Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
General Congreve

Spending Cuts Analysis

Recommended Posts

OK, a quick summary of the spending cuts and some points:

1. Approximately £80Bn saved over the next four years.

2. This means the yearly DEFICIT will equal £150Bn instead of £170Bn without the cuts

3. This means by the end of this term in government we will still have added £600Bn extra to the NATIONAL DEBT. Currently the total debt is close to 1 TRILLION POUNDS. So with the spending cuts the total debt will be over 1.5 TRILLION POUNDS by the end of the this term.

Now the government also means to eat into the remaining yearly deficit of £150Bn by raising taxes and hoping for a return to real economic growth. So they have to hope raising taxes doesn't lower disposable income and thereby retard economic growth further. They also have to hope that the private sector can not only magic up 500,000 jobs for all the people they are turning out of a job with the cuts, but that they can also find the new business to re-employ all those who've lost jobs since 2007. Once employment is miraculously back to 2007 levels they have to hope consumer demand can be stimulated back to 2007 levels and indeed above and beyond this to create the growth we need. A tall order with everybody still maxed-out on the mortgage and credit card, after all, the reason this crisis started was the credit bubble wasn't sustainable any more.

But let's just assume their cunning plan works and we bounce back to growth and taxing us more brings in more revenue. What then? Well let's assume a rosy outlook of these factors contributing another £50Bn saving on the yearly deficit on average. Let's also assume we have stable government and stable government financial policy for the next decade. What does this mean:

1. We manage to slash the deficit to £100Bn a year on average for the next decade.

2. At the end of that decade we have 'merely' added another 1 TRILLION POUNDS to the National Debt, thereby doubling it.

So, even with the most optimistic of fairy tale outlooks, the deficit will at least double in the next 10 years to 2 TRILLION POUNDS!!!

Now, that's bad enough, even with record low interest rates (if they can maintain them for that long).

In my opinion, the only way to keep such a debt from taking us under is to create a decent size amount of inflation, which means more QE and keeping ZIRP in place.

GET READY TO KISS YOUR SAVINGS GOODBYE FOR YOUR COUNTRY.

Your thoughts Gentlemen...

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a few questions / make a few points

Point 2: you are assuming that 20bn of cuts (a quarter of the cuts) can be implemented in this financial year. Surely this is not going to be possible?

Point 3. Doesn't this assume that no debt is paid down in this time? I assume some debt is paid off each year on a rolling basis? Am i wrong in this assumption?

OK, a quick summary of the spending cuts and some points:

1. Approximately £80Bn saved over the next four years.

2. This means the yearly DEFICIT will equal £150Bn instead of £170Bn without the cuts

3. This means by the end of this term in government we will still have added £600Bn extra to the NATIONAL DEBT. Currently the total debt is close to 1 TRILLION POUNDS. So with the spending cuts the total debt will be over 1.5 TRILLION POUNDS by the end of the this term.

Now the government also means to eat into the remaining yearly deficit of £150Bn by raising taxes and hoping for a return to real economic growth. So they have to hope raising taxes doesn't lower disposable income and thereby retard economic growth further. They also have to hope that the private sector can not only magic up 500,000 jobs for all the people they are turning out of a job with the cuts, but that they can also find the new business to re-employ all those who've lost jobs since 2007. Once employment is miraculously back to 2007 levels they have to hope consumer demand can be stimulated back to 2007 levels and indeed above and beyond this to create the growth we need. A tall order with everybody still maxed out on the mortgage and credit card, after all the reason this crisis started was the credit bubble wasn't sustainable any more.

But let's just assume their cunning plan works and we bounce back to growth and taxing us more brings in more revenue. What then? Well let's assume a rosy outlook of these factors contributing another £50Bn saving on the yearly deficit on average. Let's also assume we have stable government and stable government financial policy for the next decade. What does this mean:

1. We manage to slash the deficit to £100Bn a year on average for the next decade.

2. At the end of that decade we have 'merely' added another 1 TRILLION POUNDS to the National Debt, thereby doubling it.

So, even with the most optimistic of fairy tale outlooks, the deficit will at least double in the next 10 years to 2 TRILLION POUNDS!!!

Now, that's bad enough, even with record low interest rates (if they can maintain them for that long).

In my opinion, the only way to keep such a debt from taking us under is to create a decent size amount of inflation, which means more QE and keeping ZIRP in place.

GET READY TO KISS YOUR SAVINGS GOODBYE FOR YOUR COUNTRY.

Your thoughts Gentlemen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a few questions / make a few points

Point 2: you are assuming that 20bn of cuts (a quarter of the cuts) can be implemented in this financial year. Surely this is not going to be possible?

Point 3. Doesn't this assume that no debt is paid down in this time? I assume some debt is paid off each year on a rolling basis? Am i wrong in this assumption?

The cuts will total £80Bn over the course of the 4 year term of this government. Like you say, it is more likely the greater proportion of the cuts will fall towards the end of the term.

I assume that the yearly deficit includes all the money needed after tax has been taken to cover expenses, including debt interest. So I think it is the case that the deficit is added straight on to the national debt without any subtraction from the total for repaid debt interest, because we are actually borrowing (rolling over the debt) to pay the interest.

Even if we are not, then I think debt interest payments are around £30bn a year, so over the course of a decade, assuming we clear £300Bn of outstanding interest (which I don't think we do, but let's just assume so as a best case scenario), we'll still be looking at over 1.7 TRILLION POUNDS in debt. Still a stupendous amount that will require an inflationary approach to deal with it.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a quick summary of the spending cuts and some points:

1. Approximately £80Bn saved over the next four years.

2. This means the yearly DEFICIT will equal £150Bn instead of £170Bn without the cuts

3. This means by the end of this term in government we will still have added £600Bn extra to the NATIONAL DEBT. Currently the total debt is close to 1 TRILLION POUNDS. So with the spending cuts the total debt will be over 1.5 TRILLION POUNDS by the end of the this term.

Now the government also means to eat into the remaining yearly deficit of £150Bn by raising taxes and hoping for a return to real economic growth. So they have to hope raising taxes doesn't lower disposable income and thereby retard economic growth further. They also have to hope that the private sector can not only magic up 500,000 jobs for all the people they are turning out of a job with the cuts, but that they can also find the new business to re-employ all those who've lost jobs since 2007. Once employment is miraculously back to 2007 levels they have to hope consumer demand can be stimulated back to 2007 levels and indeed above and beyond this to create the growth we need. A tall order with everybody still maxed-out on the mortgage and credit card, after all, the reason this crisis started was the credit bubble wasn't sustainable any more.

But let's just assume their cunning plan works and we bounce back to growth and taxing us more brings in more revenue. What then? Well let's assume a rosy outlook of these factors contributing another £50Bn saving on the yearly deficit on average. Let's also assume we have stable government and stable government financial policy for the next decade. What does this mean:

1. We manage to slash the deficit to £100Bn a year on average for the next decade.

2. At the end of that decade we have 'merely' added another 1 TRILLION POUNDS to the National Debt, thereby doubling it.

So, even with the most optimistic of fairy tale outlooks, the deficit will at least double in the next 10 years to 2 TRILLION POUNDS!!!

Now, that's bad enough, even with record low interest rates (if they can maintain them for that long).

In my opinion, the only way to keep such a debt from taking us under is to create a decent size amount of inflation, which means more QE and keeping ZIRP in place.

GET READY TO KISS YOUR SAVINGS GOODBYE FOR YOUR COUNTRY.

Your thoughts Gentlemen...

Outstanding post and one which i would largely agree with. however, this begs the question of what will stop our international lenders hiking interest rates in order to offset our debased currency? In which case we sink anyway don't we?

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you my good man.

However, this begs the question of what will stop our international lenders hiking interest rates in order to offset our debased currency? In which case we sink anyway don't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, this begs the question of what will stop our international lenders hiking interest rates in order to offset our debased currency? In which case we sink anyway don't we?

The government is hoping that the lenders see us as 'Too Big to Fail'. Our lenders, which include banks, pension funds (it's law that UK pension funds by a set amount of UK gilts for their funds) and foreign states are suppose to realise that if they force interest rates up by selling our gilts, then they run the very real risk of crashing our gilt market into oblivion and bankrupting the country (because higher interest rates will make the debt unservicable), meaning those that don't get out early will lose they're entire investment ergo, goodbye pension fund, goodbye bank, major loss for foreign state.

They are hoping the creditors accept that real losses on investment (caused by inflation) are more acceptable than total losses, and will thereby continue to play ball.

Of course the BoE is on hand to enforce these real losses for those holding gilts and help avoid a rise in interest rates, by QEing and mopping up all the excess gilts the govt. needs to sell to cover it's spiralling debt, thereby taking up the slack from sensible buyers who refuse to play the game. This of course is highly inflationary and the intended course of action. Basically we'll print the money to pay our own debts and trash the pound in the process.

Note that this is the same technique the US, Japan and Eurozone are taking too.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cuts will total £80Bn over the course of the 4 year term of this government. Like you say, it is more likely the greater proportion of the cuts will fall towards the end of the term.

I assume that the yearly deficit includes all the money needed after tax has been taken to cover expenses, including debt interest. So I think it is the case that the deficit is added straight on to the national debt without any subtraction from the total for repaid debt interest, because we are actually borrowing (rolling over the debt) to pay the interest.

Even if we are not, then I think debt interest payments are around £30bn a year, so over the course of a decade, assuming we clear £300Bn of outstanding interest (which I don't think we do, but let's just assume so as a best case scenario), we'll still be looking at over 1.7 TRILLION POUNDS in debt. Still a stupendous amount that will require an inflationary approach to deal with it.

OK, thanks.

So to summise:

1. It is possible that this years deficit could be greater than your estimated 150bn (jolly good then)

2. Any repayments - if they actually exist - are likely to be p1ssing in the wind

Great stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks.

So to summise:

1. It is possible that this years deficit could be greater than your estimated 150bn (jolly good then)

2. Any repayments - if they actually exist - are likely to be p1ssing in the wind

Great stuff!

1. Yes indeed. In fact the September deficit has just been announced as the greatest ever for the month of September.

2. That is correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also point out that even with the deficit at 1.5 Trillion pounds, with a population of 60 million, the debt will be £25,000 per person, or £100,000 per family.

When you take into account the outstanding mortgages, loans and credit card bills they also have to pay, does that sound like a serviceable debt that will ever be paid back in real terms? It's basically a second mortgage hanging over the head of every family in the UK.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about paying the debt off because well it would be a tremendous task, nearly impossible to do honestly.

TBH it would not be a difficult task to pay down the debt if they just got a balanced budget. If they did that in real terms the debt would shrink with inflation.

BTW I think I know where the growth and jobs will come. From immigration!!

As has happened the UK will continue to see some half a million additional immigrants per year.

Come 2020 the UK population will likely be some 4m higher than it is today.

Well that will add demand and jobs, it will also mean productivity per population is somewhat better which will help profits at companies.

Even if the government does nothing GDP should grow just by the addition of more people working and consuming. In effect the Burdon of the national debt will be shared amongst more workers.

Of course as individuals this huge influx of immigrants offers both benefits and harms. Not sure there is anything that can be done about it, just be aware of it and try to profit rather than lose from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also point out that even with the deficit at 1.5 Trillion pounds, with a population of 60 million, the debt will be £25,000 per person, or £100,000 per family.

When you take into account the outstanding mortgages, loans and credit card bills they also have to pay, does that sound like a serviceable debt that will ever be paid back in real terms? It's basically a second mortgage hanging over the head of every family in the UK.

The real question is why debt at these levels really exists. Consider that for all the debt there is someone somewhere with an equivalent pound of savings.

So if the government is in debt to the tune of £1,000B

Households are in debt to the tune of ???? £3,000B

Businesses are in debt to the tune of ??? £1,000B

Well who has the other side of the equation? Where is the savings of £5,000B ??? who has that?

The real question is how you get those people with the debt savings to spend or invest it in something else. Without them doing that debtors cannot pay back anything,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about paying the debt off because well it would be a tremendous task, nearly impossible to do honestly.

TBH it would not be a difficult task to pay down the debt if they just got a balanced budget. If they did that in real terms the debt would shrink with inflation.

BTW I think I know where the growth and jobs will come. From immigration!!

As has happened the UK will continue to see some half a million additional immigrants per year.

Come 2020 the UK population will likely be some 4m higher than it is today.

Well that will add demand and jobs, it will also mean productivity per population is somewhat better which will help profits at companies.

Even if the government does nothing GDP should grow just by the addition of more people working and consuming. In effect the Burdon of the national debt will be shared amongst more workers.

Of course as individuals this huge influx of immigrants offers both benefits and harms. Not sure there is anything that can be done about it, just be aware of it and try to profit rather than lose from it.

I'm sceptical immigration will solve the problem. But even with 4 million extra people or so (which will really f4ck off the existing population and cause all manner of other problems) or so, assuming a population of 65 million and a national debt of 1.5 Trillion in 4 years time, the debt burden will still be...

£23,000 per person or £92,000 per family. Not a big difference.

Not to mention that you need economic growth to create the need for more employment, more employees doesn't create real economic growth, as Gordo proved by doling out a load of parasitic non-jobs that now have to be cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but do I have it wrong or what? I thought spending cuts of 80 billion, meant that in four years time we'd be spending 80 billion less in that year. You can't cut that figure into four and say that's how much less we're spending each year.

Also, isn't the economy supposed to grow and recover. So the gubbermint spends 80 billion less that year, and hopefully tax receipts are up (miraculously) because of all the growth in the private sector. And it gets in more money so 150 billion shortfall, less cuts less extra tax take, = 0 hopefully (very) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why debt at these levels really exists. Consider that for all the debt there is someone somewhere with an equivalent pound of savings.

So if the government is in debt to the tune of £1,000B

Households are in debt to the tune of ???? £3,000B

Businesses are in debt to the tune of ??? £1,000B

Well who has the other side of the equation? Where is the savings of £5,000B ??? who has that?

The real question is how you get those people with the debt savings to spend or invest it in something else. Without them doing that debtors cannot pay back anything,

Supposedly someone had the money to lend in the first place. They didn't, the banks created most of it out of thin air and loaned it. There are people who profited from that money being spent and have saved it, but I think you'll find that the debt-based nature of our money system, that is governed by the banks ability to create credit from thin air, means that in reality most of those savings don't really exist (not securely, because the banks are insolvent).

Money is debt and the system is near breaking point. The fact that interest on debt is always greater than interest on savings means that the debt outpaces the growth of savings until the whole system consumes itself, i.e. paper currency becomes worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but do I have it wrong or what? I thought spending cuts of 80 billion, meant that in four years time we'd be spending 80 billion less in that year. You can't cut that figure into four and say that's how much less we're spending each year.

However the cuts are divvied up over the 4 years, it's a £80Bn saving at the end of 4 years. Same difference more or less when you get to our level of national debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sceptical immigration will solve the problem. But even with 4 million extra people or so (which will really f4ck off the existing population and cause all manner of other problems) or so, assuming a population of 65 million and a national debt of 1.5 Trillion in 4 years time, the debt burden will still be...

£23,000 per person or £92,000 per family. Not a big difference.

Not to mention that you need economic growth to create the need for more employment, more employees doesn't create real economic growth, as Gordo proved by doling out a load of parasitic non-jobs that now have to be cut.

Well some 4m extra people live in the UK today than did 10 years ago, I am not making a judgement on it being positive or negative but the simple fact is there are more people in work today in a recession than there were 10 years ago.

more people means more demand means more jobs. you dont create jobs to fill people. demand does that and it has been proven everywhere.

more people means more jobs be it a naturally growing population or via immigration.

BTW the way to think of it isnt to divide the number of people by the debt. it is the number of workers VS extra taxation.

for example if 3 out of those 4m were of working age that would increase the workforce by about 10% and hence GDP by 10% and tax take by 10%.

tax take would go from about 600B to 660B.

That is £60B more. that would either reduce the deficit quite a lot and in normal times such a big shift would even take us into surplus land.

