Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stretch, Jan 5, 2015.
Huh? That's not even supported by your own link.
Slightly slower? Inflation hit 5% at one point! so, back to the question at hand, do you concede that the coalition cut spending or are you seriously going to stick to ignoring inflation?
Look at the 4th graph, draw a line based on the pre new labour trend, marvel at how far above trend the current values are. Really not difficult.
Are you seriously going to suggest that public spending has to keep pace with consumer inflation? How much of public spending is spent directly on goods from the CPI basket?
Yes, the coalition, after years of real terms increases I'm spending, has slowed, or cut if you prefer, the rate of increase in public spending to the point where real terms increases no longer happen.
Perhaps if spending hadn't been increased so dramatically since 2002 it would not have been necessary to slow the rate of increase in spending?
(Hint, refer to graph 4 again)
I guess if we get deflation cutting spending in real terms becomes extremely difficult.
Or have I got that the wrong way around.
That is the right way round, if we have deflation, then spending goes up in real terms for the same absolute value.
Oh I'm sorry, do you have a better measurement of inflation? As far as I can tell, most economists use some measure of inflation for determining changes in spending, and I don't know of a better measurement available for the UK than CPI, especially since CPI is the official measurement of inflation the government themselves use.
So, despite claiming it's easy to show spending hasn't been cut, you now concede that actually, spending has been cut, at least in real terms. Good.
That's not the contention you replied to, so don't try shifting the goalposts on me.
Try looking at graph 5. Not in real terms, which is the point.
Well, yes, it does, and your second point is absurd. The CPI basket is a measure of how prices are going up in general. Government spending is affected by the same trends so any fall relative to inflation represents a cut.
The most informative measure of spending is relative to GDP; try graphs 3 and 5.
It's somewhat informative, but I'm not of the opinion that government spending necessarily has to stay at the same level relative to GDP.
To be honest, looking at the figure in total is misleading, because it ignores changes in spending. For example, overall welfare spending has not changed that much, but pensions (and other benefits for the elderly) are taking up an ever-increasing slice of the pie, to the point where many areas of spending have seen very significant cuts indeed. This is not that surprising when you know the government has promised real-terms increases in state pensions for the duration of this parliament and the number of people of pension age is increasing, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population.
Ultimately, even if overall spending was increasing in real terms, it still doesn't mean we're not in austerity, just that some groups aren't whereas other groups are made to suffer. Essentially, the poor and young are being made to pay for the old and rich.
Write all the walls of text you want in the delusion that you have all the answers whilst apparently having none but spending as in the amount of pounds actually spent has not fallen.
Seriously fella your post answers a different question completely, wrongly at that. I'm not sure what quoting gcse basic economics has to do with anything?
Government spending is one of a number of fiscal levers that can be pulled depending on the needs of the economy, the problem we potentially had was that we couldn't pull some of the levers without others going the other way. There was the risk that if we pulled the spending lever for instance that the interest rate lever would go in the wrong direction which would have negated any gains and more.
Better than writing blunt statements that other people are wrong with nothing to justify them.
In short: show your working.
What working? Government spending is one fiscal lever in amongst many other fiscal levers. What do you want me to say?
It's already been posted that the amount of Government spending has not dropped by someone other than me.
Haven't they always?..This is what i like about Nigel Farage he pretty much gives decent and true answers to everything,Hes not afraid to say the truth...we need someone in charge that has balls.
The main points of concearn to me are the following.
0 hours working contracts - These should not be allowed.
Immigration & Getting out of the EU.
Wages - Why is it in 2015 often young people cannot afford their own place to rent even if they have a full time job.. even if they can its a VERY hard struggle..its pathetic.
Seen the latest story?
Sigh of course zero hours contracts should be allowed, some people actually want casual hours.
Not everyone is the same.
Young people just starting their career have always had to work to prove themselves and learn a trade, are you saying that shouldn't happen?
Do you concede spending has continued to rise in absolute terms?
I will happily conceded that spending increases are less than inflation.
Graph 5 is not real terms adjusted , graphs 4, 6 and 7 are. You may also want to check the x axis on these graphs. Graph 5 is spending as a percentage of GDP, more on that in a second.
A failure to increase at the same rate as inflation is not a cut. Spending is still going up.
I disagree, this implies that there must be an increase in absolute government spending when output increases. Unless you take the ideological position that the state has a responsibility to redistribute wealth, this is blatant nonsense, even more so than demanding state spending keeps pace with a basket of goods from a shop that the money isn't spent on.
Sure, but who actually discusses absolute terms? Pretty much everyone with a clue discusses in real terms, because inflation exists, you know. Or are you one of those types bleating that the deficit hasn't halved?
Given that debt is accrued and paid back in absolutes, it would seem a better measure when discussing the scale of the problem and the nature of the solution. I would quite happily support the notion that the deficit hasn't halved under the coalition as this was a relative measure (although not a real terms one).
The problem with relative measures is that they can change due to unrelated factors. Debt and the deficit, taken as relative measures, vary significantly with GDP and GDP growth, but the amount of money being added or required to pay back does not, and that is without the feedback loop of including public spending in GDP.
It is important to consider all measures, not just one, when looking at a problem and potential solutions. The coalition didn't cut spending, they slowed the rate of increase and allowed inflation and GDP growth to improve the both the absolute and relative figures through increased tax activity and GDP improvements. A small but important distinction.
Aaaaaah seen the light. Praise be to.....
Separate names with a comma.