Like I said, conflicted. Now you're saying there were no cuts?
It appears that you have a serious comprehension problem, although that would explain several things.
If you dont understand - "There were no significant cuts to anything that would have had any effect on a $2 Trillion economy." - then I'm afraid I cant help you anymore.
Why would I waste my time looking for something that doesnt exist?
If you dont understand - "There were no significant cuts to anything that would have had any effect on a $2 Trillion economy." - then I'm afraid I cant help you anymore.
Either there were cuts, which, if you admit their existence, we can debate the significance of, or their very existence is a "mystery" to you.
Haha. I'm afraid it's you, the conversation we were having went like this:
Either there were cuts, which, if you admit their existence, we can debate the significance of, or their very existence is a "mystery" to you.
You still appear to be conflicted on that point.
Well for umpteenth time - please give some examples of all these cuts that you believe happened. All you have managed to come up with so far is the school building program - its all rather sad really.
Well for umpteenth time - please give some examples of all these cuts that you believe happened. All you have managed to come up with so far is the school building program - its all rather sad really.
Yes, because what Osborne did cut was counter productive, so growth shrank and welfare commitments continued to rise.
But it was not counter-intuitive.
Before the election the holders of UK Government bonds were putting pressure on Brown to say how he would cut the deficit. He was supposed to have a spending round but delayed it and eventually said it would occur after the election.
Had he not done so they were in a position to really make life difficult - the costs of borrowing would have risen, the value of sterling would have gone down, and eventually this would have led to rising inflation.
That and while the left called for a Keynesian stimulus - but this proved impossible. The thing about Keynes is that it calls for borrowing to be reduced during the upswing of the economic cycle and increase during the downswing. As Brown had not done the former that left little money for any Keynesian stimulus and demands for the structural deficit to be dealt with.
As it is that structural deficit has now declined by approx. 33%
Before the election the holders of UK Government bonds were putting pressure on Brown to say how he would cut the deficit. He was supposed to have a spending round but delayed it and eventually said it would occur after the election.
Had he not done so they were in a position to really make life difficult - the costs of borrowing would have risen, the value of sterling would have gone down, and eventually this would have led to rising inflation.
That and while the left called for a Keynesian stimulus - but this proved impossible. The thing about Keynes is that it calls for borrowing to be reduced during the upswing of the economic cycle and increase during the downswing. As Brown had not done the former that left little money for any Keynesian stimulus and demands for the structural deficit to be dealt with.
As it is that structural deficit has now declined by approx. 33%
It would have declined a lot more if first Labour, then the Coalition, had required banks to use the immense public subsidy to provide affordable credit to business, instead of using it to increase their own pay.
Before the election the holders of UK Government bonds were putting pressure on Brown to say how he would cut the deficit. He was supposed to have a spending round but delayed it and eventually said it would occur after the election.
Had he not done so they were in a position to really make life difficult - the costs of borrowing would have risen, the value of sterling would have gone down, and eventually this would have led to rising inflation.
That and while the left called for a Keynesian stimulus - but this proved impossible. The thing about Keynes is that it calls for borrowing to be reduced during the upswing of the economic cycle and increase during the downswing. As Brown had not done the former that left little money for any Keynesian stimulus and demands for the structural deficit to be dealt with.
As it is that structural deficit has now declined by approx. 33%
Well the answer to the question was Quantative Easing - a policy that Osborne followed. The only good thing about the massive downturn we endured was that QE didn't bring about the feared inflation because the demand was too weak. Indeed despite the hundreds of billions of pounds of QE the inflation rate has dropped from a high of around 5% to the current rate of 1.6%.
Spending cuts never was and never will be the answer to the downturn we saw arrive in 2008.
It would have declined a lot more if first Labour, then the Coalition, had required banks to use the immense public subsidy to provide affordable credit to business, instead of using it to increase their own pay.
Brown was never going to cut into the structural deficit he actually created as Chancellor and was prevaricating about announcing anything less he either had to make cuts - or have the markets punish both him and the country for the borrowing levels.
