Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
spyguy

Governemnt Debt Vs. Democracy

Recommended Posts

(Related to housing - cost of government debt sets the bank's cost of debt)

Are they mutually exclusive?

Witness Syrizia in Greece, Podemos in Spain this last week.

Yes, I know the line that 'government much cheaper than a company'

But should it esp. if inter-generational accounting is, lets say, not quite defined.

Then you get into the likes of borrowing for 'investing' a concept totally destroyed + abused by that pr1ck Brown.

Borrowing to invest in useful infrastructure - Yes

Useless infrastructure - Alaskan bridges, Japanese indoor skiing - Nope.

OAP bus passes, winter fuel for pensioners living in Spain - fkc no.

Tax credits + HB to bring low-skilled EU migrants to the UK to work in hand car washes for 16h/week - are you fcking mental???

Maybe government debt is for a time long ago, when life was less democratic and more stoical, willing to pick up the last governments messes. Maybe government 'messes' have become a lot bigger these days in of low growth. France's national debt was ~30% GDP in the early 80s. Its a bit higher now.

Maybe the low growth is making all that 'investment' look a bit - err -- foolish?

Maybe a Democracy is only democratic if it runs a (small) surplus. Always.

The concept of 'surplus over the cycle' is farcical - back to a55wipeBrown: first he defined the rules, then he bent the cycle, then he ignored them.

Maybe, in light of Syrizia, the price of all government debt is in a massive, incredible bubble.

Maybe we should not lend to government for more than 5 years?

And only at very high rates.

Maybe all debt is grossly underpriced - witness Fergus and his portfolio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Related to housing - cost of government debt sets the bank's cost of debt)

Are they mutually exclusive?

Witness Syrizia in Greece, Podemos in Spain this last week.

Yes, I know the line that 'government much cheaper than a company'

But should it esp. if inter-generational accounting is, lets say, not quite defined.

Then you get into the likes of borrowing for 'investing' a concept totally destroyed + abused by that pr1ck Brown.

Borrowing to invest in useful infrastructure - Yes

Useless infrastructure - Alaskan bridges, Japanese indoor skiing - Nope.

OAP bus passes, winter fuel for pensioners living in Spain - fkc no.

Tax credits + HB to bring low-skilled EU migrants to the UK to work in hand car washes for 16h/week - are you fcking mental???

Maybe government debt is for a time long ago, when life was less democratic and more stoical, willing to pick up the last governments messes. Maybe government 'messes' have become a lot bigger these days in of low growth. France's national debt was ~30% GDP in the early 80s. Its a bit higher now.

Maybe the low growth is making all that 'investment' look a bit - err -- foolish?

Maybe a Democracy is only democratic if it runs a (small) surplus. Always.

The concept of 'surplus over the cycle' is farcical - back to a55wipeBrown: first he defined the rules, then he bent the cycle, then he ignored them.

Maybe, in light of Syrizia, the price of all government debt is in a massive, incredible bubble.

Maybe we should not lend to government for more than 5 years?

And only at very high rates.

Maybe all debt is grossly underpriced - witness Fergus and his portfolio.

maybe there's a small clique of people that utterly hate democracy and wish to go back to the "priest" class and the serfs,and are using all kinds of trickery to regain their lost influence.

makes much more sense than saying democracy was lost by accident.

it was deliberately sabotaged,

of course, they need to retain the semblance of respectability in order to achieve their goal.

if the skullduggery ever became public knowledge they will lose ALL credibility, and the only weapon left in their armory after that is bullying and brute force.

by which time it's game over because people will see the world over what a sham they are.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that using the term 'government' rather than 'public' is coloring your thinking.

Imagine for a second we had a perfectly enlightened, fully mandated and efficient government. Further, we also have the luxury of a private sector which is competitive, dynamic and innovative.

In such a situation, what is the appropriate division of resources between the two sectors?

Or:

With a badly run public sector, increasing public debt is probably a bad idea. Likewise a badly run private sector should probably not be taking on more debt. Further suppose that due to trivial accounting identities if one sector reduces its debt level the other must increase it.

What then? And how would you map that to the current situation of UK PLC?

Your answer will basically be your pitch if you were running for election as our new Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Please present your manifesto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.