UK Government borrowing goes UP

[1976_Child]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8652170/UK-borrowing-climbs-in-June.html

 

Despite all the rhetoric and shouting the government is actually not cutting anything. The country borrowed more in June than last June. The growth in GDP figures are soon to be released and will be well below the figures used in the Treasury's forecasts. Therefore the debt pile will continue to rack up.

 

The problem is that growth is dead but our debt-based monetary system and fractional-reserve banking system require infinite exponential growth. It is baked into the mathematics of debt-based money. Politicians of all stripes (with few exceptions) are just lemmings bleating on about the need to return to 'strong sustainable growth'. Never mind that nothing in nature, no species, no eco-system grows for ever. With the end of cheap abundant energy aggregate net-of-inflation growth in GDP is over. So all the government's forecasts are just a load of horse manure.

 

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. We need a new economic paradigm based on true sustainability and much less consumption. In the developed world we have mastered the following:

 

1. We have the resources and know-how to produce enough food and clean water for the entire population.

2. We have built our domestic shelters and have the skills and resources to maintain them.

3. We have - many years ago - discovered cures for the worst diseases and we have the ability to prolong human life now well into the 80s

4. We long ago mastered the art of textile manufacture - no one is without a coat in winter.

 

So, given all these plainly evident facts ask yourself why it is that we are still busting a gut for 45+ hours on average each week (not including commuting time) working? And how is it that now a household needs both adults to work full time - and even then it is sometimes not enough?

 

Why all this extra 'busy-ness'? I contend that in the new economic paradigm I espouse above we should be working less not more. And sharing the necessary jobs timewise so we can spend more time with our families and engaging in non-consumptive pursuits such as the arts, music, poetry and sport.

 

All this debt, debt, debt! No one has a frickin clue how to 'solve' it. How about we all stop running around like headless, leaderless chickens and take stock of where we actually are. Never before has a civilization been as comfortable as ours. Never before has an entire population been fed by only 3% of the workforce (albeit with significant 'fossil fuel' slaves in the form of tractors etc).

 

Time to shake of the growth obsession we justifiably needed in the 20th century. There is no doubt that 99% of the people of this country are better off now than in 1911. But now we need a different way of going about things. A different economics. One fit for the 21st century.

 

Check out:

 

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

http://www.neweconomics.org/

Edited 21 July, 2011 by 1976_Child

[scotty]

Commie.

 

Good post, btw.

[solentstars]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8652170/UK-borrowing-climbs-in-June.html

 

Despite all the rhetoric and shouting the government is actually not cutting anything. The country borrowed more in June than last June. The growth in GDP figures are soon to be released and will be well below the figures used in the Treasury's forecasts. Therefore the debt pile will continue to rack up.

 

The problem is that growth is dead but our debt-based monetary system and fractional-reserve banking system require infinite exponential growth. It is baked into the mathematics of debt-based money. Politicians of all stripes (with few exceptions) are just lemmings bleating on about the need to return to 'strong sustainable growth'. Never mind that nothing in nature, no species, no eco-system grows for ever. With the end of cheap abundant energy aggregate net-of-inflation growth in GDP is over. So all the government's forecasts are just a load of horse manure.

 

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. We need a new economic paradigm based on true sustainability and much less consumption. In the developed world we have mastered the following:

 

1. We have the resources and know-how to produce enough food and clean water for the entire population.

2. We have built our domestic shelters and have the skills and resources to maintain them.

3. We have - many years ago - discovered cures for the worst diseases and we have the ability to prolong human life now well into the 80s

4. We long ago mastered the art of textile manufacture - no one is without a coat in winter.

 

So, given all these plainly evident facts ask yourself why it is that we are still busting a gut for 45+ hours on average each week (not including commuting time) working? And how is it that now a household needs both adults to work full time - and even then it is sometimes not enough?

 

Why all this extra 'busy-ness'? I contend that in the new economic paradigm I espouse above we should be working less not more. And sharing the necessary jobs timewise so we can spend more time with our families and engaging in non-consumptive pursuits such as the arts, music, poetry and sport.

