George Osborne's speech.
Discussion
The issue I have with Osborne is the disproportionate time spent on talking about fixing something which will save very little, and not fixing the financial haemmoraging. The big problems are benefits and the NHS.
Osborne would be best off ratcheting down the amount paid for housing benefit where private companies & councils are the true beneficiaries.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline where a single mother with 5 kids can live in millionaire's row having never held a job approaching the average wage.
If the Tories want to stay in power the people they need to appeal to are the ordinary working people and show them where the money is going so they can 'listen to the people' and cut funding where people won't resent it. Foreign aid to China and India could be cut out, for example.
One other thing the Tories need to consider is to up the state pension by 10% and then limit maximum benefits for each family to that of a couple on a state pension.
There also needs to be a hard look at what the NHS spends it's money on - for example if they are spending money on dealing with the effects of obesity then perhaps they should improve education on food and start taxing fast food and confectionery.
Osborne would be best off ratcheting down the amount paid for housing benefit where private companies & councils are the true beneficiaries.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline where a single mother with 5 kids can live in millionaire's row having never held a job approaching the average wage.
If the Tories want to stay in power the people they need to appeal to are the ordinary working people and show them where the money is going so they can 'listen to the people' and cut funding where people won't resent it. Foreign aid to China and India could be cut out, for example.
One other thing the Tories need to consider is to up the state pension by 10% and then limit maximum benefits for each family to that of a couple on a state pension.
There also needs to be a hard look at what the NHS spends it's money on - for example if they are spending money on dealing with the effects of obesity then perhaps they should improve education on food and start taxing fast food and confectionery.
AJS- said:
mattnunn said:
Inflation is also called growth.
It's growth of the money supply. Not growth of economic output. Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effectively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
Unfortunately as I described in my post the boardrooms are where the money is concentrated and where the real power and decision making lies in how we get the economy moving not Whitehall.
Whitehall effectively manage the judiciary and the public sector jobs, education, health etc...
GavinPearson said:
There also needs to be a hard look at what the NHS spends it's money on - for example if they are spending money on dealing with the effects of obesity then perhaps they should improve education on food and start taxing fast food and confectionery.
Oh yes, because more marginal fiddling is exactly what the country needs.martin84 said:
I'm not entirely sure that sounds like 'better shape' to me. The Conservative Party may have been in better shape if results went a different way in 2010, but maybe not the country.
Exactly.And what pain would be suffered as a result.
I can't help but think that those who support some sort of complete meltdown/default/IMF bailout in order to start again from scratch are retired, with no mortgage and all their savings in gold. For the rest of us, that scenario is the one to be avoided, even if it does kick the can down the road.
mattnunn said:
As long as the money finds it's way into the pockets of normal folk it will be spent, hence it becomes growth of the economic output.
Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effectively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
You're just really wrong here. Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effectively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
The money that finds it's way into the pockets of normal folk will be worth proportionately less than it was when there is less money. Inflation is a tax on the money that's already in the pockets of normal folk.
Simplify it. Imagine you have 10 people on a boat, with a set stock of rations, and they develop tokens to trade their rations - so smokers can buy more cigarettes at the expense of beans, bean addicts can buy more beans at the expense of cigarettes etc. You can print all the tokens you like and it won't create a single extra bean or cigarette. If you double the number of tokens, you double the price of everything. That's all inflation is.
Yes growth has to come from the private sector, but with the huge government sector bleeding them dry for taxes and crowding them out for resources, while stifling everything with regulation, it really isn't likely to happen for a while yet.
oyster said:
Exactly.
And what pain would be suffered as a result.
I can't help but think that those who support some sort of complete meltdown/default/IMF bailout in order to start again from scratch are retired, with no mortgage and all their savings in gold. For the rest of us, that scenario is the one to be avoided, even if it does kick the can down the road.
By all means kick the can down the road until you are retired or have savings in gold. But face up to the fact that sooner or later the spending bonanza is going to stop.And what pain would be suffered as a result.
I can't help but think that those who support some sort of complete meltdown/default/IMF bailout in order to start again from scratch are retired, with no mortgage and all their savings in gold. For the rest of us, that scenario is the one to be avoided, even if it does kick the can down the road.
All the chat about cuts, well that seems reasonable enough, it has to be. Yet good old Channel 5 last night broadcast 'cutting salaries down to size'. Those FTSE100 CEO's far to many still plundering Company coffers with ever increasing remuneration packages. Defended by James Caan with the need to attract the best with the remuneration boards merry-go-round. All was laid bare in a simplistic fashion, until this problem is resolved the Nation is in danger of continuing divisions in Society until we reach the point of Social breakdown. The former CEO of Greggs is campaigning an effort to bring a halt to the madness of unsustainable rewards.
