Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Spin Bowler

New Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Spin Bowler

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. In my opinion you are confusing two things. Surplus and Deficit (do we add or detract from debt this year) and debt. Keynes argument was that we should run surplusses in the good years and deficits in the bad, but that doesn't tell us where debt should be at any point in the cycle. You can follow Keynes counter-cyclical spending ideas with 20% of GDP debt in the bank, 0% debt in the bank or 20% of GDP saved up in a big warchest in the bank. The key is that it's neutral as a % of GDP over the whole cycle. So you don;t have to get to 0% debt for it to work. You can make it work from a 20% deb
  2. In my opinion these sums are both too optimistic in some senses and two pessimistic in others. I suspect the total debt will go above £1,000bn before the non-structural parts of the deficit right themselves, and probably also before we get the structural part under control. I'd say it's more likely to be something like £1,300bn by the time the non-structural parts right themselves and the Conlibs eliminate the structural part. (thats the bit where I think you were optimistic). That would be a govt. debt of approx. 80% of GDP. But I think you aren't calculating correctly where we have to get
  3. I can't possibly reply to all your comments, but... I would say I am assuming that this recession is bigger than all post-war recessions, and all pre-war recessions apart from the great depression itself. I'd say we are somehwere between "the biggest post-war recession" and "the great depression". Thats not the same as saying this is a "normal recession". I am not assuming any shape to the recession, V, W, L, U. All I am pointing out is that the deficit can be divided into two parts. That part that would be in deficit recession or not. That part of it caused by the recession. The fi
  4. But a large proportion of that deficit is just temporary. It's no good just looking at the whole of that deficit as a lump. It's all very well to try and scare people with the base figures, but something like 60% of the current deficit is caused by the recession, not any issues of overspending. Basically, the fall in taxes due to layoffs/lower profits and the rise in expenses due to additional social welfare payments in the slump is most of it. The issue with this part of the defecit will sort itself naturally over time as the economy returns to normal, leaving a much smaller persistent probl
  5. Please point to any part of that post discussing speed camera's saving lives. It's all about fines saving taxes. Personally, I'd also be in favour of that. Here I was just arguing against the seemingly commonly held view that fining people for breaking the law, and raising revenue that way, is "worse" or "more disgusting" than taxing people on earned wages in a compulsory manner. If we are to exclude everything else and just talk such compulsory taxes I agree that taxing the rich more is certainly more morally justifiable than taxing less well off people more.
  6. So then neither Reagan nor Thatcher were real conservatives as they both expanded the state ? The way you define liberalism/conservatism the US hasn't had a conservative president since Hoover, if ever. Reagan, like other republican presidents grew the size of the state in both relative and absolute terms. Year GDP-US $ billion Total Spending -total pct GDP 1981 3126.8 33.64 i 1982 3253.2 36.25 i 1983 3534.6 36.31 i 1984 3930.9 34.44 i 1985 4217.5 35.48 i 1986 4460.1 35.71 i 1987 4736.4 35.09 i 1988 5100.4 34.73 i
  7. ? Why is my view quaint ? I suspect thats shorthand for "I don't want to discuss this as I expected you to say something else". I have been arrested, and charged, for crimes I committed, that I do not personally consider immoral. I have seen family members go to jail, and friends and relatives receive criminal records, for crimes that I consider crimes and others I do not consider real crimes. I am aware the criminal justice system isn't all Rosseain (?) Social Contracts. I am aware it is often unfair and it is often administered unjustly. That doesn't change the fact that if they define
  8. No. States can pass illegitimate laws for a whole host of reasons. Even if they are legitimate, I don't think citizens have to obey it without exception. Only that they should obey it or be prepared to accept the consequences if caught. There are lots. Is the law democratic. Is it symmetrical as to inherent characteristics. Is it immoral, in my opinion, to obey the law. Is it moral, in my opinion, to break the law. Do I have a chance to leave the country and reject the government/law Am I prepared to accept the consequences for not obeying it. There are lots of reasons laws may,
  9. Stay classy there single malt. What I'm saying shouldn't be hard for even the dimmest petrolhead to understand. Regardless of how unsafe/safe speed is with driving, people accept that there is an increase in danger with speed. It may only be marginal, but it's there. The second point where this all started was, these states have to raise revenue/cut costs to pay down debt. Given both those starting points it's hardly uniquely disgusting if they raise that cash from fines for speeding. If they have to raise £100 surely it's better if they say "You can all drive from London to Edinborough
  10. Isn't this more of the HPC patented paranoia ? The US hasn't changed it's speed limits since the 70's and only did so then to reduce oil imports (and kept them as they were for the lower death rate it brought). There is no indication the US is going to do any such thing and lowering it below 55 would surely be met with so much outrage as to make it impolitic. As to the crime detection/resolution figures. Aren't they itemised by crime ? So who cares if the "car speeding" detection and resolution figures change, that won't affect the rates anyone looks at. Murder, Assault, Theft and so on. Wh
  11. Why is it disgusting ? The state needs the money. No-one is forcing anyone to break the law. I'd rather they raised the money by fining people willingly breaking the law than by taxing law abiding people for the work they do. If anything raising funds in such a way is less disgusting than demanding it out of the pay packets earnt with peoples sweat. I have no sympathy. If you don't want to pay the "Driving so fast it's a danger to other road users tax" then stay under the speed limit. If you still decide to speed, you knew the rules, you pay the penalty if caught and lower my taxes for me
  12. I think this is a great idea. It provides all the benefits of some stringent cuts, without many of the drawbacks. Why not turn round to various departments and say "Look, we were planning to sack one in four of you but decided all 4 would go on 30 hour weeks instead". You get the same cuts. And if and when one of them says "Sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm quitting for a private sector job" then you get your reduction without redundancy pay and the other 3 can go back to their 40 hours. If PS workers do so then it will also have the advantage that they are gradually siphoned off into t
  13. Wow, Thanks for that info Pent Up. Thats real quality info, hopefully that trend will continue. I already have property bee, I'd picked it up from reading the site before. I'm beginning to come round to your view, that the "worst" that can happen (from my perspective) is a flat market and there may well be a fall. It seems like "wait and see" is the prudent option, now I've just got to convince the wife ! Thanks again for sharing that info. I might start keeping such stats for my searches too (currently Chelmsford +5 and Harlow +10). If Damien pokes his head in here...... what are your vi
  14. I'd be interested in what anyone thought about prices in the South East/Essex/Chelmsford area. I started a thread onthis in the "Regional House Prices" area of the site but got no reply. Everywhere else seems to be going down, but not the South East. Does anyone have any views on whether the falls are likely to move to the South East soon ? Or do you think it will remain (with london) "a region apart" ? Is there anygood reason why it is like this ? Especially, I am thinking, with upcoming Public Secor cuts (lots of those people must live in Essex). Can I ask the more experienced on the
  15. Hello, I thought this might happen too. It looks like the government Stamp Duty levels printed above are the old labour levels. Has anyone heard if the Conservatives are going to continue this or not ? Or is this something else that we will only find out about on the 23rd ? It would be very handy for me if they did extend it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.