 

All this debt, debt, debt! No one has a frickin clue how to 'solve' it. How about we all stop running around like headless, leaderless chickens and take stock of where we actually are. Never before has a civilization been as comfortable as ours. Never before has an entire population been fed by only 3% of the workforce (albeit with significant 'fossil fuel' slaves in the form of tractors etc).

 

Time to shake of the growth obsession we justifiably needed in the 20th century. There is no doubt that 99% of the people of this country are better off now than in 1911. But now we need a different way of going about things. A different economics. One fit for the 21st century.

 

Check out:

 

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

http://www.neweconomics.org/

great post

[Sheaf Saint]

Can't disagree with anything you say. The global economic model is catastrophically flawed. There are enough resources on this planet (at the moment at least, but population growth is, perhaps, for a different discussion) to eliminate poverty completely, yet we still endeavour to support a system that leans so heavily in favour of an elite of less than one percent. It's f***ng grotesque. One thing is for certain though - it cannot continue as it is. Something will have to give eventually.

 

If you haven't already, I recommend you have a read of George Monbiot's Age of consent, or have a look at the Global Justice Movement website.

[Saintandy666]

Sounds almost ecologist! Look up Schumacher's 'Buddhist Economics' for an interesting read. Economics based on sustainability and environmental upkeeping rather than the relentless pursuit of growth.

 

And I have to agree with you. Our economic system is nuts at time. A massive problem for me is the way banks run themselves at the moment. They lend money which isn't necessarily backed up by any assets in the hope that the borrower will one day pay back. The money doesn't really seem to exist and is just created as debt by some guy plugging in a few 0's into a computer. Probably a very simplistic view, but we need to change to a more realistic system based on sustainability, because otherwise debt is just going to increase and increase and the abuse of resources that goes with that could be catastrophic for us all.

[Saintandy666]

Can't disagree with anything you say. The global economic model is catastrophically flawed. There are enough resources on this planet (at the moment at least, but population growth is, perhaps, for a different discussion) to eliminate poverty completely, yet we still endeavour to support a system that leans so heavily in favour of an elite of less than one percent. It's f***ng grotesque. One thing is for certain though - it cannot continue as it is. Something will have to give eventually.

 

If you haven't already, I recommend you have a read of George Monbiot's Age of consent, or have a look at the Global Justice Movement website.

 

But are there enough resources on our planet? There certainly aren't if everyone wants to live to the standard we live to, that would take several Earth's. If China and co are getting richer, we are going to get poorer. I do worry about China, because a massive middle class will develop there wanting what we have and that could be catastrophic for the Earth unless we all lower our standard of living a bit to a more sustainable formula. A bit of redistribution could go a long way here(in terms of food supply/energy and so on).

 

The real way to eliminate poverty really would be for a lowering of standard of life of the rich countries to allow the poorer countries some more resource. Are we going to do that though? I doubt it! It isn't really in the interests of any government to raise the standard of living too much in third world countries. It's very sad, but it's true. I just wish sometimes we could co-operate a bit more as a human race.

[Dangermouth]

Ofc.

 

Good post.

[Sheaf Saint]

But are there enough resources on our planet? ......

 

The real way to eliminate poverty really would be for a lowering of standard of life of the rich countries to allow the poorer countries some more resource.....

 

Yeah, sorry that was kind of the point I was trying to make, but it obviously didn't come across through my righteous indignation!

 

But you are sadly right. How do you tell people who have done well out of our f***ed-up economic system that they can't have their gas-guzzling 4x4 and other toys? The problem is that we in the privileged west have become so used to our affluent way of life that we have become addicted to it. We expect - no, demand - things like cheap clothes and readily-available food and water, but most people are blissfully unaware that the supply of these things often depends heavily on the exploitation of those who do not have the same opportunities that we take for granted.

 

What is required is a paradigm shift in people's consciousness, but I fear that won't happen without some kind of cataclysmic event on a planet-wide scale.

[Hedgehog]

intersesting idea:

http://combinedharvesters.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/a-letter-to-david-cameron/

 

Hope link works

[Saintandy666]

Yeah, sorry that was kind of the point I was trying to make, but it obviously didn't come across through my righteous indignation!