Top pay rose 21% since 2008 whilst average pay rose 2.1%. Against this background the Government is supposed to embark upon pay freezing, benefit cutting,cuts to public services.
Top pay rose 21% since 2008 whilst average pay rose 2.1%. Against this background the Government is supposed to embark upon pay freezing, benefit cutting,cuts to public services.
Tyre Smoke said:
Digga said:
Tyre Smoke said:
However, this is something that cannot be achieved in five minutes because of the massive juggernaught created by Blair and Brown...
I think, prehaps, we're deep enough into the s
t to ditch the party politics here. Watch "Yes Minister" and tell me, even back then, that the tail of Whitehall wasn't wagging the government dog.There is a very simply, a limit beyond which an economy cannot sustain PS spending. What is not so simple is knowing 'where' that limit is and, moreover, the fact is that in all probability it's not an absolute percentage, more different (imperceptible at first) gradients of decline in efficiency and real growth ranging to total collapse.
AJS- said:
mattnunn said:
As long as the money finds it's way into the pockets of normal folk it will be spent, hence it becomes growth of the economic output.
Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effectively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
You're just really wrong here. Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effectively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
Inflation is a tax on the money that's already in the pockets of normal folk.
Unless you're retired or unemployed (unemployable) inflation (normal inflation not rabid hyper inflation) is a mooted point.
People just don't have money saved, and if you go back to my original statements, this is constructively managed because money is power.
You may have savings, but the vast majority of people have little more than 7 days food in their cupboards and a month or two (if they're lucky) money in the bank.
This is the normal way of things and would be the same under either tory of labour government.
The only difference is that the balance of the money (and power) under a left leaning government would be under state control and under a right leaning government would be under boardroom control.
For the vast majority of people with debts inflation is absolutely necessary, a good 10 years of high inflation will wipe out my mortagage far quicker than me working hard and attempting to over pay it will.
Then I can start saving for my retirement and I'll campaign to stop inflation once I actually have some assets!
)mattnunn said:
Your right in theory buy in reality most NORMAL folks don't have savings or money in their pockets, they never have, they never will.
Unless you're retired or unemployed (unemployable) inflation (normal inflation not rabid hyper inflation) is a mooted point.
People just don't have money saved, and if you go back to my original statements, this is constructively managed because money is power.
You may have savings, but the vast majority of people have little more than 7 days food in their cupboards and a month or two (if they're lucky) money in the bank.
This is the normal way of things and would be the same under either tory of labour government.
The only difference is that the balance of the money (and power) under a left leaning government would be under state control and under a right leaning government would be under boardroom control.
For the vast majority of people with debts inflation is absolutely necessary, a good 10 years of high inflation will wipe out my mortagage far quicker than me working hard and attempting to over pay it will.
Then I can start saving for my retirement and I'll campaign to stop inflation once I actually have some assets!)
Right enough for a one off round of inflation, you can squeeze a bit more from the people who still have cash. But what happens when the money runs out again, next year? Then you can be damn sure no one will have any cash or savings, because they know the government will print more money.Unless you're retired or unemployed (unemployable) inflation (normal inflation not rabid hyper inflation) is a mooted point.
People just don't have money saved, and if you go back to my original statements, this is constructively managed because money is power.
You may have savings, but the vast majority of people have little more than 7 days food in their cupboards and a month or two (if they're lucky) money in the bank.
This is the normal way of things and would be the same under either tory of labour government.
The only difference is that the balance of the money (and power) under a left leaning government would be under state control and under a right leaning government would be under boardroom control.
For the vast majority of people with debts inflation is absolutely necessary, a good 10 years of high inflation will wipe out my mortagage far quicker than me working hard and attempting to over pay it will.
Then I can start saving for my retirement and I'll campaign to stop inflation once I actually have some assets!
)If inflation had no other adverse effects than those on creditors and savers then you'd be right, technically if not morally, that this would be a convenient way to wipe out the debts and start again. But it does, and that's why countries with high inflation usually don't have thriving economies.
AJS- said:
So you really think the coalition are cutting back as far as politically possible? I agree if we just scrapped pensions tomorrow it would be unpopular, and rightly so, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about scrapping some useless departments, cutting foreign aid to zero etc.
We're facing a budget deficit of £126bn next year according to some forecasts. That's just insance. It's nearly 8% of GDP. Even if it isn't politically possible, it's just financially impossible to sustain this for another 5 years with a flat lining economy.
