Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I think Risso's comment was based on the fact it's not possible to "pay off" the "deficit" - hence the reference to terminology.

 

Confusing debt with deficit is very easy to do.

 

So really the problem was using the term pay off rather than reduce, easy error to make and one i confess to missing, when we have morons in positions of authority in government deliberately talking in circles and in confusing ways in order to obfuscate the message. of course reducing the deficit also can't reduce the level of debt.

[snowychap]

When have they said that the debt has gone down? I must have missed that.

2013 party political broadcast - Cameron (2:15 ish), "We're paying down Britain's debts."

 

 

He also said it at this year's party conference, apparently.

Edit:

From here:

...

Look what we are showing the world.

Not just a country that is paying down its debts…

 

He was on the receiving end of a rebuke from the bloke from the UK statistics authority for saying it, I think.

Edited October 24, 2014 by snowychap

[mockingbird_franklin]

When have they said that the debt has gone down? I must have missed that. Of course they've increased the debt because we still have a massive deficit. The important thing is, how much is the deficit coming down?

well latest figures are in september 2014 it was approximately 10% more than september 2013, so an increase rather than down at all by that measure,

However the year to september 2014 puts the deficit at £100.7 billion, so no reduction on the previous year to september 2013, but no increase. our debt is rising at the same rate.

the original Tory target was to reduce the deficit to £37 billion by April 2015 for the year up to that date and £0 by April 2016, The government have had to upwardly revise these targets twice and look likely to have to be revised again.

The deficit has been reduced from 2010 and quite significantly in the first two years (around 20% in 2011 and 16% in 2012, but has remained at much the same level since) some would argue the reduction has nothing to do with government fiscal policy and the social costs of these policies far outweigh any claimed financial benefit (which is often disputed). not spending money in one area can result in equal or even greater spending in another).

 

I'm a firm believer that arguing fiscal policy without understanding the major problems with monetary policy is almost pointless, it would be totally pointless if we hadn't embarked upon the neo-liberal bollcks driven policies in may of 1979,

[blandy]

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

By slashing spending, they're removing the very thing that creates genuine jobs with the consequential subsequent increase in income tax receipts and VAT receipts from people earning money and spending money.

 

By strangling "green" investment and green projects in favour of some future fracking policy and fossil fuel companies, they're stopping jobs and science and engineering in the renewable energy sector.

 

There's loads of examples and instances where they're doing the exact opposite of what's needed, while spouting off about their favourite ideological hobby horses.

[TrentVilla]

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

 

Well that and immigrants, people on benefits and the poor in general obviously.

[Risso]

 

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

 

Well that and immigrants, people on benefits and the poor in general obviously.

 

 

*Question Time applause!*

[TrentVilla]

 

 

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

 

Well that and immigrants, people on benefits and the poor in general obviously.

 

 

*Question Time applause!*

 

 

Question time applause? Does that mean I have to clap my own point?

[MakemineVanilla]

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

By slashing spending, they're removing the very thing that creates genuine jobs with the consequential subsequent increase in income tax receipts and VAT receipts from people earning money and spending money.

 

By strangling "green" investment and green projects in favour of some future fracking policy and fossil fuel companies, they're stopping jobs and science and engineering in the renewable energy sector.

 

There's loads of examples and instances where they're doing the exact opposite of what's needed, while spouting off about their favourite ideological hobby horses.

 

Isn't there a touch of the logic which makes a perpetual motion machine feasible but not practical in that theory?

 

The government borrows money to create a job but only gets back the income tax and the VAT, so ends up borrowing more than it gets back.

 

It may increase the GDP which improves the GDP per capita, and lowers the debt to GDP ratio but the borrowing increases the deficit.

 

I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

[Risso]

I suppose the key thing is "genuine jobs".

[PaulC]

Or jobs that contribute to the  tax revenue

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

By slashing spending, they're removing the very thing that creates genuine jobs with the consequential subsequent increase in income tax receipts and VAT receipts from people earning money and spending money.

 

By strangling "green" investment and green projects in favour of some future fracking policy and fossil fuel companies, they're stopping jobs and science and engineering in the renewable energy sector.

 

There's loads of examples and instances where they're doing the exact opposite of what's needed, while spouting off about their favourite ideological hobby horses.

 

Isn't there a touch of the logic which makes a perpetual motion machine feasible but not practical in that theory?

 

The government borrows money to create a job but only gets back the income tax and the VAT, so ends up borrowing more than it gets back.

 

It may increase the GDP which improves the GDP per capita, and lowers the debt to GDP ratio but the borrowing increases the deficit.