 

But you are sadly right. How do you tell people who have done well out of our f***ed-up economic system that they can't have their gas-guzzling 4x4 and other toys? The problem is that we in the privileged west have become so used to our affluent way of life that we have become addicted to it. We expect - no, demand - things like cheap clothes and readily-available food and water, but most people are blissfully unaware that the supply of these things often depends heavily on the exploitation of those who do not have the same opportunities that we take for granted.

 

What is required is a paradigm shift in people's consciousness, but I fear that won't happen without some kind of cataclysmic event on a planet-wide scale.

 

Definitely. Money poisons everything really. No-one is going to take real proper decisive action until it hurts their bottom line and by that point it will be too late. And that sadly is the problem with the free market here... it doesn't work with the planet, you can't bail Earth out!

[Wade Garrett]

I thought the banking crisis would have been enough to demonstrate that the free-market economy as it is doesn't work. Unfortunately, the free-marketeers seem to have ostrich syndrome.

[thefunkygibbons]

Good copy and paste

[Verbal]

This is only really evidence of a government chasing its tail. As it cuts deeper, tax revenues fall with the hit taken by the economy generally.

 

The idea, oddly bolted onto this, that growth is a zero-sum game, and that there was a finite world of resources that are distributed unequally, went out almost with the ark. It used to be the justification for the trading wars in the fifteenth century onwards: the only way to become a great power was to take someone else's wealth. The Ottoman Empire was built on this premise, as was the British Navy in Elizabethan times.

 

Economists a couple of hundred years ago worked out that the world (and economic growth) just doesn't work like that.

[aintforever]

The fun will start when the US decides to just write off it's debt.

[1976_Child]

Good copy and paste

 

no. all my own.

[1976_Child]

This is only really evidence of a government chasing its tail. As it cuts deeper, tax revenues fall with the hit taken by the economy generally.

 

The idea, oddly bolted onto this, that growth is a zero-sum game, and that there was a finite world of resources that are distributed unequally, went out almost with the ark. It used to be the justification for the trading wars in the fifteenth century onwards: the only way to become a great power was to take someone else's wealth. The Ottoman Empire was built on this premise, as was the British Navy in Elizabethan times.

 

Economists a couple of hundred years ago worked out that the world (and economic growth) just doesn't work like that.

 

So you believe that there is an infinite amount of resources on planet Earth?

 

It is this kind of thinking which is way, way out of date. The truth is the complete opposite. The resources we have available are finite. And the laws of thermodynamics are non-negotiable. 'Economists' (those same people who pointedly missed the screaming warning signs before the credit crunch) who believe in infinite growth base their assertions on only 150 years of historical evidence. Coincidentally, the period of time we have been using fossil fuels. If these 'economists' had dared to take a much further look back at human history they would have appreciated that things are very different to the cosy reality they believe.

[Petersfield Saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8652170/UK-borrowing-climbs-in-June.html

 

Despite all the rhetoric and shouting the government is actually not cutting anything. The country borrowed more in June than last June. The growth in GDP figures are soon to be released and will be well below the figures used in the Treasury's forecasts. Therefore the debt pile will continue to rack up.

 

The problem is that growth is dead but our debt-based monetary system and fractional-reserve banking system require infinite exponential growth. It is baked into the mathematics of debt-based money. Politicians of all stripes (with few exceptions) are just lemmings bleating on about the need to return to 'strong sustainable growth'. Never mind that nothing in nature, no species, no eco-system grows for ever. With the end of cheap abundant energy aggregate net-of-inflation growth in GDP is over. So all the government's forecasts are just a load of horse manure.

 

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. We need a new economic paradigm based on true sustainability and much less consumption. In the developed world we have mastered the following:

 

1. We have the resources and know-how to produce enough food and clean water for the entire population.

2. We have built our domestic shelters and have the skills and resources to maintain them.

3. We have - many years ago - discovered cures for the worst diseases and we have the ability to prolong human life now well into the 80s

4. We long ago mastered the art of textile manufacture - no one is without a coat in winter.

 

So, given all these plainly evident facts ask yourself why it is that we are still busting a gut for 45+ hours on average each week (not including commuting time) working? And how is it that now a household needs both adults to work full time - and even then it is sometimes not enough?

 

Why all this extra 'busy-ness'? I contend that in the new economic paradigm I espouse above we should be working less not more. And sharing the necessary jobs timewise so we can spend more time with our families and engaging in non-consumptive pursuits such as the arts, music, poetry and sport.

