When will indyref2 happen?

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

10 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

How come the pile of shite has never been dealt with, ever? The UK has been in deficit almost constantly since they invented money.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30

Politicians (and therefore the electorate), that's why. Imagine trying to get elected by insisting taxes were going up to cover possible economic shocks in the future or you were going to introduce massive spending cuts because the economy is doing OK? You'd be out on your arse before the campaign had started.

Do you think that perpetually transferring money to people that can afford to hold government debt is a good use of resources? That's my point. I'm not saying deficits don't happen, I'm not saying there is no advantages to deficits and debt, all I'm saying is that balancing the books is desirable in terms of efficient allocation of resources. 

[EvilScotsman]

2 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Politicians (and therefore the electorate), that's why. Imagine trying to get elected by insisting taxes were going up to cover possible economic shocks in the future or you were going to introduce massive spending cuts because the economy is doing OK? You'd be out on your arse before the campaign had started.

Do you think that perpetually transferring money to people that can afford to hold government debt is a good use of resources? That's my point. I'm not saying deficits don't happen, I'm not saying there is no advantages to deficits and debt, all I'm saying is that balancing the books is desirable in terms of efficient allocation of resources. 

Only if you believe the private sector to be inherently more efficient than the public.

[wellwoodpar]

Unashamedly nicked from WOS.

http://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

[Thistle_do_nicely]

41 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

How come the pile of shite has never been dealt with, ever? The UK has been in deficit almost constantly since they invented money.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30

I think I'm with you on this, even though my own natural aversion to debt has meant in my personal life I've never once had a credit card!

Is it a case of two things at play'

a) that while the UK is in a deficit, quite a significant chunk of the monies owed are payable to British businesses and individuals (such as state pension liabilities)

b) "if you owe the bank £1000 it's your problem, if you owe them £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 it starts to become their problem"?

It seems counter intuitive that government's rarely seem to care all that much about holding mountains of debt, tbf, but household finances work on vastly different principles to those of a country or even a business. I personally find it hard to get to grips with since there's no real frame of reference in my own life that's comparable, yet you'd think certain basic principles relating to currency would be universal.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

I think I'm with you on this, even though my own natural aversion to debt has meant in my personal life I've never once had a credit card!

Is it a case of two things at play'

a) that while the UK is in a deficit, quite a significant chunk of the monies owed are payable to British businesses and individuals (such as state pension liabilities)

b) "if you owe the bank £1000 it's your problem, if you owe them £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 it starts to become their problem"?

It seems counter intuitive that government's rarely seem to care all that much about holding mountains of debt, tbf, but household finances work on vastly different principles to those of a country or even a business. I personally find it hard to get to grips with since there's no real frame of reference in my own life that's comparable, yet you'd think certain basic principles relating to currency would be universal.

There's no parallel between national and household economics.  You can't print money or set interest rates for a start. Have a read of the link.

[Baxter Parp]

16 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Politicians (and therefore the electorate), that's why. Imagine trying to get elected by insisting taxes were going up to cover possible economic shocks in the future or you were going to introduce massive spending cuts because the economy is doing OK? You'd be out on your arse before the campaign had started.

Do you think that perpetually transferring money to people that can afford to hold government debt is a good use of resources? That's my point. I'm not saying deficits don't happen, I'm not saying there is no advantages to deficits and debt, all I'm saying is that balancing the books is desirable in terms of efficient allocation of resources. 

Did you read the link?

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

14 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Did you read the link?

Skimmed it. Couldn't find anything about the costs of debt, which, again, is the bit I'm talking about.

Also, the tone it starts off with doesn't give me much hope that it will be a fair and even handed article either. May read later.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

29 minutes ago, EvilScotsman said:

Only if you believe the private sector to be inherently more efficient than the public.

How so? 

 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

It is not an efficient use of resources to be spunking billions of pounds on interest payments every year. That's the economic case for balancing the books right there.

If you borrow at historically low interest rates to spend on infrastructure (or any other project) that has a clear multiplier effect, then it can be far more efficient to do so than "balancing the books". The fiscal benefits of extra growth (such as increased tax receipts to the Treasury and a little inflation) trump the cost of borrowing extra money on very light terms. 

[Kejan]

Anyone got a prediction as to what happens next?

 

 

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, Kejan said:

Anyone got a prediction as to what happens next?

 

 

The shit is cautiously approaching the fan.

[mjw]

Anyone got a prediction as to what happens next?
 
 

Armageddon.
Social unrest.
Quantum's.

[EvilScotsman]

52 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

How so? 

 

"There are not too many variables in this equation either: just the government, consumers (that’s you and me), business and trade. So, if the government runs a surplus someone else has to run a deficit. It’s pretty obvious really: the books will balance. So, a government surplus is matched by increasing consumer debt, business spending or money flows via trade.

We have remarkably little control over trade. First, we almost invariably run a deficit and secondly we have (unless we suddenly and ruinously begin using interest rates to alter exchange rates) almost no control over that rate so let’s treat that as fixed to the extent that it is beyond control. And let’s also be aware that such is the state of the Eurozone we should not be looking for much hope from that source – which is our biggest market.

In that case we’re looking for a government surplus to be matched by consumer borrowing and business spending on investment.

Now, again, let’s deal with the easy one – business spending. This would be on investment of course; we can’t imagine they’re going to start a free for all in pay rises for anyone but bosses. But as we know, whilst they’re laden high with cash (which right now they lend, in practice, to the government) they appear to have no intention of spending that and worse still appear clueless as to what they might spend it on. There is no hope of them creating a deficit on their budget, and so they will not create one for the government."

This suggests that a reduction in public debt would result in increased business spending on infrastructure (PFI, PPP etc included).

Therefore, unless you believe that private investment is more efficient than public (which all of the evidence with regards to PFI suggests it is not) then a reduction in government debt is not a good thing.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/12/05/why-a-budget-surplus-is-the-last-thing-we-need/

*edited to make the quoted section more obvious*

Edited March 29, 2017 by EvilScotsman

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

34 minutes ago, virginton said:

If you borrow at historically low interest rates to spend on infrastructure (or any other project) that has a clear multiplier effect, then it can be far more efficient to do so than "balancing the books". The fiscal benefits of extra growth (such as increased tax receipts to the Treasury and a little inflation) trump the cost of borrowing extra money on very light terms. 

Can't argue with that. 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

7 minutes ago, EvilScotsman said:

"There are not too many variables in this equation either: just the government, consumers (that’s you and me), business and trade. So, if the government runs a surplus someone else has to run a deficit. It’s pretty obvious really: the books will balance. So, a government surplus is matched by increasing consumer debt, business spending or money flows via trade.

We have remarkably little control over trade. First, we almost invariably run a deficit and secondly we have (unless we suddenly and ruinously begin using interest rates to alter exchange rates) almost no control over that rate so let’s treat that as fixed to the extent that it is beyond control. And let’s also be aware that such is the state of the Eurozone we should not be looking for much hope from that source – which is our biggest market.

In that case we’re looking for a government surplus to be matched by consumer borrowing and business spending on investment.

Now, again, let’s deal with the easy one – business spending. This would be on investment of course; we can’t imagine they’re going to start a free for all in pay rises for anyone but bosses. But as we know, whilst they’re laden high with cash (which right now they lend, in practice, to the government) they appear to have no intention of spending that and worse still appear clueless as to what they might spend it on. There is no hope of them creating a deficit on their budget, and so they will not create one for the government."

This suggests that a reduction in public debt would result in increased business spending on infrastructure (PFI, PPP etc included).

Therefore, unless you believe that private investment is more efficient than public (which all of the evidence with regards to PFI suggests it is not) then a reduction in government debt is not a good thing.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/12/05/why-a-budget-surplus-is-the-last-thing-we-need/

Again, fair enough.

Forgive me as I haven't studied this for a long time, but is the big assumption here (and in VT's post above) that all government borrowing is for investment?

Was the whole 'borrow to invest' line not one that 'Prudent' Gordon Brown used in order to get around his own fiscal rules and thus, in part, helped lead to the situation we are in right now?

[Baxter Parp]

16 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Again, fair enough.

Forgive me as I haven't studied this for a long time, but is the big assumption here (and in VT's post above) that all government borrowing is for investment?

Was the whole 'borrow to invest' line not one that 'Prudent' Gordon Brown used in order to get around his own fiscal rules and thus, in part, helped lead to the situation we are in right now?

Well, now your own bias is showing. The situation we are in almost wholly down to having to throw money at the banks, flatlining growth (on average), low productivity leading to depressed wages and Tory austerity, which starves the economy instead of boosting it.  Gordon Brown circumventing his fiscal rules before the crash has little to do with it.

[Baxter Parp]

Useful article from 2014

Scottish police chairman condemns no campaign for exaggerating aggression

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-police-chairman-condemns-no-campaign-exaggerating-aggression

For when the Yoons claim the last referendum was marked with intimidation and rancour.

[EvilScotsman]

1 hour ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Again, fair enough.

Forgive me as I haven't studied this for a long time, but is the big assumption here (and in VT's post above) that all government borrowing is for investment?

Was the whole 'borrow to invest' line not one that 'Prudent' Gordon Brown used in order to get around his own fiscal rules and thus, in part, helped lead to the situation we are in right now?

I hadn't really thought about it - all government spending would be investment, in some form or other, would it not?

It was mainly PFI that Gordon Brown used to keep to his 'fiscal rules', if I remember rightly - using private finance to fund infrastructure at eye-watering rates to keep it 'off the balance sheet'. See the NHS budget crisis - most struggling hospitals are ones which have massive repayments for new PFI buildings.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

43 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Well, now your own bias is showing. The situation we are in almost wholly down to having to throw money at the banks, flatlining growth (on average), low productivity leading to depressed wages and Tory austerity, which starves the economy instead of boosting it.  Gordon Brown circumventing his fiscal rules before the crash has little to do with it.

Aye, whatever. 

He claimed to have got rid of boom and bust. The finances were arranged on the basis of perpetual growth because of this, and when the bust came we were in no state to ride it out. We still haven't recovered from the initial shock. (Was this not fundamental Keynesian stuff that he was going against?)

Please note I am not blaming him or the UK Government for the crash itself, I'm blaming him for being ill prepared for it considering the 10+ years of economic growth preceding it. People seem very quick to muddy the waters between the two.

[Wasperoonie]

I'm still a bit baffled, SNP say Scotland didn't vote for brexit, Tories say the UK overall did. Who is technically, legally, morally correct in this?