 

I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

 

well a few thoughts, if the jobs created generates real wealth in excess of the borrowed money and the interest payable, then it is possible for the benefits to be more than the cost, unfortunately we gave up on wealth creation in favour of wealth accumulation as the aim quite a long time ago as a country. The really obvious problem in the system I've made bold,

Edited October 24, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[blandy]

 

Not only that, but also it's quite probable that Gov't policy is the reason they're failing their own self proclaimed deficit reduction targets.

 

By slashing spending, they're removing the very thing that creates genuine jobs with the consequential subsequent increase in income tax receipts and VAT receipts from people earning money and spending money.

 

By strangling "green" investment and green projects in favour of some future fracking policy and fossil fuel companies, they're stopping jobs and science and engineering in the renewable energy sector.

 

There's loads of examples and instances where they're doing the exact opposite of what's needed, while spouting off about their favourite ideological hobby horses.

 

Isn't there a touch of the logic which makes a perpetual motion machine feasible but not practical in that theory?

 

The government borrows money to create a job but only gets back the income tax and the VAT, so ends up borrowing more than it gets back.

 

It may increase the GDP which improves the GDP per capita, and lowers the debt to GDP ratio but the borrowing increases the deficit.

 

I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

 

Take someone who doesn't have a job. Give them proper employment, stop paying them benefits, take taxes from their earnings, take vat from their spending, the people in the shop they spend their money, or the petrol station or the garage all get more trade, they make more money - it filters all through the system. The person is likely to be healthier mentally and physically, their kids will do better and be happier. The product of their labour may benefit the country if it's infrastructure, or energy or a public service.

 

All these things are obvious. Of course if the Gov't spends huge sums creating few jobs, then they'll lose, but they needn't. Well and sensibly managed job creation is more than possible, and it's more than possible that it should bring a net benefit, not just in money terms, too.

 

Additionally of course, when times are hard, businesses tend to cut back on their spending, banks cut back on lending, meaning that if jobs are to be created (proper jobs, not companies driving down wages) then the Gov't HAS to do it, in the main.

[peterms]

Isn't there a touch of the logic which makes a perpetual motion machine feasible but not practical in that theory?

 

The government borrows money to create a job but only gets back the income tax and the VAT, so ends up borrowing more than it gets back.

 

It may increase the GDP which improves the GDP per capita, and lowers the debt to GDP ratio but the borrowing increases the deficit.

 

I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

"Borrowing money", as an explanation for government spending, is a fictional construct. Governments don't "borrow" their own currency in order to spend it.

They issue bonds as a favour to institutions which seek safe returns on capital, not in order to pay nurses and soldiers and the like.

Its about time we stopped retailing this fantasy of where money comes from.

Of course the consequence would be that we understood that we can create jobs at will, and that we don't have to suffer declining real wages while rentiers' profits soar. Better put that back in the box, then...

[MakemineVanilla]

"Borrowing money", as an explanation for government spending, is a fictional construct. Governments don't "borrow" their own currency in order to spend it.

They issue bonds as a favour to institutions which seek safe returns on capital, not in order to pay nurses and soldiers and the like.

Its about time we stopped retailing this fantasy of where money comes from.

Of course the consequence would be that we understood that we can create jobs at will, and that we don't have to suffer declining real wages while rentiers' profits soar. Better put that back in the box, then...

 

I would like to understand this explanation better.

 

Could you supply some links?

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I would like to understand this explanation better.

 

Could you supply some links?

 

couple of books to read, the Money Bomb, and the Fantopian Perspective, but to sum it up the public credit has been hijacked by private third party interests for their own profit at everyone else expense

[mockingbird_franklin]

Back to the incompetents that curretnly make up the majority of the current government, seems Mr Irritable Bowl syndrome is working his mojo and renewing his persecution of anyone unfortunate enough to fall ill or be disabled.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/iain-duncan-smith-disabled-ms-parkinsons-dwp?commentpage=1

Iain Duncan Smith thinks he can cure disabled people as if by magic

Thousands of people with degenerative conditions such as MS and Parkinson’s are being deemed ‘able to work soon’ by DWP assessments that are as cruel as they are incompetent.

re8

 

Iain Duncan Smith is Jesus Christ. For anyone who missed the Second Coming, it happened at around mid-morning on Thursday when it became apparent that the secretary of state for work and pensions has started to cure the disabled and chronically sick.

I mean, he hasn’t actually cured anyone yet. But I assume it’s only a matter of time, because thousands of severely ill and disabled people have had their benefits cut since the DWP deemed that they would “recover” from their degenerative conditions in order to go to work. Recover, that is, from a condition that by its very definition is bound to get worse.

It has emerged that more than a third of people with disabilities such as Parkinson’s and MS are being denied the full version of employment support allowance and pushed into “work-related activity” – the group expected to be well enough to work, that gets less money, and is routinely sanctioned.

