Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[Xann]

Care in the US is brilliant, if you're loaded.

[blandy]

Why would they do that 'to a high degree'? And which people?

figures show that is what is happening already. Overall the population is paying off debt, rather than spending. Same as the banks to an extent. And the reason is fear, bluntly. Uncertainty about security of jobs and income is causing people to spend less and pay down debt. It's pretty clear that human nature suggests that given a one off opportunity to either reduce or pay off credit card debt, or buy something, the majority in the current circs would pay down debt. It's observed behaviour.

[peterms]

Care in the US is brilliant, if you're loaded.

That's right. And if you're poor and without insurance, you're ****. Some human interest stories here.

[peterms]

You did state cuba has better health care than the USA... It's a myth , I wasn't trying to suggest I'd disproved anything to you as such , just pointing out my surprise that you appear to have bought into the myth when usually you are more thorough than just believing a headline ...

its like the headline that Cuba has a low infant mortality rate , but that is becuase they monitor and terminate any risky ones , something like a 60% abortion rate in the country.... But the headline figure is often held up as proof that Cuba has better healthcare than the USA and other countries

I don't think I would seriously stand by five words as a full and accurate summary of the healthcare provision of two countries, nor would you expect me to. But we do make vast generalisations sometimes. Where the US system is better is in the level of technical expertise, the amount and sophistication of the equipment, the range of drugs and treatments available. Where it is worse, shockingly so given its limitless resources, is that these things are deliberately denied to so many millions of people. It is also far less efficient, with so much of the money being siphoned off to insurers and to inflate the salaries of professionals and the profits of the drug companies.

Cuba spends about 4% of the US spend per capita on health, but manages to achieve similar or in some cases better stats, and has healthcare more widely available. That is because it is seen as a human right, despite the poverty of the country.

It is this which the US finds threatening, because it challenges the ideology that underpins the US way, and shows that a better approach is possible. That is why they had to reject the Cuban offer to send a thousand doctors to help in the aftermath of Katrine. That is why they try to subvert and undermine Cuba at every turn, for example with the Department of Homeland Security running a programme to try to bribe Cuban doctors to leave, preventing the import of certain drugs and technology, and so on. By what right do they do this?

So to return to vast generalisations, I think I would say that the Cuban system of healthcare is better than that of the US, but I wouldn't say that all aspects of healthcare are equally superior. Though given more resources and less economic warfare and secret service destabilisation, I'm sure it could be.

[Demitri_C]

Peter the way the NHS is going it will be private in nexty 10 years so we will be like the US

[peterms]

Peter the way the NHS is going it will be private in nexty 10 years so we will be like the US

Yes. Already £6bn worth of services privatised, 7,000 nurses and 11,000 beds cut.

Hunt has previously stated that he wishes to privatise the NHS:

“Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain.”

What is now starting to happen is that although Cameron and others will continue to say they support the NHS, they are trying to undermine support for it. One way this will happen is Tory papers giving prominence to stories about failings in any part of the NHS, and trying to link that with an idea that "the NHS has failed". Similar or worse failings in private institutions will however not be presented as "the private sector has failed". The aim is to chip away at confidence and trust in the NHS, creating the conditions for a more sustained assault.

[snowychap]

figures show that is what is happening already. Overall the population is paying off debt, rather than spending. I don't think that is the case. Same as the banks to an extent. And the reason is fear, bluntly. Uncertainty about security of jobs and income is causing people to spend less and pay down debt.

Consuming less does not necessarily equate to saving more especially if the reduced consumtpion is as a result of an income squeeze.

Reducing consumption and increasing saving does not mean that saving is greater than spending.

It's pretty clear that human nature suggests that given a one off opportunity to either reduce or pay off credit card debt, or buy something, the majority in the current circs would pay down debt.

A lot or the majority may well do that - I think that there is much more complexity to the matter than it being a case of 'human nature' regarding the a or b option you put forward - e.g. it may depend upon people's access to credit to smooth any transitory shock, whether their income has recently been squeezed such that there is a difficult to cope with shortfall on necessary expenditure, the nature of the personal debt (and their understanding of the financial implications of different debts) and so on.

That's really at the heart of the original point, though, that whilst there may be a general constraint (meaning that the MPC is likely to be lower overall due to the precarious nature of economic circumstances) there is also within that a general tendency governed by other factors (which still means that as one goes up the income scale the MPC would tend to decrease and vice versa).

[blandy]

Well, put it another way. The statistics show that household debt is falling, and has been for a couple of years (approx).

[bickster]

Gadzooks, my eyes fell on ten minutes of that Iron Lady film last night, what a steaming pile of shite it must be if the ten minutes I saw were anything to go by. Not even close to reality.

[snowychap]

Well, put it another way. The statistics show that household debt is falling, and has been for a couple of years (approx).

And how is that mapped across income levels?

