Fudge Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 And how big was the public sector debt before the bank bails outs in late 2007 and 2008.The attached graph tells all Yes and the government are confident that the banks will repay the loans and we are out of the recession says King and Bernanke. So whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Dumb he may be but the public sector debt would not be sinking the economy if the politicians had not been in such a hurry to socialize the losses incurred by the banking industry by getting the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their unsound lending. Anyone who reads the media can see how this story is now not so subtly being spun around so that the crisis is now seen just as an issue of public expenditure not the absolute orgy of private debt and speculation that preceded it. The sad thing is so many people he are happy to buy it. I guess they just like eating sh*t. Let them eat cack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Yes and the government are confident that the banks will repay the loans and we are out of the recessionsays King and Bernanke. So whats the problem? And I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 And I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell to you No I dont believe it either but that is what they are telling us so why the big panic to make the public sector pay for the crises that they played no part in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Interview is here (about 12:30 in). His point was that the imminent bankruptcy of Britain is overstated and has been whipped up by the media (not the "Tory" media as far as I could hear). Looked at dispassionately, he's misguided in several areas but he's not the unreconstructed loon he's being made out to be here (or if he is, it's not proven in the interview). Best thing if you want to judge is to listen for yourself. His biggest beef seems to be that the bankers made the mess, so why should the public sector "pay"? Within the parameters he's set himself (and the parameters of millions of public sector union members) he appears to have a point. Naturally he's going to miss the fact that the bloated public sector is a symptom of the boom too, but then the interviewer didn't bring that up either, now if that had happened I'd have been impressed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No I dont believe it either but that is what they are telling us so why the big panic to make the public sector pay for the crises that they played no part in. The UK has too much debt period but most of it was not run up by filing clerks at the DWP or their ilk no matter how pointless their jobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Congreve Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Cynic, but at least you get the drift, government spending, or should that be "redistribution of wealth", keeping the whole toppling edifice going a bit longer.The point remains valid, we either spend more money on government jobs and go bust, or make everyone redundant and well, go bust. All roads lead to the same destination, place your bets now on the direction we take? 'Broke Britain' here we come! No way out, we're backed into a corner, we're in the poor house now. We're going to see strikes, mass unemployment, nosediving standards of living, crashing house prices (in relative to 2007 terms at least) and spiralling crime. 'Things can only get better!', remember that? Nice one NuLabour, all you've done since coming to power is spunk all our money up the wall to create an illusion of growth, involve us in Zionist wars of oppression so the world hates us and destroy what was left of our country and economy with feckless political and economic mismanagement that has resulted in an unending legacy of crushing debt. TW@TS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 'Broke Britain' here we come! No way out, we're backed into a corner, we're in the poor house now. We're going to see strikes, mass unemployment, nosediving standards of living, crashing house prices (in relative to 2007 terms at least) and spiralling crime.'Things can only get better!', remember that? Nice one NuLabour, all you've done since coming to power is spunk all our money up the wall to create an illusion of growth, involve us in Zionist wars of oppression so the world hates us and destroy what was left of our country and economy with feckless political and economic mismanagement that has resulted in an unending legacy of crushing debt. TW@TS! What makes you think it was mismanaged, maybe "austerity" was part of the plan. Kind of like parents reprimanding their children after an all night party and then making them feel guilty by showing them the video they took while on holiday next door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 One of the union loons said that he thought that those who caused the mess should pay.What a nutter. I never heard of such nonsense. Much as I hate that guy, what he said was partially true. The people who caused the mess have NOT paid their dues and demands by and large. Too weary to post the list but I'll start with Goldman Sachs and you can go from there. We are angry at the growth of the public sector but I for one am more p!ssed with the banking elite. Are you not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightytharg Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 We are angry at the growth of the public sector but I for one am more p!ssed with the banking elite. Are you not? Why? The banks took a risk and should have gone bust causing minor problems for a few wealthy people who happened to have large deposits that they failed to spread between banks. No real problems there. The public sector choose to waste trillions of pounds in handouts, look to them if you are angry. ( but thanks again for the cash ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 One of the union loons said that he thought that those who caused the mess should pay.What a nutter. I never heard of such nonsense. Trouble with that is, one of the main causes is overspending in the public sector. His members may not be individually responsible (except by coincidence), but they are collectively part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Much as I hate that guy, what he said was partially true. The people who caused the mess have NOT paid their dues and demands by and large. Too weary to post the list but I'll start with Goldman Sachs and you can go from there. We are angry at the growth of the public sector but I for one am more p!ssed with the banking elite. Are you not? Indeedie, can't disagree with that: bankstas and speculators are where we can place direct responsibility. And while we're at it, let's not forget everyone who made big money for nothing as their house prices rose. Like the bloated public sector, there is individual innocence but collective responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 While a rabble rousing militant in the most anachronistic, 1970s tradition, Crow just about has the requisite brain cells to convince an unsuspecting Radio Four listener that he isn't flatly denying an objective fact. Even Gordon Brown isn't denying that he borrowed the £175 billion. He might have deluded himself into believing that doing so hasn't caused any