Forget the surgeon who enabled a paralysed man to walk again, IDS is the real disability hero of the week. He hasn’t even had medical training, but you don’t see that stopping him. If the DWP decides someone with Parkinson’s will get better in order to find a job, why would medical science disagree? And if they say they are in pain or their limbs are trembling, cutting their benefits should incentivise them to deal with it.

Let’s not be shy about the scale of this. Almost 8,000 people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, muscular atrophy, Parkinson’s disease, cystic fibrosis and rheumatoid arthritis have been put on this lesser “will be able to work soon” benefit, according to an investigation by the conditions’ respective charities. Of these, 5,000 people were put into the category despite assessors actually writing the phrase “unlikely [to be fit for work] in the longer term” on their reports.

It is unclear exactly how IDS is achieving this modern-day miracle. In my mind, I imagine I’d have to rub his scalp for an hour until a ball of light-filled energy shivered through his shiny head to each strand of my genetic makeup. But these are just details. Nonsensical, borderline disturbing details that I just made up. Which, funnily enough, is exactly how disability benefit policy seems to be constructed under this government.

This level of incompetence means that seven out of 10 new claimants with a progressive condition have been reassessed two or more times on the same claim. Because it’s good to check that a person’s cystic fibrosis didn’t scrub off in the last month after a few really nice baths. Health experts claim that repeatedly harassing people who are too ill to get out of bed and threatening to remove the money they need to eat is causing stress and anxiety.

Is no one grateful for attention, any more? IDS hates ingratitude. As he told Channel 4 news this week when Krishnan Guru-Murthy suggested disabled people felt “hard done by” under this government’s policies: “We probably spend more on disabled and sick people in Britain … than almost any other country in the developed world.” He doesn’t let the fact that this is a lie stop him. He inserts the word “probably” and then says whatever fits with his policies.

I believe IDS is “probably” incompetent and is reducing thousands of people, scared, in pain, and humiliated, to poverty. This latest farce is emblematic of a government-wide culture of dehumanising, dangerous benefit cuts that have rotted every part of the social-security system and are causing people to die.

For this government, work for disabled people doesn’t simply mean paying them less. It means forcing them into the job in the first place. The terrifying thing is that this isn’t a joke. Iain Duncan Smith has been given the power to play with people’s lives.

[villaajax]

These disabled people should get on their mobility scooters and look for work.

 

[blandy]

Isn't there a touch of the logic which makes a perpetual motion machine feasible but not practical in that theory?

 

The government borrows money to create a job but only gets back the income tax and the VAT, so ends up borrowing more than it gets back.

 

It may increase the GDP which improves the GDP per capita, and lowers the debt to GDP ratio but the borrowing increases the deficit.

 

I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

"Borrowing money", as an explanation for government spending, is a fictional construct. Governments don't "borrow" their own currency in order to spend it.

They issue bonds as a favour to institutions which seek safe returns on capital, not in order to pay nurses and soldiers and the like.

Its about time we stopped retailing this fantasy of where money comes from.

Of course the consequence would be that we understood that we can create jobs at will, and that we don't have to suffer declining real wages while rentiers' profits soar. Better put that back in the box, then...

If (when)the gov't (or BoE or whichever agency does it for them) issues gilts, they're "borrowing" that money from whoever buys the gilt. They're borrowing it and paying interest. There are therefore consequences in terms of increasing their annual or monthly spend (by the amount of the interest payments) as well as having, later, to pay back the money in the future.

it's not magic money from nowhere. If investors can get a better return elsewhere, they will go there. If the investors believe the security of their money would be better elsewhere, they'll go elsewhere, in effect increasing the rate of interest needed on future issues to be successful.

The perpetual issuing of gilts, or the perpetual creation of money is a house of cards. It would be nice to think the Gov'ts of the world can just keep on magicing money from nowhere, but eventually that system will collapse in on itself.

[mockingbird_franklin]

It can also be argued that the current system stifles capitalism and real investment and hence wealth creation by drawing capital from the system by providing relatively risk free returns.

 

Then we have the other problem of our monetary system hidden in plain sight, fractional reserve banking and the damage it inflicts through it's counterfeiting of our money.

 

we have a system where all money is created as interest bearing debt, so it is impossible to pay off all debts, it's just an elaborate game of musical chairs.

[snowychap]

Returning to that wazzock Freud and his actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, I'll tell him what he should 'go and think about' (as opposed to a way for his political colleagues to circumvent the NMW): how to sort out the stuff with Atos and the delays with decision making by their 'medical' department on completed assessment forms and medical appointments for existing (and new?) ESA claimants (and PIPs, for that matter).

Being cynical, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan Smith and his whole department were quietly very happy at how things are turning out because of it.