Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 860

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce

    When Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour party, I predicted, on here, that this would allow the Tories to move right
    And in fact, with this manifesto they have most definitely moved left. Now that UKIP is a spent force the aim being to take over some of the ground vacated by Corbyn.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    CD, who said I was advocating any of that list, or Hitler. Read what I wrote. Just that however it was done, his populist government had a functioning, if nasty, model. It happened. Isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that it would have gone
    bankrupt?
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 21:55.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Correct me if I'm wrong but you did seem to be citing the Nazi regime as an example of an economic 'miracle', or at least a 'functional model' of an economy that was achieved simply by borrowing money and creating lots of public-sector jobs; just like Jeremy Corbyn is planning to do, yes?

    It comes to something when you have to cite Nazi Germany as a preferable economic model than our current government; anything is better than the Conservatives, right?

    And just for the record, you can't just ignore the systematic state theft of property and businesses from the Jews because it seemed to 'work' for the economy!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 18th May 2017 at 22:17.
    WA$.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that it would have gone bankrupt?
    National debt more than doubled in Germany between 1933 and 1939...

    ...does that sound like a sustainable economic model to you?
    WA$.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    Fair enough, CD. Of course, if you take out the cost of re-armorment the sums look different.

    I am not saying it's preferable. Infrastructure projects and state investment in car factories and roads did not bankrupt Germany, that was my point. It was an extreme version of the New Deal in the USA or the mildly Keynsian policies of the UK, with the addition of some selection of whom it favoured.

    Economically, it might not have been the best time to build a war machine as well, granted.

    This was also a populist move. As was conviscation of Jewish assets. "A mainstream government for a mainstream people".
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th May 2017 at 07:17.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    Meanwhile our glorious leader is keeping the NHS defecit a state secret until after the election.

    Strong and stable.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Government ministeries are not allowed to release 'performance' data during elections; even if it was good news (which it probably isn't) the government couldn't release it.
    WA$.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    As CD says, indeed there isn't a Government, during an election they lose their MP status and also title as parliament is dissolved.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Infrastructure projects and state investment in car factories and roads did not bankrupt Germany...
    But they would have done, and very soon, had the war not intervened; or more correctly, had the war not been started by Germany because their economic 'miracle' was utterly unsustainable!

    It didn't matter that more than 50% of Nazi Germany's state spending was on armaments, it could have been spent on more autobahns, or hospitals, or a vast rescue organisation dedicated to saving fluffy kittens caught out in sudden downpours, it wouldn't have mattered; the only really important thing is where the money comes from, not what it is spent on. And the money was borrowed!

    Not all of the money, but the money that made the difference between the Nazi 'miracle' and the less-successful (or less extreme, as you say) 'New Deal' was borrowed, and borrowed in such amounts that it was unsustainable and couldn't ever be paid back without another disaster for the German economy (and people)!

    And that was not all there was to the Nazi 'miracle', there was other, massive, state intervention in people's lives. 'Full employment' was only achieved by conscription into the vastly expanded German army and the coercion of German women back into the home (where they belonged!), and, of course, there are no contemporary figures for the number of Jews that were forced into 'unemployment' when they were sacked from state jobs or had their businesses confiscated!

    No, I'm sorry, you can't use Nazi Germany 1933-1939 as a model of how to 'rebuild' an economy by massive public-works (paid for by massive public-borrowing)!

    The truth is that most countries in the world today already practice this model almost to the point of unsustainable debt, they borrow until they cannot afford to borrow any more; this is why the financial crisis of 2008 pushed a few countries over the edge.

    The United Kingdom's current debt is currently about £1,700,000,000,000 but only if you ignore pensions and other liabilities; if you include these it is about £4,500,000,000,000!

    Put another way you, and every member of your family, owe about £70,000 that has been borrowed, on your behalf, by successive governments.
    WA$.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    I am not using Nazi Germany as a model. Please stop saying I am, it could get annoying.