 

All this debt, debt, debt! No one has a frickin clue how to 'solve' it. How about we all stop running around like headless, leaderless chickens and take stock of where we actually are. Never before has a civilization been as comfortable as ours. Never before has an entire population been fed by only 3% of the workforce (albeit with significant 'fossil fuel' slaves in the form of tractors etc).

 

Time to shake of the growth obsession we justifiably needed in the 20th century. There is no doubt that 99% of the people of this country are better off now than in 1911. But now we need a different way of going about things. A different economics. One fit for the 21st century.

 

Check out:

 

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

http://www.neweconomics.org/

 

Great post, totally agree

[Verbal]

So you believe that there is an infinite amount of resources on planet Earth?

 

It is this kind of thinking which is way, way out of date. The truth is the complete opposite. The resources we have available are finite. And the laws of thermodynamics are non-negotiable. 'Economists' (those same people who pointedly missed the screaming warning signs before the credit crunch) who believe in infinite growth base their assertions on only 150 years of historical evidence. Coincidentally, the period of time we have been using fossil fuels. If these 'economists' had dared to take a much further look back at human history they would have appreciated that things are very different to the cosy reality they believe.

 

You're confusing all kinds of things here - and curiously getting lots of '+1's among people who have no idea, I suspect, of the real price they'd be asked to pay if some crackpot actually was in a position of power and could implement a zero-growth economic strategy.

 

The relationship between resources and economic growth is by no means 1:1. About 4/5s of Britain's economy is services - and much of that has to do with intellectual property, licensing, design and financial services. Precious few non-renewable resources there - especially when you compare Britain's economy today with that, say, before the Second World War, when manufacturing dominated to roughly the same extent. I n fact, it's manufacturing where non-renewable resources tend to get hammered - and that has moved in large measure to the developing world. So what you're proposing would actually impoverish the developing world the most - exactly the opposite of what (I think) you're trying to say.

 

Don't fall for this caveman economics; it's nonsense dressed as 'common sense'.

[1976_Child]

You're confusing all kinds of things here - and curiously getting lots of '+1's among people who have no idea, I suspect, of the real price they'd be asked to pay if some crackpot actually was in a position of power and could implement a zero-growth economic strategy.

 

The relationship between resources and economic growth is by no means 1:1. About 4/5s of Britain's economy is services - and much of that has to do with intellectual property, licensing, design and financial services. Precious few non-renewable resources there - especially when you compare Britain's economy today with that, say, before the Second World War, when manufacturing dominated to roughly the same extent. I n fact, it's manufacturing where non-renewable resources tend to get hammered - and that has moved in large measure to the developing world. So what you're proposing would actually impoverish the developing world the most - exactly the opposite of what (I think) you're trying to say.

 

Don't fall for this caveman economics; it's nonsense dressed as 'common sense'.

 

Sorry, but I don't have the time to go into detail about how muddle headed you are here. But please don't be fooled into thinking that the service economy is somehow divorced from the physical economy. It most certainly is not. All this talk of 'intellectual property' etc is hokum. We are a consumer-driven economy. Just because our portion of global GDP is tilted heavily in favour of design does not mean that the iGadgets etc don't end up being made somewhere with, guess what, prodigious amount of physical resources - most notably energy and complex molecules derived from oil.

 

We will have to accept a net aggregate zero-growth strategy whether we like it or not. I never said the ratio between resources and growth is 1:1 but it doesn't need to be. However, it is always a positive correlation and once you throw exponential growth into the equation the ratio actually matters little.

 

Resource-based is not 'caveman economics'. It is the sort of economics espoused by Adam Smith, of all people, who appreciated full well that the economy was not a human construct but part of the natural world. Fully integrate with the natural resource base.

 

Don't be so naive as to think that human beings are omnipotent. Wishful thinking and voodoo economics (of the Julian Simon variety) will not create a single atom of anything.

 

You need to spend some open-minded time studying this. I would suggest you start reading the (free) publications from the New Economics Foundation available here: http://www.neweconomics.org/

 

Ps: are you really saying that 'financial services' are a boon to our economy? That is cute!

