|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 7:32:31 GMT
Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope. But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really. Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jun 14, 2017 8:08:31 GMT
But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really. Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
I fully agree that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy. The risks and potential safety rules were known before the financial crisis. Countries could've acted unilaterally or multilaterally to put safety rules in place, what we have in place today isn't rocket science. Blair and Brown decided not to act therefore confirming their culpability. It is always the government of the day responsibility to plan for unforseen shocks. By rights with the strength of the economy left to them by the tories the country should've of been running a stonking surplus by then to deal with the crisis. Instead labour as always was spending ever penny they had or could borrow for the generations of tomorrow to worry about. Pity they 'spent' so much 'free' money on PFI schemes that now suck the NHS and education budgets dry. Probably not Blair or Brown's signature on those contracts so that wouldn't be there fault. |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 8:51:01 GMT
Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
I fully agree that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy. The risks and potential safety rules were known before the financial crisis. Countries could've acted unilaterally or multilaterally to put safety rules in place, what we have in place today isn't rocket science. Blair and Brown decided not to act therefore confirming their culpability. It is always the government of the day responsibility to plan for unforseen shocks. By rights with the strength of the economy left to them by the tories the country should've of been running a stonking surplus by then to deal with the crisis. Instead labour as always was spending ever penny they had or could borrow for the generations of tomorrow to worry about. Pity they 'spent' so much 'free' money on PFI schemes that now suck the NHS and education budgets dry. Probably not Blair or Brown's signature on those contracts so that wouldn't be there fault. What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 9:30:41 GMT
I wouldnt mind at all if all the tory rovers fans fuc*** off and supported city,ok our average gate would drop from 9,300 to 9,265 but it would be worth it in my view. Jesus wept. What a cockwomble. |
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jun 14, 2017 10:26:20 GMT
I fully agree that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy. The risks and potential safety rules were known before the financial crisis. Countries could've acted unilaterally or multilaterally to put safety rules in place, what we have in place today isn't rocket science. Blair and Brown decided not to act therefore confirming their culpability. It is always the government of the day responsibility to plan for unforseen shocks. By rights with the strength of the economy left to them by the tories the country should've of been running a stonking surplus by then to deal with the crisis. Instead labour as always was spending ever penny they had or could borrow for the generations of tomorrow to worry about. Pity they 'spent' so much 'free' money on PFI schemes that now suck the NHS and education budgets dry. Probably not Blair or Brown's signature on those contracts so that wouldn't be there fault. What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
UK banks are governed by the UK who can go above Basel III (the foundations of which were already established pre-crash) if they want. They could also have implemented earlier if there was the backbone or understanding too. Remember it was Brown who promised no more boom or bust, and in truth he was correct under him there only was bust. PS no idea how competent the leaders of the other countries were but I take your drift that Blair and Brown were incapable of making decisions unless told to do so by other world leafers |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,466 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 14, 2017 11:14:26 GMT
What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
UK banks are governed by the UK who can go above Basel III (the foundations of which were already established pre-crash) if they want. They could also have implemented earlier if there was the backbone or understanding too. Remember it was Brown who promised no more boom or bust, and in truth he was correct under him there only was bust. PS no idea how competent the leaders of the other countries were but I take your drift that Blair and Brown were incapable of making decisions unless told to do so by other world leafers Repeating what I said earlier, at the time Tories were calling for more de-regulation of the banking sector not less. |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 11:23:53 GMT
What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
UK banks are governed by the UK who can go above Basel III (the foundations of which were already established pre-crash) if they want. They could also have implemented earlier if there was the backbone or understanding too. Remember it was Brown who promised no more boom or bust, and in truth he was correct under him there only was bust. PS no idea how competent the leaders of the other countries were but I take your drift that Blair and Brown were incapable of making decisions unless told to do so by other world leafers Please stop trying to twist my words.
What I'm clearly trying say is that Brown & Blair could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis. This is on the basis that very very few people across the work understood that there was a problem at all. The leaders of the Conservative Party at the time did not anticipate the crisis, and nor did the leaders of the USA, Germany, Spain, France, or Italy, nor the Bank of England, nor the heads of the banks themselves. Remember, they all thought that the massive interdependancy between banks was a great success, as they thought that it had killed off risk by spreading it across the system.
In addition, if they had have anticipated it, I doubt very much that there was anything they could have done about it. Banking is international, and for any real change in banking oversight you need international agreement, which takes time and is difficult to acheive Even since the banking crisis, very little has been done to prevent it happening again - you really think that Basel III would prevent it?
Any unilateral action to prevent the crisis would have killed the business of the major banks, demolished thier share prices and therefore capital base, and probably have set off a local banking crisis right here anyway.
Finally, even in the unlikely event that Brown & Blair had been able to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis in the UK without killing the UK banks, you think we would have been unaffected by the world-wide recession?
The banking crisis was an inevitable result of decades of deregulation and increasing complexity in the system. Shocks happen from time to time. Its how you respond that matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 11:29:00 GMT
But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really. Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
You mention the Keynesian fiscal stimulous.......however, this only works if you also apply other Keynesian rules, like during the good times, you reduce spending, reduce debt and reduce taxation. This gives you the leeway to provide that fiscal stimulous in the bad times. However, Labour did the opposite, and increased taxes, increased the debt and increased spending during the good times. When the bad times hit, Labour had nowhere to go, and that was their biggest failing. No good quoting Keynes if you are only going to apply his logic 50% of the time. Yes, the banking crisis was caused by the banks, but because of their handling of the UK economy, Labour were screwed. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 14, 2017 13:03:17 GMT
Unemployment under a TORY government in 1982 was 3;070;621. yup correct, but that had nothing to do with the previous labour government being run by the unions did it, callaghan lost the country to the unions by failing to bring in measures to curb the unions , rubbish piled high. Unions not sticking to the 5% wage rise deal (started by ford workers if i remember correctly) . So of course when maggie got in she would go for the unions (the liberals may have done the same if they were in power( although they did a deal with labour during callaghan's government)) , lets not forget labour in previous government did deals with the liberals ,ulster unionists ,scottish and welsh nationalists (see how conveniently labour forget that when attacking the tories for making a deal with the dup. Also lets not forget the number of mines labour had shut down , the coal board wanted to shut 20 pits who were not commercially viable , then the num got involved and it degenerated from there. Lets also not forget that other technologies were being invented and using less coal , if those pits would have shut ,then others would have been saved as they would have become more financially viable and less of a burden on the country. It's also believed that if anyone other than scargill was num leader the outcome would have been very different and more in favour of the miners ,but scargill tried to take on one PM too many and had met his match , other reasons it got so bad was again due to scargill taking money from russia to help the welsh miners this money never got to the welsh miners as it was salted away. Even today if russia donated even as penny to anyone striking the government would go balls out to destroy the organisation ,scargill wasn't the hero people think he was ,people were starving during the strikes ,and that fat lady garden was still being payed. Again don't forget that under successive(even labour governments) pits were being shut down even if there was just 1 pit left open at the beginning of 84 then maggie would have been blamed for destroying the coal industry ,despite the fact that the industry was lying on its feet and only got a slight recovery during the oil crisis ,if the oil crisis never happened the mines would have been closed before maggie got in. lets face it the unions had already done the damage ,so whoever got in next (even labour) would have gone after them. On paper the poll tax was a bloody good idea ,however the reality was it was implemented wrong. I could also mention that maggie almost singly handedly destroyed the NF. this country goes in cycles, labour f**k it up ,tories get voted in stabilize everything ,then people vote labour again and the cycle repeats. It was also obvious that corbyn would get a large vote but not enough to get in as he went back to the ideas of labour(rather than bLairs ideas) , this did indeed awaken many old labour fans ,and the young who want to get by for free(in regards to uni fees, why shouldn't people pay for uni fees after all they want higher paid jobs in their futures, unis need to drop some of the waste of time courses. Lastly unemployment was indeed over 3million back then (maggie also bought in employment training scheme ,whereby you would train for a new skill attend college be in a workplace all travel paid and an extra tenner a week ,not many took it up those who did got better chances of employment which i took advantage off)but what is it now, one thing i can tell you is you and i will never know the true figures as it's now hidden away under layers of reclassification ,i.e if you are on the long term sick and claiming esa you are not added to the unemployed figures like you used to be , the unemployment figures are taken from the numbers of people claiming jsa, if you claim income support you are added to a different list |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 13:08:49 GMT
Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
You mention the Keynesian fiscal stimulous.......however, this only works if you also apply other Keynesian rules, like during the good times, you reduce spending, reduce debt and reduce taxation. This gives you the leeway to provide that fiscal stimulous in the bad times. However, Labour did the opposite, and increased taxes, increased the debt and increased spending during the good times. When the bad times hit, Labour had nowhere to go, and that was their biggest failing. No good quoting Keynes if you are only going to apply his logic 50% of the time. Yes, the banking crisis was caused by the banks, but because of their handling of the UK economy, Labour were screwed. UK net debt 1996 = 44.8% of GDP. UK net debt 2007 = 42% of GDP. UK public spending 1996-97 39.9% GDP. 2006-07 40.9% of GDP. So there was a small increase in public spending leading up to 2008, after years of reducing debt as a % of GDP. Understandable after many years of underinvestment. Besides, even if you don't follow Keynes in the good times, it doesn't mean that you should not return to Keynes in the bad. Response to recession should = fiscal stimulus, regardless of what's gone on before, not the equality worsening asset-bubbling half assed monetary stimulus we've been subjected to instead. Evidence for this is in the weak recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jun 14, 2017 13:08:58 GMT
UK banks are governed by the UK who can go above Basel III (the foundations of which were already established pre-crash) if they want. They could also have implemented earlier if there was the backbone or understanding too. Remember it was Brown who promised no more boom or bust, and in truth he was correct under him there only was bust. PS no idea how competent the leaders of the other countries were but I take your drift that Blair and Brown were incapable of making decisions unless told to do so by other world leafers Please stop trying to twist my words.
What I'm clearly trying say is that Brown & Blair could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis. This is on the basis that very very few people across the work understood that there was a problem at all. The leaders of the Conservative Party at the time did not anticipate the crisis, and nor did the leaders of the USA, Germany, Spain, France, or Italy, nor the Bank of England, nor the heads of the banks themselves. Remember, they all thought that the massive interdependancy between banks was a great success, as they thought that it had killed off risk by spreading it across the system.
In addition, if they had have anticipated it, I doubt very much that there was anything they could have done about it. Banking is international, and for any real change in banking oversight you need international agreement, which takes time and is difficult to acheive Even since the banking crisis, very little has been done to prevent it happening again - you really think that Basel III would prevent it?
Any unilateral action to prevent the crisis would have killed the business of the major banks, demolished thier share prices and therefore capital base, and probably have set off a local banking crisis right here anyway.
Finally, even in the unlikely event that Brown & Blair had been able to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis in the UK without killing the UK banks, you think we would have been unaffected by the world-wide recession?
The banking crisis was an inevitable result of decades of deregulation and increasing complexity in the system. Shocks happen from time to time. Its how you respond that matters.
100% agree that Blair and Brown couldn't anticipate. I mean the banking crisis, price of gold, 15000 poles arriving, the outcome of 2 wars, PFI free money I think we are agreeing on stable ground here. And they certainly didn't prepare for anything |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:22:08 GMT
You mention the Keynesian fiscal stimulous.......however, this only works if you also apply other Keynesian rules, like during the good times, you reduce spending, reduce debt and reduce taxation. This gives you the leeway to provide that fiscal stimulous in the bad times. However, Labour did the opposite, and increased taxes, increased the debt and increased spending during the good times. When the bad times hit, Labour had nowhere to go, and that was their biggest failing. No good quoting Keynes if you are only going to apply his logic 50% of the time. Yes, the banking crisis was caused by the banks, but because of their handling of the UK economy, Labour were screwed. UK net debt 1996 = 44.8% of GDP. UK net debt 2007 = 42% of GDP. UK public spending 1996-97 39.9% GDP. 2006-07 40.9% of GDP. So there was a small increase in public spending leading up to 2008, after years of reducing debt as a % of GDP. Understandable after many years of underinvestment. Besides, even if you don't follow Keynes in the good times, it doesn't mean that you should not return to Keynes in the bad. Response to recession should = fiscal stimulus, regardless of what's gone on before, not the equality worsening asset-bubbling half assed monetary stimulus we've been subjected to instead. Evidence for this is in the weak recovery. Totally disagree with you. How can you claim to follow Keynes fiscal policy only 50% of the time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:26:19 GMT
I'm personally loving watching and reading the Tory whinge merchants on here,they all know what's best because us Labour voters are thick and understand f.ck all. I demand my free lunch
Money for nothing - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 14, 2017 13:27:14 GMT
When you think the post war labour/ attlee goverment introduced the national health service,the welfare state and built countless wonderful council houses for ordinary people but clement attlee didnt get a state funeral. But hey-ho the women that destroyed our manufacturing industry,acted despicably in the miners strike and the hillsborough disaster and introduced mass unemployment to our nation actually got one. You couldnt make it up Lets not forget that under labour the number of council houses being built was cut Lets not forget under labour the nhs has also been underfunded Lets not forget under labour coal mines were shutting down at an alarming rate Lets not forget under labour the unions held the government to ransom Lets not forget under labour a deal was done with the libs welsh and scottish nationalists and the ulster unionists Lets not forget under labour bLair destabilized the middle east upon a fabricated whim and then had the fecking neck to get a job there to try and bring peace Lets not forget under labour Brown refused to burn the poppy fields as the farmers would go hungry, never mind the devastation opiated bring to the rest of the world Lets not forget under labour unemployment figure are massaged Lets not forget under labour no attempt has been made to renationalise the industries privatised by the tories. Lets not forget under labour the party was turn't into a mild form of tory party. Lets not forget under labour bLair bought in almost one new law a day I will stop there ,as yes the tories made mistakes but so do labour |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:34:11 GMT
I'm personally loving watching and reading the Tory whinge merchants on here,they all know what's best because us Labour voters are thick and understand f.ck all. I demand my free lunch Money for nothing - Dire Straits Ah, but the Tories won the election. In reality, it wasn't even close. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:47:02 GMT
I'm personally loving watching and reading the Tory whinge merchants on here,they all know what's best because us Labour voters are thick and understand f.ck all. I demand my free lunch Money for nothing - Dire Straits Ah, but the Tories won the election. In reality, it wasn't even close. True,but the way they're acting you wouldn't of thought so. It was also a lot closer than most of you thought it would be.  |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 14, 2017 13:53:51 GMT
I wouldnt mind at all if all the tory rovers fans fuc*** off and supported city,ok our average gate would drop from 9,300 to 9,265 but it would be worth it in my view. Jesus wept. What a cockwomble. And there we have it, the real face of the left , chap/chapess unlike you i would partake a pint with knowing our politics are very different as is your right. I believe in your freedom of speech to say whatever you want, even though i disagree with your post i will fight to defend it . and there is the difference i believe you have the right to believe in what you want and say what you want and i will defend your right to it ,on the other hand it appears from your post that you are one of those who believe in free speech and though only as long as you agree with it, it also appears to be a labour trend  |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 14:50:13 GMT
Please stop trying to twist my words.
What I'm clearly trying say is that Brown & Blair could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis. This is on the basis that very very few people across the work understood that there was a problem at all. The leaders of the Conservative Party at the time did not anticipate the crisis, and nor did the leaders of the USA, Germany, Spain, France, or Italy, nor the Bank of England, nor the heads of the banks themselves. Remember, they all thought that the massive interdependancy between banks was a great success, as they thought that it had killed off risk by spreading it across the system.
In addition, if they had have anticipated it, I doubt very much that there was anything they could have done about it. Banking is international, and for any real change in banking oversight you need international agreement, which takes time and is difficult to acheive Even since the banking crisis, very little has been done to prevent it happening again - you really think that Basel III would prevent it?
Any unilateral action to prevent the crisis would have killed the business of the major banks, demolished thier share prices and therefore capital base, and probably have set off a local banking crisis right here anyway.
Finally, even in the unlikely event that Brown & Blair had been able to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis in the UK without killing the UK banks, you think we would have been unaffected by the world-wide recession?
The banking crisis was an inevitable result of decades of deregulation and increasing complexity in the system. Shocks happen from time to time. Its how you respond that matters.
100% agree that Blair and Brown couldn't anticipate. I mean the banking crisis, price of gold, 15000 poles arriving, the outcome of 2 wars, PFI free money I think we are agreeing on stable ground here. And they certainly didn't prepare for anything Totally not read, or responded to, what I have written. |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 14:51:15 GMT
Jesus wept. What a cockwomble. And there we have it, the real face of the left , chap/chapess unlike you i would partake a pint with knowing our politics are very different as is your right. I believe in your freedom of speech to say whatever you want, even though i disagree with your post i will fight to defend it . and there is the difference i believe you have the right to believe in what you want and say what you want and i will defend your right to it ,on the other hand it appears from your post that you are one of those who believe in free speech and though only as long as you agree with it, it also appears to be a labour trend Why is that the real face of the Left? That's the real face of the poster only. |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 14:56:02 GMT
UK net debt 1996 = 44.8% of GDP. UK net debt 2007 = 42% of GDP. UK public spending 1996-97 39.9% GDP. 2006-07 40.9% of GDP. So there was a small increase in public spending leading up to 2008, after years of reducing debt as a % of GDP. Understandable after many years of underinvestment. Besides, even if you don't follow Keynes in the good times, it doesn't mean that you should not return to Keynes in the bad. Response to recession should = fiscal stimulus, regardless of what's gone on before, not the equality worsening asset-bubbling half assed monetary stimulus we've been subjected to instead. Evidence for this is in the weak recovery. Totally disagree with you. How can you claim to follow Keynes fiscal policy only 50% of the time? 1. They didn't. They followed it all of the time. The debt was reduced in real terms during the good times.
2. So you are saying that if you have done the wrong thing, you should continue doing the wrong thing regardless?
|
|