problems; but this union bloke seemed to believe, honestly, that the existence of a public sector debt of £175bn is a propaganda lie. the poor chap is obviously confused, but if he had said the deficit hysteria was whipped up by the media who understood little about these things which then forced the neoliberal govt. in power [whether tory or labour] to respond with 'cuts' to bring the deficit 'back under control'. Then he'd be the total opposite of a moron. If that's what he meant he's a b****** genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinker Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Labour spending millions to employ union activists in Whitehall http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0RFPH5WcV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Close a bank or two. remove the loan support for banks from the BoE. Lets cleanse the system of excess bankers. And lets stop paying peoples mortgage interest....above and beyond the criteria that a renter would get benefit help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 One of the union loons said that he thought that those who caused the mess should pay.What a nutter. I never heard of such nonsense. Has GB got deep pockets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The UK has too much debt period but most of it was not run up by filing clerks at the DWP or their ilk no matter how pointless their jobs non-sequitur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm waiting for this lie to be dragged out again....and this historic phrase was uttered in response to a devaluation of just 14%.....we've just had one of over 30% and hardly anyone (the BBC) in the media raised an eyebrow. A devaluation within an fixed-rate system is not really comparable to a devaluation in a floating system. Sterling's recent fall is the inevitable (arguably, belated) consequence of the system working as it's supposed to; the devaluations of 1967 (and 1949 and 1992) represented policy U-turns. That IMO is why they were more news-worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Great graph, it does show how absurd it is to imagine that even 10% cuts in public spending can get government debt under control. Maybe we can start with cuts in, oh I don't know let's just choose one at random, the trillion pound handout for the financial sector? It was irresponsible of Brown to increase public spending during the good years without increasing taxes to pay for it, and even if this crash wasn't happening I think we would be due a correction there. But it's crazy to think we can get the national debt under control by reducing bureaucracy, getting rid of non-jobs, and cutting salaries and pensions for public sector workers. With the national debt and financial sector bailout we are talking about tens of percent of GDP, with public sector spending it is uncosted growth in the single digits. They are on a different order of magnitude. Edited September 16, 2009 by bearly legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoWolves Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I was under the impression that the very reason that Gordon Brown reduced the level of regulation on the financial system was to generate more revenue in order to pay for the swelling public sector. Suffice to say the two problems are intimately connected and both roads lead to the New Labour project. The complication however is the international angle, that exactly the same policy was in effect in the US in spite of the Fed being a private company. There are still questions that require answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 No I dont believe it either but that is what they are telling us so why the big panic to make the public sector pay for the crises that they played no part in. The vastly bloated public sector is that way in order to swing the balance of elections. For the last two terms of this government it has been as clear as day to anyone who wishes to open their eyes that the size of the UK public sector is little better than the tactics of Mugabe, election rigging. It seems to me, in all but the critical areas, we have an over staffed, over paid, underworked and in a lot of cases wholly unnecessary public sector. With the exception of the following, Frontline medical staff in the NHS and enough management to allow it to function EFFICIENTLY. The fire service, coast guard, ambulance service and other emergency services. The police, not as an extension of HMRC. Education and social services need to be freed from the shackles of PC and allowed to do their job and not be ruled by the front pages of the news papers and the people whose agenda they are working to. Local councils; empty my bins, keep my streets clean and provide me with public services such as libraries and leisure centres - this is what I pay you for. Government should be small and unobtrusive not large and overbearing. How long can we carry on with a bloodsucking percentage of the working population being paid for by the productive percentage? How long before we all give up and join the gravy train, who pays then? So in answer to your question, you are as much to blame as the rest of us. If you’re not part of the solution you are part of the problem. The public sector costs too much for not enough benefit. Incoherent rant over, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I was under the impression that the very reason that Gordon Brown reduced the level of regulation on the financial system was to generate more revenue in order to pay for the swelling public sector. Suffice to say the two problems are intimately connected and both roads lead to the New Labour project.The complication however is the international angle, that exactly the same policy was in effect in the US in spite of the Fed being a private company. There are still questions that require answers. Yes, the UK and US have been doing the tango for some time now, its global after all. A new system is unfolding before our eyes, but most are still blinkered to the concept of engineered change and are more focused on the hangover after the big party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The more important division is between those who issue the means of exchange, and those who do not. This is the division that needs to be aligned with the public/private division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 TUC conference coverage; interview with Red Robbo-type unionista.Robbo clone threatens 'mass strikes' if public sector spending is cut. Interviewer: 'Yes, but we're all hundreds of billions of pounds in debt. Don't you accept that if we don't start paying it back, our credit rating will go down and it'll be harder for the government to borrow money?' Unionista: 'You know, I don't buy that to be honest. All this debt business ... this has been whipped up by the media, you know, the Tory media if you ask me.' Interviewer hastily changes the subject. JESUS H. CHRIST WITH AN ELECTRIC CATTLE PROD UP HIS @RSE! Please, assure me that there aren't enough utterly deranged individuals such as this specimen eligible to vote in this country to return Brown to power... He does have a point, as Gordon simply has to wave his magic QE wand, and Hey Prescott, the debt has dissappeared! Simples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.