Edited 22 July, 2011 by 1976_Child

[Draino76]

You have been reading to much Chris Martenson.

 

(I do a little btw)

[Verbal]

Sorry, but I don't have the time to go into detail about how muddle headed you are here. But please don't be fooled into thinking that the service economy is somehow divorced from the physical economy. It most certainly is not. All this talk of 'intellectual property' etc is hokum. We are a consumer-driven economy. Just because our portion of global GDP is tilted heavily in favour of design does not mean that the iGadgets etc don't end up being made somewhere with, guess what, prodigious amount of physical resources - most notably energy and complex molecules derived from oil.

 

We will have to accept a net aggregate zero-growth strategy whether we like it or not. I never said the ratio between resources and growth is 1:1 but it doesn't need to be. However, it is always a positive correlation and once you throw exponential growth into the equation the ratio actually matters little.

 

Resource-based is not 'caveman economics'. It is the sort of economics espoused by Adam Smith, of all people, who appreciated full well that the economy was not a human construct but part of the natural world. Fully integrate with the natural resource base.

 

Don't be so naive as to think that human beings are omnipotent. Wishful thinking and voodoo economics (of the Julian Simon variety) will not create a single atom of anything.

 

You need to spend some open-minded time studying this. I would suggest you start reading the (free) publications from the New Economics Foundation available here: http://www.neweconomics.org/

 

Ps: are you really saying that 'financial services' are a boon to our economy? That is cute!

 

What on earth is the 'physical economy'? And how is that different from services? I think some basic reading in economic theory would help.

 

I thought you might have been getting this stuff from NEF. They are a happy-clappy economics think tank, fond of coming up with things like the' happy planet index'. They are highly thought of by Gordon Brown, among others.

 

You haven't addressed the basic flaw in this zero-growth nonsense - that it penalises the very people in the developing world it professes to support.

 

And yes - I am most certainly saying that 'financial services' are a boon to the British economy. They are by no means unproblematic (an understatement right now), but without them over the last half a century Britain would be about as rich as Albania.

[1976_Child]

What on earth is the 'physical economy'? And how is that different from services? I think some basic reading in economic theory would help.

 

I thought you might have been getting this stuff from NEF. They are a happy-clappy economics think tank, fond of coming up with things like the' happy planet index'. They are highly thought of by Gordon Brown, among others.

 

You haven't addressed the basic flaw in this zero-growth nonsense - that it penalises the very people in the developing world it professes to support.

 

And yes - I am most certainly saying that 'financial services' are a boon to the British economy. They are by no means unproblematic (an understatement right now), but without them over the last half a century Britain would be about as rich as Albania.

 

Well, I guess you will need to take off the rose tinted spectacles before you can look objectively at the NEF's work. A closed mind is not an intelligent mind.

 

Are you telling me you don't know what the physical economy is? Really? Try running a service-based economy with out physical things or energy. You mention I should read 'economic theory'. Believe me, I have! I am very well educated in the status-quo economics. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I am prepared to question the assumptions which have dictated the global economics debate. I have an open mind on these issues, maybe you should attempt to expand yours just a bit too?

 

Now to the 'basic flaw in zero growth economic' you talk of. If you bother to actually read some of the NEf's work (it will mean getting your hands clapping a little bit ) then you will soon realise that we advocate the developed nations ceasing growing their economies so that the poor nations can. But this is a side issue. Up until now I have never mentioned the poor. Not because I don't care about them, but that it is not the over-arching issue at stake. The salient point here is that we are a species living on a resource-constrained planet. And at the moment we are consuming those precious resources at an unprecedented rate in the forlorn belief that 'resources don't matter'. Which is self-evident in your post because you appear to have such a hard time understanding what the physical economy is! Too much Julian Simon methinks, not enough Adam Smith.

 

I leave you with the following quote: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into". Might I dare to suggest that you have formed your economic standpoint as an article of faith, rather than reason?

 

Ps: how money is (or is not) linked to the physical is for another time. But just think about all those financial instruments floating around out there. All with 'legal' commitments, man-made commitments upon which real people are basing their assumption of future prosperity. Now try assigning each of these man-made instrument promises to the physical resources which people need to exist. What does classical economics teach us about this? The intersection between money and resources is very interesting, and not what most people are led to believe.

