| For the economists on here 19:02 - Jan 22 with 4679 views | dickythorpe |
A couple of week back someone posted the "UK debt calculator"......anyway are there any countries in less debt than us? Any in profit ? (Lol) .....maybe the Easter Islands?
Many thanks in advance. |  | | |  |
| For the economists on here on 11:45 - Jan 24 with 1142 views | yescomeon |
The point being made is that even if we run a surplus, it won't be paid off, unless the surplus is higher greater than interest payments, and even then how many hundreds of years will it take to pay off. As soon as a new government with new policies comes in, it will all be undone. We be far better off telling whoever it is we owe money to to do one. Sure, it will cause a financial meltdown, but we've shown with Brexit that the UK doesn't care about itself or anyone else. |  |
| |
| For the economists on here on 11:49 - Jan 24 with 1136 views | controversial_jack |
| For the economists on here on 11:45 - Jan 24 by yescomeon |
The point being made is that even if we run a surplus, it won't be paid off, unless the surplus is higher greater than interest payments, and even then how many hundreds of years will it take to pay off. As soon as a new government with new policies comes in, it will all be undone. We be far better off telling whoever it is we owe money to to do one. Sure, it will cause a financial meltdown, but we've shown with Brexit that the UK doesn't care about itself or anyone else. |
The snag with that is, we won't be able to borrow anymore imaginary money from the world banks and will go bankrupt |  | | |
| For the economists on here on 14:10 - Jan 24 with 1099 views | rock1n |
| For the economists on here on 23:19 - Jan 22 by epaul |
 |
You do realise that if we adopted this approach no one would lend to us and our interest rates would go through the roof and we'd be in a great depression?
Populism from left/right does my swede in |  |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 14:18 - Jan 24 with 1088 views | trampie |
| For the economists on here on 02:12 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
The deficit has reduced by 2/3 - the debt has increased because we haven't reached surplus.
Osborne rightly wanted to run budget surplus but this has been ripped up due to brexit.
I'll say it again, you can't have it all if you want your socialist paradise we have to pay much higher taxation and that's not just the rich, that means everyone e.g. higher VAT, lower personal allowance and lower tax bands.
People always bang on about the utopia of Scandinavia but they pay much, much higher taxes and therefore can realistically fund high public spending.
But in this Country it's either spending cuts or Johnny Mctoff has to cough up again, we never have a serious debate. |
A socialist would tell you higher taxes yes but not higher VAT as that is a tax that hits the poor particularly hard. |  |
| |
| For the economists on here on 15:03 - Jan 24 with 1064 views | rock1n |
| For the economists on here on 14:18 - Jan 24 by trampie |
A socialist would tell you higher taxes yes but not higher VAT as that is a tax that hits the poor particularly hard. |
Why do socialists laud Scandinavia then? | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 15:29 - Jan 24 with 1044 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| For the economists on here on 11:25 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
That was more aimed at the general leftism that infects this board.
On the point you're making as I've already highlighted, I said the 'deficit' is down by 2/3 not the 'debt'
When the coalition came to office it was the highest in the developed World around 11% of GDP around 160bn it has reduced significantly but while we're still borrowing debt will increase as well. |
"Infects this board"
F@cking hell , that about sums it all up from you .
As a few before me have said ,
Here have it in capital letters .
THE NATIONAL DEBT WILL NEVER BE PAID OFF .
It's got nothing to do with left or right . |  |
| |
| For the economists on here on 15:40 - Jan 24 with 1033 views | rock1n |
| For the economists on here on 15:29 - Jan 24 by oh_tommy_tommy |
"Infects this board"
F@cking hell , that about sums it all up from you .
As a few before me have said ,
Here have it in capital letters .
THE NATIONAL DEBT WILL NEVER BE PAID OFF .
It's got nothing to do with left or right . |
Do you understand what Gov debt actually is? | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 15:47 - Jan 24 with 1019 views | rock1n |
By the way always noticeable with the left, they can be as abusive as they like - tory scum etc etc but question their World view and wow. | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| For the economists on here on 16:45 - Jan 24 with 980 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| For the economists on here on 15:47 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
By the way always noticeable with the left, they can be as abusive as they like - tory scum etc etc but question their World view and wow. |
Everyone from all sides of all spectrums in life are abusive to someone, some where, belonging to something else .
You seriously have a huge problem with this thread .
It's about national debt and how is it going to be paid off .
Now I do know what uk debt is .
The big question here is ?