What would really happen if the Department of Culture, Media and Sports was closed down tomorrow? What would we be missing? Would there really be riots in the streets? That's "only" £1.4 bn, but so long as we have these departments sucking up resources, I can't see that they are making adequate cuts.
Actually the DCMS gets around £7bn a year. We're facing a budget deficit of £126bn next year according to some forecasts. That's just insance. It's nearly 8% of GDP. Even if it isn't politically possible, it's just financially impossible to sustain this for another 5 years with a flat lining economy.
What would really happen if the Department of Culture, Media and Sports was closed down tomorrow? What would we be missing? Would there really be riots in the streets? That's "only" £1.4 bn, but so long as we have these departments sucking up resources, I can't see that they are making adequate cuts.
One of the many things that the DCMS is responsible for is broadband policy and delivery and it is “committed to delivering the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015”
Spending on this commitment includes £530 million stimulate commercial investment to roll out high speed broadband in rural communities. £150 million in ‘super-connected cities’ across the UK and £150 million to improve mobile coverage in the UK for consumers and businesses that live and work in areas where coverage is poor or non-existent.
I would have thought this is quite a good thing to spend money on.
mattnunn said:
the vast majority of people have little more than 7 days food in their cupboards and a month or two (if they're lucky) money in the bank.
The vast majority of sheeple have bought shiny things they don;t need, with money they either should have been svaing or (in the caseof debt) plain didn't have, to impress people they didn't necessarily even like. This is the sickness; consume, conform, obey.Contrast the savings ethic of, for example, migrant workers or families in China (who aren't spunking all their money on tat made in Europe) and you'll see why we're so f
ked.If we'd borrowed to invest in machinery, infrastructure and R&D that made us more competitive then we'd have a prospect of GDP growth...
rover 623gsi said:
Actually the DCMS gets around £7bn a year.
One of the many things that the DCMS is responsible for is broadband policy and delivery and it is “committed to delivering the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015”
Spending on this commitment includes £530 million stimulate commercial investment to roll out high speed broadband in rural communities. £150 million in ‘super-connected cities’ across the UK and £150 million to improve mobile coverage in the UK for consumers and businesses that live and work in areas where coverage is poor or non-existent.
I would have thought this is quite a good thing to spend money on.
It might well be a good thing to spend money on, but we haven't got any. In fact we've got minus £900 billion and growing by the day. One of the many things that the DCMS is responsible for is broadband policy and delivery and it is “committed to delivering the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015”
Spending on this commitment includes £530 million stimulate commercial investment to roll out high speed broadband in rural communities. £150 million in ‘super-connected cities’ across the UK and £150 million to improve mobile coverage in the UK for consumers and businesses that live and work in areas where coverage is poor or non-existent.
I would have thought this is quite a good thing to spend money on.
Digga said:
mattnunn said:
the vast majority of people have little more than 7 days food in their cupboards and a month or two (if they're lucky) money in the bank.
The vast majority of sheeple have bought shiny things they don;t need, with money they either should have been svaing or (in the caseof debt) plain didn't have, to impress people they didn't necessarily even like. This is the sickness; consume, conform, obey.Contrast the savings ethic of, for example, migrant workers or families in China (who aren't spunking all their money on tat made in Europe) and you'll see why we're so f
ked.If we'd borrowed to invest in machinery, infrastructure and R&D that made us more competitive then we'd have a prospect of GDP growth...
If you take a look at Japan's stagflation over the last 15 years it's strongly linked to the cultural ideas of conservatist spending, saving and i "shame" associated with debt.
We have to start measuring the quality and value of human existence with a metric outside of "money".
Money is not finance, it's not wealth, it's not security, it can't buy you love! It's a constructed means of concentrating power and influence.
The more movement of money, the more fluid the economy, the busier the highstreet, the more deomcratic and powerfull this means of transaction becomes.
It's like pass the parcel, if the parcel stops moving the guy left holding it has all the pleasure.
Yes we have debts, yes it would be a good idea to pay them down and not to burden our children with them, BUT we must not cut of our nose to spite ourself and we must not be led into a period of power consolidation and undemocratise our culture because of it.
mattnunn said:
If you take a look at Japan's stagflation over the last 15 years it's strongly linked to the cultural ideas of conservatist spending, saving and i "shame" associated with debt.
All that happened with Japan was they beat the rest of the developed world, fairly and squarely, to the property bubble post and they simply started their lost decade without us.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff