that'll be the worst out of all the G20 then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you add in the fact that in our "boom" (fuelled by consumer debt, not by the merits of socialism), the growth in our economy was higher than in many of the rest and as such we should have been in a better position to face this economic crisis - i.e we shouldn't have needed to borrow as much as we have, but what do you expect with our glorious leader and his interpretation of the word "prudence"?

 

Either he believed in "no more boom and bust" or he didn't. Either way, this either makes him a fool or a liar and for this reason - I'm out.

 

Byeeee!!!!! Where are you off to? Financially sound Spain? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you add in the fact that in our "boom" (fuelled by consumer debt, not by the merits of socialism), the growth in our economy was higher than in many of the rest and as such we should have been in a better position to face this economic crisis - i.e we shouldn't have needed to borrow as much as we have, but what do you expect with our glorious leader and his interpretation of the word "prudence"?

 

Either he believed in "no more boom and bust" or he didn't. Either way, this either makes him a fool or a liar and for this reason - I'm out.

 

Surely, :rolleyes: as a politician..He was just being economical with the truth....I will not call you shirley ever again..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, :rolleyes: as a politician..He was just being economical with the truth....I will not call you shirley ever again..

 

Not sure about that, more a case of not being truthful with the economics.

 

Byeeee!!!!! Where are you off to? Financially sound Spain? :)

 

Don't worry BTF, "I'm out" metaphorically (in a Dragon's Den kind of way - before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you add in the fact that in our "boom" (fuelled by consumer debt, not by the merits of socialism), the growth in our economy was higher than in many of the rest and as such we should have been in a better position to face this economic crisis - i.e we shouldn't have needed to borrow as much as we have, but what do you expect with our glorious leader and his interpretation of the word "prudence"?

 

Either he believed in "no more boom and bust" or he didn't. Either way, this either makes him a fool or a liar and for this reason - I'm out.

 

Critics who bring up the boom and bust argument to criticise Brown don't understand the context of his initial statement. The phrase "boom and bust" is a well known term in economics that refers to a repetitive cycle of a short term economic prosperity turning to economic down-term - often with the influence of electioneering governments cutting interest rates etc. Given the number of consecutive years of growth from the nineties into the noughties it's stupid to say it was 'boom and bust'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critics who bring up the boom and bust argument to criticise Brown don't understand the context of his initial statement. The phrase "boom and bust" is a well known term in economics that refers to a repetitive cycle of a short term economic prosperity turning to economic down-term - often with the influence of electioneering governments cutting interest rates etc. Given the number of consecutive years of growth from the nineties into the noughties it's stupid to say it was 'boom and bust'.

 

 

This is an extract from his first pre-budget report:

 

"For 40 years our economy has an unenviable history, under governments of both parties, of boom and bust. So, against a background of mounting uncertainty and instability in the global economy, we set about establishing a new economic framework to secure long-term economic stability and put an end to the damaging cycle of boom and bust".

 

In the 2006 budget, he said: "As I have said before Mr deputy speaker: No return to boom and bust".

 

In his last budget as chancellor, Brown said "we will never return to the old boom and bust".

 

You can dress this up however you like, but the context and implication is that there would be no bust going forward.........which was followed by the biggest bust in history. He is still either a fool or a liar IMO

 

It's all encapsulated here:

 

Oh and in case you missed it:

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an extract from his first pre-budget report:

 

"For 40 years our economy has an unenviable history, under governments of both parties, of boom and bust. So, against a background of mounting uncertainty and instability in the global economy, we set about establishing a new economic framework to secure long-term economic stability and put an end to the damaging cycle of boom and bust".

 

In the 2006 budget, he said: "As I have said before Mr deputy speaker: No return to boom and bust".

 

In his last budget as chancellor, Brown said "we will never return to the old boom and bust".

 

You can dress this up however you like, but the context and implication is that there would be no bust going forward.........which was followed by the biggest bust in history. He is still either a fool or a liar IMO

 

It's all encapsulated here:

 

Oh and in case you missed it:

 

Only a tool would think that a politician (in any country) would or could guarantee that there would never ever be a recession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a tool would think that a politician (in any country) would or could guarantee that there would never ever be a recession.

 

Only a tool (who happens to be running - in the loosest sense of the word - our country) would stand in Parliament and pretend that he could.

 

From your response, I guess you have him down as a Liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all those countries are in debt, who do they owe the money to?

They owe it to people or institutions that bought 'gilts'. These are basically bonds (IOUs) issued by a government for a fixed term at a stated rate of interest, paying a fixed income twice yearly for a fixed number of years. They can be traded above or below their face value depending on the current interest rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...