    The invasion of Poland was not for economic reasons. This has been discussd by historians, and it might be worth looking at the work of Richard Overy on this. He does summarise the various analyses quite well. The argument that public spending leads to war is a political one, and ignores the fact that a) governments borrow, governments go to war and b) there is no real pattern apart from a raiding of the coffers to pay for arms.

    This idea of taking a Government debt figure and dividing it by the population to say what 'we owe' is a canard of the first order. Please read www.edmundconway.com/2013/10/heres-who-the-uk-government-owes-money-to

    ..and this guy, by the way, does not share my political views.
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th May 2017 at 09:55.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    But you are advocating, as is Jeremy Corbyn, increased public spending as a model for 'improving' the economy aren't you? And you brought up Nazi Germany as a model of an economy that 'worked'; can you find a modern equivalent economy that has successfully used this model?

    And Jeremy Corbyn is claiming this model will work and bring public borrowing to zero in one term of a Labour administration!
    WA$.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    This idea of taking a Government debt figure and dividing it by the population to say what 'we owe' is a canard of the first order. Please read:

    http://www.edmundconway.com/2013/10/...-owes-money-to
    Is this what you wanted me to see; the graph of who the government owes money to?

    What does that change? It doesn't matter who the money is owed to does it?
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 19th May 2017 at 10:47.
    WA$.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    The argument that public spending leads to war is a political one, and ignores the fact that a) governments borrow, governments go to war and b) there is no real pattern apart from a raiding of the coffers to pay for arms.
    I'm not suggesting for a second that all public-spending leads to war but in the case of Nazi Germany the unsustainable level of debt almost certainly led to war; Hitler didn't want war in 1939, his forces, particularly his naval forces, weren't ready but he needed to do something about the spiralling levels of government debt and he chose to invade Poland (gambling that Britain and France would let him get away with it as they had done with Czechoslovakia).
    WA$.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    In what I hope is the right order:

    Example: Australia -. There are many others - though a Google search produces a lot of right wing think-tanks and fake universities saying there are none. Even better are the claims that the effect is negative through 'inefficient use of money' (in the case of most of these think tanks, that means not giving it to the particular corporation sponsoring it).

    Of course, the thing about a fiscal stimulus is even if the result is neutral (and it may well be unless the investment is in technology and innovation - a better axe, see my earlier rantings) we get new infrastructure out of it.

    It's the Government - well the treasury - who owes money, not us. We don't owe a penny. We have already paid our taxes (well, I have) so nothing is owed. That this is the case is demonstrated by the fact that one of the entities the treasury owes is us. Yes, I get the argument that it would be good if the treasury got back from the taxpayer what it needs to pay back, as it has interest to cover - but we don't actually owe £70,000 each. We can go for the rest of our lives or until the earth falls into the sun before we are confronted with a bloke with a baseball bat and an unmarked van. The tax take will be whatever it is, and if we manage to survive the break with Europe as an industrial nation then it will be more in the good times than it is now.

    Oh, and those institutions the government is paying interest to? The same ones that the capitalist argument says should be making lots of money in interest, as a sign of a healthy economy!

    I would be interested in your evidence that Hitler woke up one morning and said in his best Spike Milligan German "Ach, I have zer answer to zer debtungspiralen! I vill invade zer Poland! Zat will pay zer taxes unt das costs gercutten!"
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th May 2017 at 14:22.
    www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
    It's all good. Probably.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    'Lebensraum' is a concept that I'm sure you are familiar with; this wasn't a cornerstone of Nazi policy just so Adolf would have a bit more room down the bottom of his garden so he'd have room to put in a couple of rows of runner-beans...

    ...it was an economic policy as much as anything; Germany wasn't self-sufficient in food, raw materials or fuel.