Do you Rokin think it will ever be paid off ? | |
| |
| For the economists on here on 17:25 - Jan 24 with 964 views | yescomeon |
There's no way we'll get a sufficient budget surplus without much higher taxes. High taxes with nothing to show for it other than clearing a few zeros off a computer screen is a tough sell. The whole thing will collapse eventually. Best to spend this imaginary money whilst people still believe in it. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 17:55 - Jan 24 with 947 views | rock1n |
| (No subject) on 16:30 - Jan 24 by sketty_jack |
What about all the uk pension funds that own a third of the uk debt? Only 25% is owed to foreign investors, the rest is owed to uk institutions and individual investors. [Post edited 24 Jan 2017 16:42]
|
Precisely | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 17:57 - Jan 24 with 945 views | trampie |
| For the economists on here on 15:03 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
Why do socialists laud Scandinavia then? |
Do you laud Scandinavia and their high levels of tax ? | |
| |
| For the economists on here on 18:06 - Jan 24 with 932 views | rock1n |
| For the economists on here on 16:45 - Jan 24 by oh_tommy_tommy |
Everyone from all sides of all spectrums in life are abusive to someone, some where, belonging to something else .
You seriously have a huge problem with this thread .
It's about national debt and how is it going to be paid off .
Now I do know what uk debt is .
The big question here is ?
Do you Rokin think it will ever be paid off ? |
It doesn't work like that Tommy boy, some debt matures in decades to come other debt will maturing very soon.
For example we paid off our World War II loans to the States in around 2006/2007. I don't understand the premise of the question, no Nation State would ever survive without an element of debt. The State sells bonds, gilts and treasury bills, these are bought by pension funds, investment trusts and banks.
Just like if a business was looking to expand it would need to raise capital, if the State needs to raise capital e.g. during a recession it has to issue gilts. The true test of the strength of an economy is whether it can borrow at relatively low rates and therefore can finance its debt easily.
The concern in recent years is that we've allowed the debt pile to increase so high that we'll be 'servicing' i.e. paying interest on debt repayments to a point in which other State expenditure will be effected hence the need to reduce the deficit and therefore reduce the need to spend more servicing the debt pile.
The return on gilts in the UK is relatively low because they're considered low risk and therefore are used by Institutional investors. | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 18:52 - Jan 24 with 908 views | dailew |
| For the economists on here on 18:06 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
It doesn't work like that Tommy boy, some debt matures in decades to come other debt will maturing very soon.
For example we paid off our World War II loans to the States in around 2006/2007. I don't understand the premise of the question, no Nation State would ever survive without an element of debt. The State sells bonds, gilts and treasury bills, these are bought by pension funds, investment trusts and banks.
Just like if a business was looking to expand it would need to raise capital, if the State needs to raise capital e.g. during a recession it has to issue gilts. The true test of the strength of an economy is whether it can borrow at relatively low rates and therefore can finance its debt easily.
The concern in recent years is that we've allowed the debt pile to increase so high that we'll be 'servicing' i.e. paying interest on debt repayments to a point in which other State expenditure will be effected hence the need to reduce the deficit and therefore reduce the need to spend more servicing the debt pile.
The return on gilts in the UK is relatively low because they're considered low risk and therefore are used by Institutional investors. |
Relatively low to whom?
Not to German or Dutch (10 yr yields are around 3 times their level).
Or Sweden, or France (around double their level).
These are comparable large northern European countries. |  |
| |
| For the economists on here on 22:18 - Jan 24 with 730 views | dailew |
Another point.
If the yield on govt bonds is an indicator of the market's confidence in a country's ability to repay the debt then surely the yields on those profligate lefty Scanny countries' debts must be sky-high.
Hang on
10 yr yields
UK 1.4%
Sweden 0.68%
Finland 0.56% | |
| |
| For the economists on here on 23:33 - Jan 24 with 709 views | rock1n |
| For the economists on here on 22:18 - Jan 24 by dailew |
Another point.
If the yield on govt bonds is an indicator of the market's confidence in a country's ability to repay the debt then surely the yields on those profligate lefty Scanny countries' debts must be sky-high.
Hang on
10 yr yields
UK 1.4%
Sweden 0.68%
Finland 0.56% |
I've never had a go at those Countries, I've made the very point they run their economies in an efficient manner.
The point is I make is related to revenue and expenditure, we favour US taxes with European spending. It doesn't work. | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| For the economists on here on 00:31 - Jan 25 with 696 views | Humpty |
| For the economists on here on 11:25 - Jan 24 by rock1n |
That was more aimed at the general leftism that infects this board.
On the point you're making as I've already highlighted, I said the 'deficit' is down by 2/3 not the 'debt'
When the coalition came to office it was the highest in the developed World around 11% of GDP around 160bn it has reduced significantly but while we're still borrowing debt will increase as well. |
The general leftism that infects this board?
Are you serious?
There's a handfull of people here who espouse left wing views and some more who are generally socially liberal. Something some people have trouble distinguishing between. Especially on here.
There's ten times more angry Kippers, Trump fans and people who start threads about ever more inventive ways their criminals of choice should be tortured. These threads are generally quite long.
Planet Swans is generally left wing? Heh! Priceless. |  | | |
| For the economists on here on 01:03 - Jan 25 with 685 views | Kerouac |
To those who wish to shrink the gap between the haves and the have nots...