Well the answer to the question was Quantative Easing - a policy that Osborne followed. The only good thing about the massive downturn we endured was that QE didn't bring about the feared inflation because the demand was too weak. Indeed despite the hundreds of billions of pounds of QE the inflation rate has dropped from a high of around 5% to the current rate of 1.6%.
Well a large chunk of that inflation was linked (via the drop in sterling) to QE.
Spending cuts never was and never will be the answer to the downturn we saw arrive in 2008.
Well letting your currency decline by a large amount is not either - that just creates inflation, erodes people's incomes and reduces the value of savings.
Before the election the holders of UK Government bonds were putting pressure on Brown to say how he would cut the deficit. He was supposed to have a spending round but delayed it and eventually said it would occur after the election.
Had he not done so they were in a position to really make life difficult - the costs of borrowing would have risen, the value of sterling would have gone down, and eventually this would have led to rising inflation.
But in the event things got worse, not better, and we survived pressure from the bondholders.
That and while the left called for a Keynesian stimulus - but this proved impossible. The thing about Keynes is that it calls for borrowing to be reduced during the upswing of the economic cycle and increase during the downswing. As Brown had not done the former that left little money for any Keynesian stimulus and demands for the structural deficit to be dealt with.
As it is that structural deficit has now declined by approx. 33%
"Approx" being the operative word, the concept sounding so simple yet being very difficult to actually quantify. Indeed, if the structural deficit has come down so much and growth has returned why are we still borrowing so much?
Comments
Actually Keynes did die of a heart attack - in 1946
Why would I waste my time looking for something that doesnt exist?
LOL _ so Alistair Darling couldn't possibly have been correct - after all it wouldn't fit with your mantra..:D
Yes something did - it wasnt non-existant spending cuts though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8699522.stm
It appears that you have a serious comprehension problem, although that would explain several things.
If you dont understand - "There were no significant cuts to anything that would have had any effect on a $2 Trillion economy." - then I'm afraid I cant help you anymore.
You still appear to be conflicted on that point.
Well for umpteenth time - please give some examples of all these cuts that you believe happened. All you have managed to come up with so far is the school building program - its all rather sad really.
LOL - those were proposals - if you think that everything that a Government proposes actually gets done then you are dafter than you sound.
FWIW total spending rose from 2010-2011 by just under 3%
Yes, because what Osborne did cut was counter productive, so growth shrank and welfare commitments continued to rise.
But it was not counter-intuitive.
Before the election the holders of UK Government bonds were putting pressure on Brown to say how he would cut the deficit. He was supposed to have a spending round but delayed it and eventually said it would occur after the election.
Had he not done so they were in a position to really make life difficult - the costs of borrowing would have risen, the value of sterling would have gone down, and eventually this would have led to rising inflation.
That and while the left called for a Keynesian stimulus - but this proved impossible. The thing about Keynes is that it calls for borrowing to be reduced during the upswing of the economic cycle and increase during the downswing. As Brown had not done the former that left little money for any Keynesian stimulus and demands for the structural deficit to be dealt with.
As it is that structural deficit has now declined by approx. 33%
It would have declined a lot more if first Labour, then the Coalition, had required banks to use the immense public subsidy to provide affordable credit to business, instead of using it to increase their own pay.
Well the answer to the question was Quantative Easing - a policy that Osborne followed. The only good thing about the massive downturn we endured was that QE didn't bring about the feared inflation because the demand was too weak. Indeed despite the hundreds of billions of pounds of QE the inflation rate has dropped from a high of around 5% to the current rate of 1.6%.
Spending cuts never was and never will be the answer to the downturn we saw arrive in 2008.
Brown was never going to cut into the structural deficit he actually created as Chancellor and was prevaricating about announcing anything less he either had to make cuts - or have the markets punish both him and the country for the borrowing levels.
Well a large chunk of that inflation was linked (via the drop in sterling) to QE.
Well letting your currency decline by a large amount is not either - that just creates inflation, erodes people's incomes and reduces the value of savings.
"Approx" being the operative word, the concept sounding so simple yet being very difficult to actually quantify. Indeed, if the structural deficit has come down so much and growth has returned why are we still borrowing so much?