Edited 22 July, 2011 by 1976_Child

[Draino76]

What on earth is the 'physical economy'? And how is that different from services? I think some basic reading in economic theory would help.

 

Yes, some basic Economic reading would help. The definition of the 'physical economy' is probably covered in chapter 1 of GCSE Economics.

[Verbal]

Yes, some basic Economic reading would help. The definition of the 'physical economy' is probably covered in chapter 1 of GCSE Economics.

 

Well one reason you don't tend to hear the phrase among economic theorists is because 'physical economics' was a sub-set of Stalinist State Planning. I see no way to sensibly think of services apart from whatever 'physical economy' in this context is supposed to mean.

[Sheaf Saint]

.....

 

And yes - I am most certainly saying that 'financial services' are a boon to the British economy. They are by no means unproblematic (an understatement right now), but without them over the last half a century Britain would be about as rich as Albania.

 

And herein is a large chunk of the point. Realistically, why should we be any better off than Albania? We are a relatively small island nation with precious little in the way of natural resources, and our standing in the world is solely due to our hegemonic past where we travelled the world oppressing and enslaving other nations in order to steal their resources.

[Verbal]

And herein is a large chunk of the point. Realistically, why should we be any better off than Albania? We are a relatively small island nation with precious little in the way of natural resources, and our standing in the world is solely due to our hegemonic past where we travelled the world oppressing and enslaving other nations in order to steal their resources.

 

I do find this thread interesting in an anthropological sort of way. First of all, if it's a serious point that we need be no better off than anyone living in the barrios in downtown Tirana, then I salute your fortitude. It's a tough life you're looking forward to. If the 'large chunk of the point' is that you think we somehow deserve to live in abject poverty, then that's just brilliant. And you never know, with the world on the latest of its economic precipices, you may get your wish. Personally and honestly, I'd rather not.

 

In the absence of the proto-capitalists who usually swan around here pretending their window cleaning businesses are multinational corporations, I feel a little uncomfortable sounding like the defender of all things entrepreneurial - it kind of offends my long-held communistic (dune TM) beliefs. How could this happen? Is Saintsweb a ruthlessly egalitarian, Trotsky-ish cabal in disguise? If so, again, brilliant!

 

I suppose the biggest puzzle, though, is how economics and the workings of the economy became so divorced from everyday life. I suspect one of the causes of the credit crunch is that even the bankers themselves didn't understand what they were doing, big-picture-wise. Certainly the politicians didn't. And nor, obviously did we. That four-fifths of the British economy consists of something so intangible as 'services' at least partly explains it. There's probably a reflex thought that associates services with consumerism - but it doesn't have to be that way. Consumerism is perhaps a partial consequence of aspects of the service sector (marketing/advertising/product design). But so is innovation - the kind of innovation that offers technological solutions to sometimes huge problems facing us - that brings us better and ever cheaper ways of capturing renewable energy, for example; or of making the kinds of high-tech medical advances that can tackle widespread suffering in the developing world; or creating the kind of things we also decry, like GM, which potentially has the means of alleviating the scale of crises we're currently witnessing in Somalia. Food and water supply are both going to be in desperately short supply from now - so a bit of innovation and applied technology wouldn't be a bad thing. None of this happens in a vacuum - and certainly NOT in Albania!

 

So I guess you make your choice and live by your principles, if that's what they are. I'm not sure EasyJet goes to Albania - but good luck!

[Johnny Bognor]

I never thought I would say this, but I fully agree with Verbal here.

 

What aways makes me laugh in these sorts of debates is the apparent reliance of the UK on services, when industrial power houses like Germany and even France are held up as examples of how we should balance our economy. The truth is that there isn't much difference between all 3, when you look at how our economies are balanced:

 

Agriculture

UK = 0.9%

France = 1.8%

Germany = 0.8%

 

If you consider our and land mass is considerably less than Germany or France, we're not doing too bad on this front

 

Industry

UK = 22.1%

France = 19.2%

Germany = 27.9%

 

Although Germany's industrial sector is the largest, it is not as big as some people have been led to believe. With France being the smallest.

 

Services

UK = 77.1%

France = 79%

Germany = 71.3%

 

Out of the three EU big guns, France's economy is more dependent on services. Yes, ours is more dependent than the hun, but again, not by that much.