    So how to get these essentials for the super-state Hitler was building? Answer: empire-building by force of arms.
    WA$.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    It's the Government - well the treasury - who owes money, not us. We don't owe a penny. We have already paid our taxes (well, I have) so nothing is owed. Yes, I get the argument that it would be good if the treasury got back from the taxpayer what it needs to pay back, as it has interest to cover - but we don't actually owe £70,000 each...
    Yes, we do!

    Of course, the amount each of us will actually pay back will depend on how much tax we pay (and at the moment none of us are paying anything back at all, we are borrowing more) but as an illustration of the amount we do owe £70,000 brings it home...

    ...because the fact that we, collectively, owe four and a half trillion pounds is beyond most people!

    And we really do owe this money; we cannot hide behind the government or the treasury. This money was borrowed for us, by the governments we collectively elected, and (mostly) this money was spent for our benefit, so we really do owe it.

    And, while you may have paid you taxes, you didn't pay enough, or we collectively, didn't pay enough. And should you die, which you probably will, before these debts are repaid, then don't worry, the debts will be passed onto your children.

    And don't take any comfort from the fact that the treasury owes us, it doesn't owe us collectively, it only owes those of us who have investments in government bonds; have you got any?
    WA$.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Oh, and those institutions the government is paying interest to? The same ones that the capitalist argument says should be making lots of money in interest, as a sign of a healthy economy!
    And those institutions that a Labour government will be paying interest to? The same ones that the Labour argument says are the 'wealth extractors' that will be making lots of money in interest, as a sign of a 'rigged system'!

    These are two sides of the same coin; don't you see that?

    Personally, I have no problem with government borrowing (within reason) or governments paying interest on money they have borrowed, and I have no problem with institutions charging that interest, and no problem with individuals or pension-funds lending the money to those institutions; that is the way the world works. And, at the moment, the interest that the United Kingdom does pay is relatively low because our debt is (reasonably) under control.

    What I do have a problem with is political parties that confuse debt-driven public-spending with economic growth and think the way to reverse government-debt is with more government borrowing!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 19th May 2017 at 18:20.
    WA$.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    Of course I can see that it's two sides of the same coin! That's what I have been saying all along. Why not build some council houses in the meantime?

    Lebensraum was a 'racial destiny' thing to the Nazis. Maybe it was seen as a convenient economic solution, but if so that was never expressed by any of its architechts, who instead referred to older principles of human geography and 'natural competition'. It certainly was never really going to work as an economic solution to the immediate woes of the German treasury unless equally technologically advanced nations accepted it without an expensive war, and Hitler must have known that would happen. He was more of the Gotterdamerung school than any kind of economist - and he did rather dictate policy.
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th May 2017 at 18:18.

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    Where do you think the German economic miracle came from? American money, yes. But not just thrown in - given to manufacturers and innovators schooled, trained and given experience of achieving extreme productivity all at state 'expense'. Think Volkswagen, and the people who worked there. It was a different state that benefitted, and got the credit, and there's a funny sort of justice in that - but it's worth bearing in mind. Those people did not come from nowhere, they were Germans who had been invested in heavily by the state.

    I am not advocating fascism - I shouldn't have to say that but I do. Just introducing an interesting example of one longer-term benefit of heavy state investment - probably the only one to survive the destruction of the state. And by the way, the state has carried on spending ever since, and they are doing pretty well, thank you very much. It helps that they are a net exporter.
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th May 2017 at 20:46.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Lebensraum was a 'racial destiny' thing to the Nazis. Maybe it was seen as a convenient economic solution, but if so that was never expressed by any of its architechts...
    I wouldn't put too much store in that, after all, did any of the architects of Nazi policy admit that the war hadn't actually been started by the 'international Jewery' or that gassing six and a half million Jews in 'self defence' wasn't perhaps as righteous as they had supposed?

    Anyway, how would it sound? 'German folk are the master-race, it is our historic destiny to claim lebensraum from the untermenschen, to spread our superior culture and economy...