...we have no chance whatsoever if we haven't even put in the reading/study to understand how the economic system of Western Capitalism works.
You could spend years studying this subject and we will never do it justice on this thread but to assist those who think austerity wasn't necessary (and Rock1n has covered a lot of it...forgive me if I repeat any of it), broadly;
- Credit/Debt.
Is a necessary function for forward planning (it all started with farmers needing to sell their crops at a point in the future but needing to invest up front), investment and Capitalism in general. Debt is great. It's provided a function which has allowed everyone to become more productive and get richer. It only becomes a problem when it is misallocated (when people are allowed to run up a debt which they have no chance of servicing because they are not investing in the future and are not being productive.
- Paper money. We have it because it has proved to be the most efficient method of doing business. Deals can be made fast because the vast majority of people have access, or can quickly get access to cold hard cash.
The trick to a successful economy and a stable society is ensuring that the money keeps changing hands quick enough.
It is relatively cheap to produce.
It is easy to understand, keep track of where you are, and divvy up.
The risk is it either losing value (usually this) or gaining value at too fast a rate, volatility.
It works perfectly as long as people keep their faith in it...when the idea spreads that it is worthless we have problems, which brings me on to...
- In order for people to retain their faith in the value of money, or to put it another way...that the money in their hand is priced correctly and fairly...some controls need to be in place in order to maintain balance. e.g. Not too much of it is produced, enough of it is produced, credit is allocated fairly based on the ability to service the debt...
(I'm going to leave this subject there as I am not doing it justice and I've already explained enough to make my point)
The reason why austerity was the only sensible choice back in 2010 are thus;
- Boom! 2008 Financial crash. First we find out that credit has been misallocated in America and during the resulting turmoil we find out right across the Western World.
- We as a country have put all of our eggs in the City of London basket, leaving us exposed. Banks go bust, Banks are bailed out etc.
- This leaves us spending 11% (in terms of our GDP) more than we generate in taxes. THIS GAP IS THE DEFICIT, NOT THE DEBT...and our deficit is the largest in the Western World (if not the World).
- So what happens if we carry on spending money on the state at the same rate?
1- Nobody in the big wide World fancies lending to us as we are going down an unsustainable (in terms of servicing our debt) road. Therefore they put the price up and we pay more interest to loan money...THIS PUTS US DEEPER IN THE SHIT.
2- We lend ourselves the money (borrowing off our kids/grandkids (we have done a fair bit of this already), the BoE prints more money and buys more of our own bonds...again, although it was necessary to go down this route a little (in order to bail out and recapitalise our banks)...that route is unsustainable too!
Because eventually (as others have said) you get to a point where we would have to make drastic cuts anyway...(get this)...in order that we could maintain servicing the debt we owe future generations, OUR KIDS/GRANDCHILDREN/GREAT GRANDCHILDREN.
Another consequence of going down this route is the risk that people would lose faith completely in the value of our currency. HYPERINFLATION.
There was no choice but to cutback on what our state spends. This is why all 3 major parties were in favour of making cuts. To argue otherwise was delusional (see Plaid / SNP).
In reality we made small gradual cuts over a prolonged period and a fair bit of option 2 to soften things (it's called inflating the debt away...we have devalued our currency. The pound dropping recently was the inevitable consequence of years of inflating it away.
The plan the UK has followed has pretty much been similar to Ed Balls' plan in the Labour manifesto at the 2010 election. REALLY.
The Tories would have liked to make cuts faster and deeper, it wasn't politically possible. They needed the Lib Dems to govern and we weren't going to allow that..but honestly, it wasn't possible anyway as it would have risked riots on the streets and political instability.
Still don't believe me?
Ask yourself, if it were possible to write off your debt and print more/loan more money to invest in all the services you want, all the public sector jobs you want and all the infrastructure projects your heart desired...don't you think every country would be doing that?!?!?
That doesn't work because the World's resources need to be divvied up based on how much can be produced every year. Imagine if every country were trying to secure access to those resources using monopoly money? There would be no way of allocating those resources as suppliers (mining companies, farmers, fishermen etc.) wouldn't have any faith in the money they receive being worth anything in 6 months time (I'm imagining a state like Trampie's Wales with their foot on the printing press accelerator peddle as Plaid continue to spend, spend, spend hoping to create an economic boom).
The money received today would be worthless in 6 months time if there is too much currency, too much debt and nobody had any faith in the money's value.
So in conclusion, Ricky Tomlinson is an amusing actor but he should stick to jokes concerning his arse...and Sturgeon, Salmond, Wood, Corbyn and co. are bigger clowns than 'auld Ricky. |  |
| |
| For the economists on here on 05:39 - Jan 26 with 628 views | Jack_Meoff |
Anyone wanting to delve a bit further into international finance and its murky machinations could do worse than read this:
http://treasureislands.org/ [Post edited 26 Jan 2017 5:58]
|  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