 

Anyway, carry on.

[Verbal]

With today's GDP figures showing growth at 0.2%, the knock-on effects from the lower-than-projected growth are that tax revenues will fall short of government predictions. So unless another raft of economy-deflating cuts are announced, the government will continue to see its spending figures rise. Osborne seems to have been chasing his tail so hard he hasn't spotted that the economy is in a nosedive.

[keithd]

stuff...

 

is this the same bloke that thinks the Oslo killing bloke was a fookin' hero?

[Verbal]

is this the same bloke that thinks the Oslo killing bloke was a fookin' hero?

 

The very same apparently. Not a surprise really. If you actually look at the links in the OP you'll find such gems as this:

 

Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."[3] Maslow studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.[4]

 

It's the sort of thing that would have made Josef Mengele proud.

[Saintandy666]

We need to invest properly in the green industries. It's still relatively young as an industry so there is much opportunity for growth and it is environmentally friendly. It'll take a lump cash sum to start up, but once it starts we could be world leaders.

[pap]

We need to start inventing things full stop, then manufacturing them here too. The green industry would be a very good area to look into.

[OldNick]

and our standing in the world is solely due to our hegemonic past where we travelled the world oppressing and enslaving other nations in order to steal their resources.

Thank heavens we were bright enough to do the above, as Im sure our young would not be able to cope without a new iphone, nice new trainers and food on the table.

I am not an apologist of our past, our nation has been responsible for some poor things but in more ways it has enriched the world.

[OldNick]

We need to invest properly in the green industries. It's still relatively young as an industry so there is much opportunity for growth and it is environmentally friendly. It'll take a lump cash sum to start up, but once it starts we could be world leaders.

it will be great to be at the forefront as long as the rest of the world go green.

[Guided Missile]

So, given all these plainly evident facts ask yourself why it is that we are still busting a gut for 45+ hours on average each week (not including commuting time) working? And how is it that now a household needs both adults to work full time - and even then it is sometimes not enough?

 

Why all this extra 'busy-ness'? I contend that in the new economic paradigm I espouse above we should be working less not more. And sharing the necessary jobs timewise so we can spend more time with our families and engaging in non-consumptive pursuits such as the arts, music, poetry and sport.

 

I refrained from commenting on your offensive thread about the Norwegian murders by a crazed gunman and the distorted view you obviously have of the world, but I have one question for you.

 

Given that you obviously believe you have such a complete grasp on economics, to an extent much greater than anyone else on this forum, WTF aren't you rich enough to give up work?

Edited 26 July, 2011 by Guided Missile

[Saintandy666]

it will be great to be at the forefront as long as the rest of the world go green.

 

Oh, the time will come when we have to go green. When the oil runs out, the market will force us to find other methods of generating energy. Unfortunately, by then it will be far too late as environmental damage already would have occurred far beyond what we see today. This is why we should get in now before the others do and lead the way. It's a good decision financially and morally.

[Sheaf Saint]

So, one of the excuses being bandied around for the poor growth of the UK economy over the last quarter is the royal wedding in april. Kind of p155es on the bonfire of those who claimed that the extra tourism revenue it would generate justifies the continued public financial support for the royals doesn't it.

[bridge too far]

So, one of the excuses being bandied around for the poor growth of the UK economy over the last quarter is the royal wedding in april. Kind of p155es on the bonfire of those who claimed that the extra tourism revenue it would generate justifies the continued public financial support for the royals doesn't it.

 

This - and the excuse that the hot weather depressed sales. Funny that, because the usual excuse is that bad weather keeps the shoppers away but that fine weather brings them out.

[trousers]

So, one of the excuses being bandied around for the poor growth of the UK economy over the last quarter is the royal wedding in april. Kind of p155es on the bonfire of those who claimed that the extra tourism revenue it would generate justifies the continued public financial support for the royals doesn't it.

 

Depends what they're measuring here? Perhaps the brief spurt in wedding trade was offset by the momentum lost in the wider workplace due to the extended holiday?

 

A snapshot like this proves nothing about the country's longer term royal related expenditure vs royal related income.

 

Good for a throwaway headline or two though, granted...