    ...which is in the scheißehaus by the way!'
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 20th May 2017 at 13:20.
    WA$.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Just introducing an interesting example of one longer-term benefit of heavy state investment - probably the only one to survive the destruction of the state. And by the way, the state has carried on spending ever since, and they are doing pretty well, thank you very much. It helps that they are a net exporter.
    And I think the crucial part of that statement is that Germany is a net exporter.

    Yes, modern Germany has kept spending, and borrowing, to about 70% of GDP; as I've said, there is nothing wrong with a reasonable level of state borrowing, almost all countries do it and so long as it is maintained within reasonable sustainable limits it is useful tool to improve economic outlook but it must never be confused with an economic solution in itself.

    Some borrowing and spending can be beneficial but it doesn't follow that more borrowing and spending is better!
    WA$.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    On this whole £100k cap on worth for free social care, surely an easy way around it would be to sign your house over to your children, then it isn't your house anymore.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,066
    CD

    You don't have to worry. Quantitative easing is your friend and the friend of us all !

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    John makes a very good point. Two sides of the same coin - it may just be a case of who gets the use of said coin.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Well not too long ago, as in up to 2005, 40% GDP was regarded as a golden rule of sorts for borrowing and 60% is the criteria for joining the Euro. So there is clearly some sort of rough region there to be aimed for. 90+% is certainly not the place to be. In fact, in the US 90% was the limit at which an emergency budget discussion had to be held in keeping with historical thought on the matter. So a lot of previously held commonsense is and has been ignored by many, not least the Labour party.
    Last edited by Ryan; 21st May 2017 at 09:34.

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Where do you think the German economic miracle came from? American money, yes. But not just thrown in - given to manufacturers and innovators schooled, trained and given experience of achieving extreme productivity all at state 'expense'. Think Volkswagen, and the people who worked there. It was a different state that benefitted, and got the credit, and there's a funny sort of justice in that - but it's worth bearing in mind. Those people did not come from nowhere, they were Germans who had been invested in heavily by the state.
    Lot of debt written off too though. That said, using Marshall Plan funds to nationalise the railways certainly wasn't the way to go. Labour again.

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    OK, I got involved in a twitter discussion, and have been gleefully pounced on by a number of Corbyn supporters. We play much nicer here.

    Could anyone advise, in simple terms, on the left wing economic argument, as to where the money comes from please? Not the rights and wrongs of it - just the basics.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,066
    Bruce,

    As a closet Labour supporter of many years standing, I think I know the answer. If the constructive document that is your manifesto has been accepted by the electorate - you'll know because you'll get elected, then grease the printing press wheels and start printing the mazuma.

    At the same time make pious claims that promise to fleece the underserving filthy rich to pay for your entirely worthwhile wealth re-distribution schemes. That is the way that it works for political parties of all shades more or less anywhere. All you have to do to accommodate variations in political dogma, is to change a few key words such as: 'welfare', 'social agenda', 'marginal', 'deserving/undeserving' and so on.

    That activity will tend to convince those economic pundits who might be quick off the mark to accuse politicians of debasing the currency. The perfect unspoken and undeclared defence: "You take my worthless cash and I guarantee to take yours". International confidence reigns supreme and the bond market continues with its illusory value.

    While the worlds economies sing from the same hymn sheet we're all ok. The first major economy to break ranks could begin financial Armageddon.

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Could anyone advise, in simple terms, on the left wing economic argument, as to where the money comes from please?
    I thought this from the Labour manifesto was interesting; I'm not really sure how it is going to work in practice?

    Labour will transform how our financial system operates. Following the successful example of Germany and the Nordic countries, we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power.
    WA$.

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,081
    People start banks. Why not?

    If you mean money - it comes from the Royal Mint. If you mean the value behind the money, it comes from what we produce.

    The rest is an elaborate construct. It's real and it works, but I wanted to answer the question as straightforwardly as possible.
    Last edited by Beermat; 21st May 2017 at 14:01.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES