Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
thecrashingisles

"national Debt Is The Enemy Of The Left"

Recommended Posts

I think this is interesting and might be a sign of a change in policial direction from the European left. The lead story on the Le Monde website at the moment is an interview with Francois Hollande, one of the main candidates in the Socialist primaries, in which he is very hawkish on the national debt and says that they need to balance the books sooner rather than later.

Hopefully Labour will learn from this and we'll see a change in the debate here as well.

The full article, in French, is here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/07/16/francois-hollande-la-dette-est-l-ennemie-de-la-gauche-et-de-la-france_1549431_823448.html#ens_id=1402952

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enemy of the left "and of France".

He talks about economic governance of the eurozone and eurobonds, so I guess that's the way it's going to go.

He's opposed to Sarkozy's "regle d'or" - not sure what that is, but I bet it's nothing to do with General Congreve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is interesting and might be a sign of a change in policial direction from the European left. The lead story on the Le Monde website at the moment is an interview with Francois Hollande, one of the main candidates in the Socialist primaries, in which he is very hawkish on the national debt and says that they need to balance the books sooner rather than later.

Hopefully Labour will learn from this and we'll see a change in the debate here as well.

The full article, in French, is here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/07/16/francois-hollande-la-dette-est-l-ennemie-de-la-gauche-et-de-la-france_1549431_823448.html#ens_id=1402952

feigning repentance.

debt serfdom was meant to be the weapon of choice for the socialists.....it was in mein kampf....and nothing much changes.

they probably think they are being clever by backing off a bit in the (vain) hope that people will forget,and then come back with a vengeance after being given some time to regroup.

this is why there has to be a "neutralisation",distortion or censorship of media...be it the free press or alternative media.

notice that it is only murdochs empire that has been singled out for criticism.

while his grubby little empire certainly stands guilty of poisoning peoples minds with celebrity gossip...probably aiding and abetting this snoop culture,aunti beeb also has a few skeletons in the closet...

like the barrage of endless property programmes inciting people to overextend themselves with horrific amounts of debt

...and also depriving the younger generation of affordable homes to raise families in....and on that they are as guilty as sin.

so we need radical surgery on ALL CORPORATE MEDIA+corporate lobby groups and influence to politics.

muslim ragheads make a convenient diversion,but the real threat comes from the socialists.

I think winston churchill alluded to such.

...their insatiable lust for power and control is matched only with their total incompetence in using it.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enemy of the left "and of France".

He talks about economic governance of the eurozone and eurobonds, so I guess that's the way it's going to go.

He's opposed to Sarkozy's "regle d'or" - not sure what that is, but I bet it's nothing to do with General Congreve.

It's funny how the roles are reversed in this case. Sarkozy (right wing) came up with the 'regle d'or' (remember Brown's 'golden rule'?) and the left is now making a big play on the unsustainability of the national debt as the election approaches.

It just goes to show what an illusion the left-right political divide is. These people do the same things and wear whatever mantle that suits their electoral needs at the time. I'm surprised some people still fall for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is interesting and might be a sign of a change in policial direction from the European left. The lead story on the Le Monde website at the moment is an interview with Francois Hollande, one of the main candidates in the Socialist primaries, in which he is very hawkish on the national debt and says that they need to balance the books sooner rather than later.

Hopefully Labour will learn from this and we'll see a change in the debate here as well.

The full article, in French, is here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/07/16/francois-hollande-la-dette-est-l-ennemie-de-la-gauche-et-de-la-france_1549431_823448.html#ens_id=1402952

In his first answer he calls governments lenders "speculators", and lenders' worries are "attacks" and "market atrocities".

:blink:

Oh yes, he wants an European government, to "respond" to these "attacks"...

Enough for now. I'll try to read the rest later.

About fiscal responsibility, left candidates always say that. Remember Blair/Brown? But, even if they mean it, in power they are always hostages to their supporters, which includes the state apparatus - all government bureaucracies (at all levels, even around the ministers - remember Blair's "scares in his back" quote) and all public sector unions. No chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a democracy, high government spending and low taxes wins votes. They neglect to mention that it requires government borrowing and those who receive the spending are either ignorant or turn a blind eye. If any government threatens to stop borrowing and spending, you then get strikes on the street.

Is it any wonder that historically government borrowing keeps increasing until state failure occurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a democracy, high government spending and low taxes wins votes. They neglect to mention that it requires government borrowing and those who receive the spending are either ignorant or turn a blind eye. If any government threatens to stop borrowing and spending, you then get strikes on the street.