BTW the counter argument is there will be an extra cost to the state of those 4m. that is true but it will be less than the tax take for many reasons. plus i would argue with a competent government the majority of that £60B extra can be kept with no outlay. it would just mean the current services would need to get about 10% more efficient than today. considering the private sector improves productivity by 2-3-4% per year ever year asking 10% over 10 years from the public sector isnt a huge task!

An increasing population can also increase corporate profits massively.

For example if tesco revernue went up 10% due to 10% more people living in the country and they were able to provide for all of those people in the current stores without building more. Their profits would not go up 10% but more like double! The reason is that increased turnover without increased costs means you add the gross profit to the net profit which for many companies would increase profits massively!

BTW has anyone done the sums on the return of our money tree the north sea??

with production falling every year that will add a burdon elsewhere for sure. might be in the £5-10B pa region?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly someone had the money to lend in the first place. They didn't, the banks created most of it out of thin air and loaned it. There are people who profited from that money being spent and have saved it, but I think you'll find that the debt-based nature of our money system, that is governed by the banks ability to create credit from thin air, means that in reality most of those savings don't really exist (not securely, because the banks are insolvent).

Money is debt and the system is near breaking point. The fact that interest on debt is always greater than interest on savings means that the debt outpaces the growth of savings until the whole system consumes itself, i.e. paper currency becomes worthless.

Don’t base your trust and understanding on the monetary system on some cartoons with VI.

I’m not prepared to go into it now but you are wrong. There is always enough money to pay all the debt plus interest plus more off. Its not quite like this but understand that for all effects debt and credit are exactly equal.

Just like debt can grow it can shrink but it requires savers of debt to become spenders or savers of non debt based assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some 4m extra people live in the UK today than did 10 years ago, I am not making a judgement on it being positive or negative but the simple fact is there are more people in work today in a recession than there were 10 years ago.

more people means more demand means more jobs. you dont create jobs to fill people. demand does that and it has been proven everywhere.

more people means more jobs be it a naturally growing population or via immigration.

BTW the way to think of it isnt to divide the number of people by the debt. it is the number of workers VS extra taxation.

for example if 3 out of those 4m were of working age that would increase the workforce by about 10% and hence GDP by 10% and tax take by 10%.

tax take would go from about 600B to 660B.

That is £60B more. that would either reduce the deficit quite a lot and in normal times such a big shift would even take us into surplus land.

BTW the counter argument is there will be an extra cost to the state of those 4m. that is true but it will be less than the tax take for many reasons. plus i would argue with a competent government the majority of that £60B extra can be kept with no outlay. it would just mean the current services would need to get about 10% more efficient than today. considering the private sector improves productivity by 2-3-4% per year ever year asking 10% over 10 years from the public sector isnt a huge task!

An increasing population can also increase corporate profits massively.

For example if tesco revernue went up 10% due to 10% more people living in the country and they were able to provide for all of those people in the current stores without building more. Their profits would not go up 10% but more like double! The reason is that increased turnover without increased costs means you add the gross profit to the net profit which for many companies would increase profits massively!

BTW has anyone done the sums on the return of our money tree the north sea??

with production falling every year that will add a burdon elsewhere for sure. might be in the £5-10B pa region?

Some valid points. Although personally I'm not convinced more immigration will provide a net benefit, what with all the extra strain on public services such as new schools, hospitals, extra policing, more roads, more congestion. I believe it would be a net drain on resources overall. Especially considering a lot of the extra demand these immigrants would make would be for imported goods, because we are a net importer, therefore this would be negative for our balance of trade.

Of course North Sea Oil drying up is another negative drain on the countries finances to be taken into consideration.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £80 billion in savings is largely fantasy and must be the result of some bizarre accounting convention. In the spending review document itself it shows that over half of that £80 billion is due to "policies inherited by the current government."

Let's face it they have completely bottled it and even under their probably very optimistic forecasts debt interest payments will rise to 10% of all government spending in four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £80 billion in savings is largely fantasy and must be the result of some bizarre accounting convention. In the spending review document itself it shows that over half of that £80 billion is due to "policies inherited by the current government."

Let's face it they have completely bottled it and even under their probably very optimistic forecasts debt interest payments will rise to 10% of all government spending in four years.

Oh no. I thought they were going to have the books balancing in the next five years. To be honest, I had a look quick look at some articles on the spending review, thought what a load of fcking waffle, and got bored and gave up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £80 billion in savings is largely fantasy and must be the result of some bizarre accounting convention. In the spending review document itself it shows that over half of that £80 billion is due to "policies inherited by the current government."

Let's face it they have completely bottled it and even under their probably very optimistic forecasts debt interest payments will rise to 10% of all government spending in four years.

The mistake is to cut spending by this or that amount.

What they need to do, what true blues would do, is to cut full departments. Fully cut them, don’t get rid of 1, 10, 10,000 in the department get rid of the lot. If you cut a whole department you cut more than jobs, you cut all the overheads.

I remember listening on the radio to one department that was going to lose a lot of workers. They said the total number who worked there and the total cost of running it. I remember doing the math in my head and thinking wow it costs them a little more than £100k per worker. Assuming average wage is paid there then each worker also has an overhead of £75k!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t base your trust and understanding on the monetary system on some cartoons with VI.

I’m not prepared to go into it now but you are wrong. There is always enough money to pay all the debt plus interest plus more off. Its not quite like this but understand that for all effects debt and credit are exactly equal.

Just like debt can grow it can shrink but it requires savers of debt to become spenders or savers of non debt based assets.

Ok, so we assume the money is out there to pay the debts. Even if that is the case, the people who have that money aren't the people who owe the debts. So it doesn't make it any more realistic that those debts will get paid, unless of course you are going to confiscate that wealth from those that have saved it and use it to pay your debts. Which I guess is exactly the same as using inflation to clear your debts and in the process destroying the wealth of those with savings by devaluing those savings via inflation. :ph34r:

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key figure is the debt to GDP ratio. If the economy grows faster than the debt there will be no problem servicing the deficit. The same applies in reverse. If cuts shrink the economy faster than the debt you can end up with a smaller amount of borrowings but less ability to pay it. A near analogy is House Price affordability where it is the loan to earnings ratio that is key not the absolute price of the property. It is this factor which the Chancellor was noticably quiet abouit yesterday. If he shrinks spending by 10% but the economy shrinks by 11% we may not necessarily better off than when we started. Looking at todays Financial times I notice that they quoted one unnamed Cabinet Tory minister who acknowledged this was the key point.

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some 4m extra people live in the UK today than did 10 years ago, I am not making a judgement on it being positive or negative but the simple fact is there are more people in work today in a recession than there were 10 years ago.

more people means more demand means more jobs. you dont create jobs to fill people. demand does that and it has been proven everywhere.

more people means more jobs be it a naturally growing population or via immigration.

BTW the way to think of it isnt to divide the number of people by the debt. it is the number of workers VS extra taxation.

for example if 3 out of those 4m were of working age that would increase the workforce by about 10% and hence GDP by 10% and tax take by 10%.

tax take would go from about 600B to 660B.

That is £60B more. that would either reduce the deficit quite a lot and in normal times such a big shift would even take us into surplus land.

BTW the counter argument is there will be an extra cost to the state of those 4m. that is true but it will be less than the tax take for many reasons. plus i would argue with a competent government the majority of that £60B extra can be kept with no outlay. it would just mean the current services would need to get about 10% more efficient than today. considering the private sector improves productivity by 2-3-4% per year ever year asking 10% over 10 years from the public sector isnt a huge task!

An increasing population can also increase corporate profits massively.

For example if tesco revernue went up 10% due to 10% more people living in the country and they were able to provide for all of those people in the current stores without building more. Their profits would not go up 10% but more like double! The reason is that increased turnover without increased costs means you add the gross profit to the net profit which for many companies would increase profits massively!

BTW has anyone done the sums on the return of our money tree the north sea??

with production falling every year that will add a burdon elsewhere for sure. might be in the £5-10B pa region?

In an of itself, more people merely means more demand for tertiary/secondary goods and/or services. The most that this achieves is to slosh around existing money in an economy. It does not, in and of itself, add wealth to an economy. That is only achieved by primary economic activity. You need to have a primary economic activity that requires extra people before those extra people can add anything to an economy.

It does not rain because the ground gets wet.

Edited by tallguy

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.

  • 150 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.