[trousers]

This - and the excuse that the hot weather depressed sales. Funny that, because the usual excuse is that bad weather keeps the shoppers away but that fine weather brings them out.

 

Politicians (of both colours) blaming 'external factors' when things aren't going well with the economy yet taking credit when it's going great guns.

 

Quelle surprise...

[Verbal]

Politicians (of both colours) blaming 'external factors' when things aren't going well with the economy yet taking credit when it's going great guns.

 

Quelle surprise...

 

Of of which is really beside the point. Whether the idiotic holiday was the cause of a few lost sales and work days or not, the slide back into a near-flatlined economic performance is cause for great concern. As the economy falters, tax revenues fall. As tax revenues fall, the deficit grows. If the deficit is to be reduced by another wave of spending cuts, the knock-on effect is more falls in GDP. It's THAT cycle that Osborne has to address, and I frankly have little confidence in a government doing succeeding when it spends even a second trying to dress up the bad figures with an extra flag-waving public holiday.

[trousers]

Looking at the smaller print of the quarterly growth figures...."hotels and restaurants" grew by 2.2% but "quarrying and mining" fell by 6%.

 

I would venture we can thank the Royals Wedding for the growth in the hospitality and leisure sectors but feel it may be a tad unfair to lay the drop in mining activity at their feet

[Verbal]

Looking at the smaller print of the quarterly growth figures...."hotels and restaurants" grew by 2.2% but "quarrying and mining" fell by 6%.

 

I would venture we can thank the Royals Wedding for the growth in the hospitality and leisure sectors but feel it may be a tad unfair to lay the drop in mining activity at their feet

 

Or when in a hole, stop digging.

[trousers]

Of of which is really beside the point. Whether the idiotic holiday was the cause of a few lost sales and work days or not, the slide back into a near-flatlined economic performance is cause for great concern. As the economy falters, tax revenues fall. As tax revenues fall, the deficit grows. If the deficit is to be reduced by another wave of spending cuts, the knock-on effect is more falls in GDP. It's THAT cycle that Osborne has to address, and I frankly have little confidence in a government doing succeeding when it spends even a second trying to dress up the bad figures with an extra flag-waving public holiday.

 

You may well be right.

[trousers]

Or when in a hole, stop digging.

 

;-)

[Verbal]

You may well be right.

 

Cripes! Really?

[trousers]

I thought Mandleson was talking a fair amount of sense on Newsnight last night. Was admitting that Labour didn't do nearly enough to turn-around the manufacturing sector during their 13 years in power (indeed, manufacturing output fell at a greater rate under Blair/Brown than it did under that evil witch Thatcher).

 

But he had some good ideas on what should happen to turn it around going forward. Not too dissimilar to the ConDem's apprenticeship proposals it has to be said.

[trousers]

Cripes! Really?

 

I did say 'may' :-)

[View From The Top]

I thought Mandleson was talking a fair amount of sense on Newsnight last night. Was admitting that Labour didn't do nearly enough to turn-around the manufacturing sector during their 13 years in power (indeed, manufacturing output fell at a greater rate under Blair/Brown than it did under that evil witch Thatcher).

 

But he had some good ideas on what should happen to turn it around going forward. Not too dissimilar to the ConDem's apprenticeship proposals it has to be said.

 

The problem with the apprenticeship scheme, as it stands, is that it's cr@p.

 

In the Black Country employees are only taking on kids 16-18 as they get good government subsidies. If they are 19+ they have to pay £3.5k for the training so they're not interested.

 

Youngsters who genuinely want an opportunity are being turned away as they are a day to old!

 

It also means that unscrupulous folk are taking on kids solely for the money that they bring in. Had a meeting today with a manager from a Black Country job centre who told us about an organisation that has taken (or is in the process of trying to) 20 16-18yo on doing modern apprenticeships in IT despite not having any IT equipment in situ in their offices. They will get, approx', £6.5K per kid.

[Verbal]

Speaking as someone who actually did an apprenticeship years and years ago, the irony about the new fashion for apprentices is that most schemes are only really sustainable with government financing - another example of the private sector sponging off the public. That is new - companies always ran and financed their own schemes. Now they know they can get some fad-driven government to pay for it, and so won't do it unless the taxpayer coughs up.