Is it any wonder that historically government borrowing keeps increasing until state failure occurs?

that's only the case when people are so dumbed down as to "play the game"

in this day and age,we have the wonders of modern technology to research ancient history,and perhaps learn how "the game" works.

you're correct in ststing in a "rigged" democracy,the sheeple will vote themselves endless luxuries from the public largesse.....but the taxpaying public have had quite enough of spending on follies....a lot can now see just how badly their money has been frittered away.

there is a see change happening,where people are thinking more along the old biblical lines of stashing a bit by for a rainy day.....problem is the politicians have not(or are willfuly ignoring) these utterances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a democracy, high government spending and low taxes wins votes. They neglect to mention that it requires government borrowing and those who receive the spending are either ignorant or turn a blind eye. If any government threatens to stop borrowing and spending, you then get strikes on the street.

Is it any wonder that historically government borrowing keeps increasing until state failure occurs?

Exactly. We get the government we deserve. Only guy to tell it like it is was Jimmy Carter, and it cost him the presidency.

After barely a minute of leaving my house everyday i am reminded that 99% of the British population are like petulant little children. On the roads, in the shops and at the office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's only the case when people are so dumbed down as to "play the game"

in this day and age,we have the wonders of modern technology to research ancient history,and perhaps learn how "the game" works.

you're correct in ststing in a "rigged" democracy,the sheeple will vote themselves endless luxuries from the public largesse.....but the taxpaying public have had quite enough of spending on follies....a lot can now see just how badly their money has been frittered away.

there is a see change happening,where people are thinking more along the old biblical lines of stashing a bit by for a rainy day.....problem is the politicians have not(or are willfuly ignoring) these utterances.

People are only recently complaining, now that the money has run out. Very few voices suggested that the government shouldn't be borrowing in the preceding decades. In fact, very few voices are suggesting that now either.

From observation, most people selfishly want as much money as they can steal of everyone else, using the false legitimacy of government force, as a conduit. They seem quite happy to steal as much as they can from the rich and unborn, as long as it means they get a better standard of living for themselves.

I'm unconvinced that this greedy behaviour will change, especially while governments so blatantly give such activity legitimacy. I suspect democracy itself will have to be dissolved, before mob rule becomes relegated to the history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are only recently complaining, now that the money has run out. Very few voices suggested that the government shouldn't be borrowing in the preceding decades. In fact, very few voices are suggesting that now either.

From observation, most people selfishly want as much money as they can steal of everyone else, using the false legitimacy of government force, as a conduit. They seem quite happy to steal as much as they can from the rich and unborn, as long as it means they get a better standard of living for themselves.

I'm unconvinced that this greedy behaviour will change, especially while governments so blatantly give such activity legitimacy. I suspect democracy itself will have to be dissolved, before mob rule becomes relegated to the history books.

Wasnt the difference that in previous decades it was the private and financial sector doing the borrowing?

Last time govt debt was an Issue was the 70s when the IMF were called in. Thatcher cleverly (or stupidly?!) changed that by deregulation meaning that debt based 'growth' could come from individuals and businesses rather than govt. Afterall, government will cream off 40% or so as taxation, so what do they care anyway? Govt debt as a % of GDP fell from c70% in 1980 to 25% around 1990. Rose again after 1990s recession, but only to 40-45%, before falling again. All the while however, private sector debt grew.

No one even pays lip service to the diabolical state of debt in the private sector. And yet, given the way our banking system is structured, with FSCS, bailouts and so on, it may as well be public/national/govt debt, as it is never defaulted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt the difference that in previous decades it was the private and financial sector doing the borrowing?

Last time govt debt was an Issue was the 70s when the IMF were called in. Thatcher cleverly (or stupidly?!) changed that by deregulation meaning that debt based 'growth' could come from individuals and businesses rather than govt. Afterall, government will cream off 40% or so as taxation, so what do they care anyway? Govt debt as a % of GDP fell from c70% in 1980 to 25% around 1990. Rose again after 1990s recession, but only to 40-45%, before falling again. All the while however, private sector debt grew.

No one even pays lip service to the diabolical state of debt in the private sector. And yet, given the way our banking system is structured, with FSCS, bailouts and so on, it may as well be public/national/govt debt, as it is never defaulted on.

Balancing the budget seems to be a rarity. Running a surplus to give the unborn some of their future money back is even more rare. History is punctuated with governments borrowing themselves into oblivion and still it continues. EDIT: A graph of recent government deficit spending is here: http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

As for private debt, as long as it isn't socialised on default, the wealthy lenders (ie. these with a large bank balance) lose out. The market gives and takes. However, the government bailed out the wealthy, when they rescued the banks... the unborn will get the bill for that too.

Interestingly, the governments haven't stopped the collapse, they have just pushed the bill onto the next generations (who did nothing wrong). So what have they actually done to help? They didn't stop the event happening, but they have meddled and syphoned money off in the process.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balancing the budget seems to be a rarity. Running a surplus to give the unborn some of their future money back is even more rare. History is punctuated with governments borrowing themselves into oblivion and still it continues. EDIT: A graph of recent government deficit spending is here: http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

As for private debt, as long as it isn't socialised on default, the wealthy lenders (ie. these with a large bank balance) lose out. The market gives and takes. However, the government bailed out the wealthy, when they rescued the banks... the unborn will get the bill for that too.

