Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Are We In This Financial Mess Becausethere Hasn't Been A Conservative Govt

Recommended Posts

Guest The Relaxation Suite

Liberal domestic spending programmes and liberal foreign policies since the days of Reagan and Thatcher - this is why we are in the current financial and political mess we are in, or not?

Just an idea.

Before it comes, neither Bushes were conservatives, particularly the last one who expanded the state massively, refused to cut spending and rolled out the biggest ideological foreign policy for over 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference between the Toffs and Liebour, they both work for the same masters.

This thread is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal domestic spending programmes and liberal foreign policies since the days of Reagan and Thatcher - this is why we are in the current financial and political mess we are in, or not?

Just an idea.

Before it comes, neither Bushes were conservatives, particularly the last one who expanded the state massively, refused to cut spending and rolled out the biggest ideological foreign policy for over 100 years.

Paul Martin and Bob Rubin managed their respective countries' finances quite well. They were fiscal conservatives with business experience within liberal governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

There is no difference between the Toffs and Liebour, they both work for the same masters.

This thread is pointless.

In many ways, this is an insane conspiracy theory.

Back to reality - would a real conservative government have behaved any differently, or are we too jaded with polital corruption to notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways, this is an insane conspiracy theory.

Back to reality - would a real conservative government have behaved any differently, or are we too jaded with polital corruption to notice?

Which reality do you live in?

Have you read both Osborne and Mandelson went to the Bilderberger meeting in Spain last weekend?

----

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Paul Martin and Bob Rubin managed their respective countries' finances quite well. They were fiscal conservatives with business experience within liberal governments.

This is an excellent point. Bush 1 & 2 were both conservative on certain issues but the overall sweep of their govts were pretty liberal, and I guess my point is would things have been any different with a serious conservative agenda actually played out on either side of the Atlantic over the last 20 years? Would things have been different without the idealistic foreign wars and the high public spending?

Our systems work because polar opposites in politics balance the other side out, when one side dominates totally for so long is all this not inevitable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our systems work because polar opposites in politics balance the other side out, when one side dominates totally for so long is all this not inevitable?

Do you really think our current system is working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Which reality do you live in?

Have you read both Osborne and Mandelson went to the Bilderberger meeting in Spain last weekend?

----

You should probably know that not everythingin this world is orchestrated by Peter Mandelson. Bush for example would have been much more conservtive in his first campaign but he knew it would not go over well with a public already hooked on liberal spending agendas. In other words he had to dance to the public's tune. Which is not Peter Mandelson and George Osborne pulling strings. Politicians often have to listen to the public to see which way the wind is blowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Do you really think our current system is working?

No I do not, partly because there has only been one ideological force in politics for a generation. This is the point I make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is not Peter Mandelson and George Osborne pulling strings. Politicians often have to listen to the public to see which way the wind is blowing.

Of course not, Mandelson and Osbourne went to the Bilderberger meeitng to take orders, they are at the lower end of the hierarchy.

And yes they do listen to the public, but only to figure out how to best manipulate public opinion towards the goals of the 'elite'.

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Of course not, Mandelson and Osbourne went to the Bilderberger meeitng to take orders, they are at the lower end of the hierarchy.

And yes they do listen to the public, but only to figure out how to best manipulate public opinion towards the goals of the 'elite'.

This is a very dark view of the world. I don't doubt private banking families have too much influence over govts but to suggest they literally control all policy goes too far. Influence is not control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent point. Bush 1 & 2 were both conservative on certain issues but the overall sweep of their govts were pretty liberal, and I guess my point is would things have been any different with a serious conservative agenda actually played out on either side of the Atlantic over the last 20 years? Would things have been different without the idealistic foreign wars and the high public spending?

Our systems work because polar opposites in politics balance the other side out, when one side dominates totally for so long is all this not inevitable?

The studies that I have read seem to indicate that the economically optimal size of the state is 25% of GDP.

We seem to go through idealogical boom and bust cycles between two main groups : those who believe that it is socially optimal for the state to be a bit larger than 25% of GDP and those who believe that the state ought to be a lot larger than 25% of GDP.

The longer the "large state" group stay in power, the larger the damage done to the economy. Eventually, the size of the state needs to be brought closer to the economically optimal size relative to GDP once the size of deficts and accumulated debts become difficult for markets to digest.

The understanding of this problem can happen independantly of any party's standing along the political spectrum. My political memory isn't that long or particularly global but I think that the left and right have come to this conclusion in similar proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very dark view of the world. I don't doubt private banking families have too much influence over govts but to suggest they literally control all policy goes too far. Influence is not control.

It's reality, I would think the events of the last few years should have made it pretty clear for everyone to see?

Money is control, the banksters (i.e. specific bankster families as you rightly say) control the money therefore they control everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal domestic spending programmes and liberal foreign policies since the days of Reagan and Thatcher - this is why we are in the current financial and political mess we are in, or not?

Just an idea.

Before it comes, neither Bushes were conservatives, particularly the last one who expanded the state massively, refused to cut spending and rolled out the biggest ideological foreign policy for over 100 years.

We are in trouble because Labour encouraged the blaggards and cutpurses through lite touch irresponsibility while thinking it would all work out as HPI would be endless with no more boom and bust. The sheeple were only too ready to go along with the madness as all they could see was double digit inflation in their houses which became an endless source of ATM cash given that there was never going to be a BUST side to Gordon's miracle economy.

It might easily have been a conservative government if you had a Brown-like figure leading it. Brown was undoubtedly the worst person for the job as he had no understanding of economics and lacked ordinary human compassion and a moral compass. A very dangerous combination indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown was undoubtedly the worst person for the job as he had no understanding of economics and lacked ordinary human compassion and a moral compass. A very dangerous combination indeed.

That's what made him perfect in the hands of the 'elite' just like Bush jr., a puppet that could be directed to do exactly as they wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Thatcher, in the 1980's, I seem to remember it went like this: The Tories inherited a mess from Labour and proceeded to make it worse. Then they successfully engineered a boom which created the 'Loadsamoney' era. Then came the bust, followed by a partial recovery by the time John Major's government left office. And during all that time, Britain's manufacturing base was being further eroded by 'inward investment', outsourcing and foreign takeovers of British companies. Let's hope David Cameron and Nick Clegg make a better job of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal domestic spending programmes and liberal foreign policies since the days of Reagan and Thatcher - this is why we are in the current financial and political mess we are in, or not?

Just an idea.

Before it comes, neither Bushes were conservatives, particularly the last one who expanded the state massively, refused to cut spending and rolled out the biggest ideological foreign policy for over 100 years.

Reagan was the real capitulation of America to the military industrial complex. You could reasonably say reaganite policies bust america.

Thatcher made the UK into and non industrial country.

Both were long term strategic disasters where we are only starting to understand the calamity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Thatcher, in the 1980's, I seem to remember it went like this: The Tories inherited a mess from Labour and proceeded to make it worse. Then they successfully engineered a boom which created the 'Loadsamoney' era. Then came the bust, followed by a partial recovery by the time John Major's government left office. And during all that time, Britain's manufacturing base was being further eroded by 'inward investment', outsourcing and foreign takeovers of British companies. Let's hope David Cameron and Nick Clegg make a better job of things.

Billions of oil wealth were found at the time of thatcher - even a total inept fool could have brought the country out of recession in those circumstances. And thatcher being a total fool proved this.

However whilst Norway has a soverign wealth fund and massive pensions for norwegian citizens thatcher squandered our oil wealth - we have no soverign wealth fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal domestic spending programmes and liberal foreign policies since the days of Reagan and Thatcher - this is why we are in the current financial and political mess we are in, or not?

Just an idea.

Before it comes, neither Bushes were conservatives, particularly the last one who expanded the state massively, refused to cut spending and rolled out the biggest ideological foreign policy for over 100 years.

Are you insane? Reagan did nothing but borrow, he was worse than Gordon Brown. Oh btw, does anyone know when we are getting the "trickle down" we were promised in the 1980s? My cheque doesn't appear to have arrived yet.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not, Mandelson and Osbourne went to the Bilderberger meeitng to take orders, they are at the lower end of the hierarchy.

And yes they do listen to the public, but only to figure out how to best manipulate public opinion towards the goals of the 'elite'.

You are too optimist, thinking that some group controls the world. Reality is much more chaotic than you think. Nobody is in control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's reality, I would think the events of the last few years should have made it pretty clear for everyone to see?

Money is control, the banksters (i.e. specific bankster families as you rightly say) control the money therefore they control everything.

Big mistake there: Bank directors (with short term interest in their bonuses) took to many risks, damaging the banks' value = shareholders wealth. Old banking families (and our Pension Funds - we have converging interests BTW) lost a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The studies that I have read seem to indicate that the economically optimal size of the state is 25% of GDP.

We seem to go through idealogical boom and bust cycles between two main groups : those who believe that it is socially optimal for the state to be a bit larger than 25% of GDP and those who believe that the state ought to be a lot larger than 25% of GDP.

The longer the "large state" group stay in power, the larger the damage done to the economy. Eventually, the size of the state needs to be brought closer to the economically optimal size relative to GDP once the size of deficts and accumulated debts become difficult for markets to digest.

+ 1. Good post.

The understanding of this problem can happen independantly of any party's standing along the political spectrum. My political memory isn't that long or particularly global but I think that the left and right have come to this conclusion in similar proportions.

OK, the left-wing leadership got it, since Clinton, or even Sweden before him. But the problem these parties have is to explain this to their bases. Even Blair didn't manage to implement the reforms he had in mind, opposed by the Unions, some MPs (enough to negate him his majority), then Brown opportunistic alliance with these groups, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billions of oil wealth were found at the time of thatcher - even a total inept fool could have brought the country out of recession in those circumstances. And thatcher being a total fool proved this.

However whilst Norway has a soverign wealth fund and massive pensions for norwegian citizens thatcher squandered our oil wealth - we have no soverign wealth fund.

We got tax cuts that favoured the rich that would trickle down to the masses what more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.