Interesting answer to a question I didn't ask.
On the debt to GDP ratio:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/UK_Debt_to_GDP_ratio.png
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
On the debt to GDP ratio:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/UK_Debt_to_GDP_ratio.png
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 2,005
- Location
- Warwickshire
this was posted by somone on my FB today really explains the mindset of the "momentum" crowd
and the average earnings of the momentum crowd...
one of the comments
so much aspiration.
although somone amusingly pointed out that MP's earn just under 80k
If we're talking pictures that illustrate just how hateful the hard left Labourites are, I prefer this one:
You can say that, but it is a statement based on faith not evidence. Recession and economic shocks have been successfully followed by high spending and recoveries before, you have no evidence that Labour policies would have made things economically worse. Also as other have said, pretending a states budget/economy is the same as a house hold is a deliberate simplification/power grab. Households don't usually "quantitatively ease" etc.
Interesting answer to a question I didn't ask.
On the debt to GDP ratio:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/UK_Debt_to_GDP_ratio.png
Looks like the climb in debt/gdp ratio has started slowing once labour went ouyt of power in 2010?
Did Kezia chuck them out because they threatened to link with the Cons? Think I heard something about it earlier.
In the mid to late 1940s during the creation of the NHS and welfare system, our debt to GDP was 250%, what do you think happened to our debt to GDP once we started spending on our infrastructure rather than austerity?
It's only stack exchange, but as good place a place as any to jump off your understanding of the historic responses to economic shocks.
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...-to-uk-national-debt-when-the-nhs-was-created
Amazing! Are they that scared of the SNP!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006
I figured giving you a more relevant answer was more polite than telling you your question was stupid.
Someone ill equipped to debate a topic may well come to such a conclusion.
Still, why not follow our beloved PM and just avoid dealing with anyone asking a question you don't like in the first place, or alternatively you could have answered "strong and stable" it's as approximately as relevant as the answer you gave.
He's actually right, had Darling's plans remained in effect then debt today would be significantly higher than it is as a result of Osborne's plans.
It's a classic loaded question fallacy, hence the attack for disarming it by pointing out relevant facts.
The people who constantly bang on about the Tories creating more debt than labour never ask how they do with when they also reduce the deficit they inherit...
what does the radically differnt time of the 1940's have to do with the 2000-2015 period?
just restating something someone else believes on faith isn't evidence as such.
People in power have a raging boner for tiny tiny changes in otherwise difficult to control economic descriptors, very much more so now than ever in the past.
George sticks the knife in:
http://news.sky.com/story/osborne-r...uce-immigration-to-tens-of-thousands-10881669
http://news.sky.com/story/osborne-r...uce-immigration-to-tens-of-thousands-10881669
It's actually pretty simple, the question was stupid because it assumes that whether the debt goes up/down is of any relevance to a government/countries performance, it's a noob 101 mistake when moaning about debt/deficit and after being debunked so many times it's quite depressing to see people still trying to peddle such nonsense. The reason left wing activists are always shouting on Facebook about the rising debt under the Tories (despite it being Labours debt) is because it means it gives a nice opportunity to moan at the Tories, and not just that but it allows them to ignore the fact the deficit (the thing that matters) has been significantly reduced over the last 7 years. On Facebook it doesn't matter if it's nonsense or not, however on discussion forums we generally prefer to discuss real things when debating politics and not propaganda soundbites.
For reference, the reason the debt is of no relevance is because if the economy is in deficit then debt will increase, this is not something any government can control (though it can attempt to cut borrowing to slow the increase). This is why today the UK national debt stands at nearly two trillion pounds and every single penny is the responsibility of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The reason for this is simple, if an economy is run into deficit (more money going out to pay the bills than coming in) then just like a household that country will need to loan money each month to pay those bills, that creates debt, that debt increases as long as there is a deficit and interest must be paid on that debt.
That's why I pointed out how the deficit had shrunk £103bn to £14bn when you asked about the debt, because while it might not have been the answer you wanted/expected it was the correct/relevant answer to a stupid rhetorical question.
I suppose if there is historical precedence that Keynesian economics and government spending/investment can improve an economies performance during period of economic shock perhaps likening our countries economy to my shopping bill isn't valid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Are you arguing there is nothing to learn from the past?
- Status