Interestingly, the governments haven't stopped the collapse, they have just pushed the bill onto the next generations (who did nothing wrong). So what have they actually done to help? They didn't stop the event happening, but they have meddled and syphoned money off in the process.

Governments can run deficits indefinetly, so long as they grow at the same or lesser rate than total economic growth.

The insanity we have is 3 parties who seem to thing they can run 10%+ deficits in a zero growth environment, and in liebours case that 15% deficits to deliver 1-2% growth is somehow more sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt the difference that in previous decades it was the private and financial sector doing the borrowing?

Last time govt debt was an Issue was the 70s when the IMF were called in. Thatcher cleverly (or stupidly?!) changed that by deregulation meaning that debt based 'growth' could come from individuals and businesses rather than govt. Afterall, government will cream off 40% or so as taxation, so what do they care anyway? Govt debt as a % of GDP fell from c70% in 1980 to 25% around 1990. Rose again after 1990s recession, but only to 40-45%, before falling again. All the while however, private sector debt grew.

No one even pays lip service to the diabolical state of debt in the private sector. And yet, given the way our banking system is structured, with FSCS, bailouts and so on, it may as well be public/national/govt debt, as it is never defaulted on.

Not sure where you are getting those figures from

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_chart

It was 44% in 1980 reaching a low of 34% in 1989, going to 37% in 1997 and staying at this level until 2008 when it spiked up to 44% due to the additional private sector debts that have been nationalised.

There is really very little difference in the red or blue teams spending habits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where you are getting those figures from

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_chart

It was 44% in 1980 reaching a low of 34% in 1989, going to 37% in 1997 and staying at this level until 2008 when it spiked up to 44% due to the additional private sector debts that have been nationalised.

There is really very little difference in the red or blue teams spending habits

:rolleyes:

Err, because I'm talking about govt debt as a % of GDP, not govt spending as a percent of GDP.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1970_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20Public%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

1990 570.283 26.69 a

1991 598.664 25.27 a

1992 622.08 26.70 a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Debt is what happens when the socialists run out of money and start borrowing instead of making more money. Then when they've borrowed so much that they can no longer even pay interest on the debt, socialism collapses. That's pretty much where most of the western world is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Err, because I'm talking about govt debt as a % of GDP, not govt spending as a percent of GDP.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1970_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20Public%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

1990 570.283 26.69 a

1991 598.664 25.27 a

1992 622.08 26.70 a

Errr expand the time frame on your graph and see if you can see any other explanation of this other than Labour or Tory spending policies

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1940_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20Public%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

There was quite a big event in the late 1930s / early 1940's that I reckon was more likely to be cause than good old Maggie sorting out the unions or whatever you reckon the reason was....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr expand the time frame on your graph and see if you can see any other explanation of this other than Labour or Tory spending policies

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1940_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20Public%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

There was quite a big event in the late 1930s / early 1940's that I reckon was more likely to be cause than good old Maggie sorting out the unions or whatever you reckon the reason was....

Hence why i said in my earlier post...

Last time govt debt was an Issue was the 70s when the IMF were called in. Thatcher cleverly (or stupidly?!) changed that by deregulation meaning that debt based 'growth' could come from individuals and businesses rather than govt. Afterall, government will cream off 40% or so as taxation, so what do they care anyway? Govt debt as a % of GDP fell from c70% in 1980 to 25% around 1990. Rose again after 1990s recession, but only to 40-45%, before falling again. All the while however, private sector debt grew.

Believe me, I am well aware of what govt debt levels were around WW2.

The previous post was simply a reply to your accusation that my figure of debt:GDP of around 25% was wrong, for some reason you posted on govtspending:GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Debt is what happens when the socialists run out of money and start borrowing instead of making more money. Then when they've borrowed so much that they can no longer even pay interest on the debt, socialism collapses. That's pretty much where most of the western world is today.

Reagan and Thatcher were socialists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan and Thatcher were socialists?

Sure. Why not? Everyones got their constituency. Some might say Thatcher was further left than Clinton. How do you decide where socialism starts or finishes.

Labours constituency seems to be public sector fat cats.

Conservatives constituency seems to be private sector fat cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments can run deficits indefinetly, so long as they grow at the same or lesser rate than total economic growth.

The insanity we have is 3 parties who seem to thing they can run 10%+ deficits in a zero growth environment, and in liebours case that 15% deficits to deliver 1-2% growth is somehow more sustainable.

What they can or cannot maintain is not the point. The government doesn't need to borrow and if they balanced their books, with a growing GDP, then the government debt would shrink compared to the size of the economy. This would free the future generations from paying for our self interest.

As I said, very few voices are suggesting that the government shouldn't borrow, even people who post here.

Additionally, GDP is also a flawed measurement as borrowing increases GDP, which you're arguing should allow more borrowing, which in turn increases GDP... you can see where this leads.

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.

  • 284 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.