[mjmooney]

Gadzooks, my eyes fell on ten minutes of that Iron Lady film last night, what a steaming pile of shite it must be if the ten minutes I saw were anything to go by. Not even close to reality.

What was good about it: Streep's and Broadbent's performances as MT and Dennis. Uncanny at times.

What was bad about it: everything else.

[chrisp65]

Ha!

Yes, my missus discovered this film by accident whilst channel hopping!

Bloody hell, she'd had a drink admittedly, but I thought I was about to shell out for a new telly (she does like a 36").

[bickster]

A word from the Wylie

[chrisp65]

A word from the Wylie

currently got this in the car, along with Half Man Half Biscuit, National Shite Day!

nice bit of M5 karaoke

[peterms]

Consuming less does not necessarily equate to saving more especially if the reduced consumption is as a result of an income squeeze.

Not sure I follow what you mean here. Do you mean a situation where income falls? Apart from that, you would expect falling spending to result in increased saving (including paying back debt), which we are in fact seeing.

A lot or the majority may well do that - I think that there is much more complexity to the matter than it being a case of 'human nature' regarding the a or b option you put forward - e.g. it may depend upon people's access to credit to smooth any transitory shock, whether their income has recently been squeezed such that there is a difficult to cope with shortfall on necessary expenditure, the nature of the personal debt (and their understanding of the financial implications of different debts) and so on.

That's really at the heart of the original point, though, that whilst there may be a general constraint (meaning that the MPC is likely to be lower overall due to the precarious nature of economic circumstances) there is also within that a general tendency governed by other factors (which still means that as one goes up the income scale the MPC would tend to decrease and vice versa).

Yes, understanding of the implications of debt is very mixed. I'm sure many people don't know their most expensive debts, and therefore the ones which they should pay off first when they can.

I suppose servicing the debt, rather than repaying the principal, counts as consumption rather than saving? Which will have an effect on the MPC for the most indebted.

[PauloBarnesi]

Give me Story of the Blues or Come Back (Story of the Reds)...

[peterms]

And how is that mapped across income levels?

Couple of things here.

This is undated, bizarrely, but seems to have been written sometime in the first half of 2011.

It looks at

the two main groups of households who seem most at risk – benefit reliant/ lowest income households and lower-medium income households (sometimes referred to the ‘squeezed middle’).

and concludes among other things that

while higher income households, not surprisingly, have more debt outstanding, lower income households are significantly more ‘leveraged’ – that is, their debts are much greater as a proportion of their

incomes. Indeed, some of the levels of debt are quite astonishing. For example, households on incomes of £13,500 or less had total debts worth 6.4 times income (as at end 2009).

Which I guess we could have predicted. Poorest households in most debt, probably most expensive debt, struggle to service it never mind pay it off.

And secondly, here.

Low-income households, in particular, reported a squeeze in incomes. Sixty-two per cent of households in the lowest quartile of the income distribution said that their available

income — income after tax, national insurance, housing costs, loan repayments and bills — had fallen over the past year, compared to 48% for the top quartile. For a given change in

aggregate income, the overall effect on spending may be larger if it disproportionately affects low-income households because those households report that they are more likely to

adjust their spending in response to falls in income...

One group that have been disproportionately affected by tight credit conditions are the young...

The most common response among households that were concerned about their debts has been to cut spending. Among those who expressed some concern, 78% had cut back

spending, which is 35% of all households...

Which takes us back to discussions about debt jubilees. Nothing is to be gained by keeping people in poverty, struggling to pay interest to keep lenders fat.

[snowychap]

Not sure I follow what you mean here. Do you mean a situation where income falls?

Yes, I'm afraid I didn't put that terribly well. I meant to say that it isn't necessarily so that the main driver for a decrease in consumption is an increased desire to save (or necessity to reduce indebtedness - which may to some degree come about because of the credit constraints spoken about in the conclusion of the BoE report) as opposed to a squeeze on income. I think they're all factors.

Edit: Yes, I did read the BoE survey report.

Edit 2: I didn't read that one, I could only fiund the 2011 q4 bulletin.

Numerous edits! Apologies, severe failure to elucidate thoughts first time out, tonight.

Edited January 7, 2013 by snowychap

[Dr_Pangloss]

Well, put it another way. The statistics show that household debt is falling, and has been for a couple of years (approx).

Technically that is the ratio of debt to GDP, so if debt remains constant but GDP rises, the ratio will fall. Or if GDP increases at a rate much faster than debt, the ratio will fall.

However yes, it is obvious from the data that we are seeing house-hold 'deleveraging' and in many ways the fall in private consumption is backing this up. It's a trend we are seeing throughout europe.

Again these are macro aggregates and so tell you nothing about the distribution, i.e. what is going on in the lower deciles.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[Meath_Villan]

Is she dead yet ?