conservatives are
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Does that not also apply to the government?
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)bit like this PPI in the NHS then
(labour)
What is Patient and Public Involvement?
http://www.wwl.nhs.uk/public_involvment/
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
also known as credit insurance, credit protection insurance, or loan repayment insurance, is an insurance product that enables consumers to ensure repayment of credit if the borrower dies, becomes ill or disabled, loses a job, or faces other circumstances
Private finance initiative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative
Sponsored Links
the government doesn't lend me money.
The government borrows money.
As the government doesn't lend me money, it doesn't set the interest rate high to make a profit.
It borrows money, so it set the interest rate as low as it can. It is currently lower than inflation.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Oh my word you have totally gone loopy. I have repeated and for the final time the concept of 'core business' is a construct or concept it isn't economic theory and I have asked you to provide references to say it is.
I give up when someone cannot see their own error. Good day to you sir.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
I have never suggested that 'core business' is economic theory. I have argued that identification of 'core business' is a strategic decision.
Allow me to remind you:
Identification of a 'core business' is a strategic decision.
That 'core business' is not some vague concept. It is real everyday tangible business.
For instance, a builders core business is building, which is not some vague concept, (although it could be called a 'construct'
).A shop keepers core business is selling which is not some intangible construct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process
ergo, a strategic process
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
You are making the simple error of comparing your personal income/ expenditure model to that of an economy / government. For governments there is a link become expenditure and income ie if the government spends more it's income will rise through higher tax receipts (gov spending is putting money into the economy).
What would you describe as an 'inflated lifestyle?
In the same breath you criticise Banks for lending irresponsibly you then say they wouldn't lend to you due to prudence.
When you purchased your home you consumed the benefits before you were able to pay it off - governments do that as well.
You yourself lived beyond your means - you did not pay cash outright for your home it required debt. You yourself borrowed to spend money and buy a home.
Look you need to understand that government finance is different to personal finance even though they share some similarities. Can you print your own money?
You assume that I am advocating borrow to spend, well what matters is what no one has answered which is what type of society do we want?
If you take one thing away I hope that it - Government Income /Expenditure is linked and is not like personal finances.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
bit like this PPI in the NHS then
(labour
Its PFI and it is a total waste of time. But why hasn't the current government not cancelled these deals and why is Hinkley C another PFI where we will owe money to the Chinese and have it built by the French? Btw Hinkley has a £22bn poison pill.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Do not be too hard on arse end, he does not know his b*** end from his elbow.
He is, by his own claim, disabled, despite his apparent motorbiking and driving a classic US muscle car.
Although that might be part of his fantasy.
D
Doggit
I'm sorry Kankerot, but I can accept very little of your arguments. You keep saying that you can't equate government income expenditure to personal finance, but the same principle applies. it just depends who's doing the financing, and what they're parameters are. At the end of the day, the same basic principle should apply to both - learnt to live within your means, and although you haven't been prepared to admit it, you are advocating raising borrowing to support the sort of society that you think is appropriate. You keep asking people to answer what sort of society they want, yet you shy away from answering the same question, or how you'd finance it prudently.
If I live beyond my means, that means I have to work harder, or to dig into my savings, but taking out a mortgage isn't living beyond my means, so I wonder if you rent, or you'd understand the principle.
Banks now have to lend prudently for mortgages (but they did get away with it with self certified mortgages) but they haven't been regulated to the same degree with credit cards; and I doubt if they will, because the government is using the banks to help fund growth in the economy.
Basically, you and I will never agree, so I think it's best to leave this one on a nice note
If I live beyond my means, that means I have to work harder, or to dig into my savings, but taking out a mortgage isn't living beyond my means, so I wonder if you rent, or you'd understand the principle.
Banks now have to lend prudently for mortgages (but they did get away with it with self certified mortgages) but they haven't been regulated to the same degree with credit cards; and I doubt if they will, because the government is using the banks to help fund growth in the economy.
Basically, you and I will never agree, so I think it's best to leave this one on a nice note
Your views were widely held prior to 1936, but since the middle of the last century, economic theory has more generally accepted that governments can borrow and spend to fight recession. There was unfortunately a hiatus in the UK during the Thatcher years, due to ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
In hard times, thrift may be sensible for the individual, but not for the community at large.
https://www.ft.com/content/00b05180-dba8-11d9-913a-00000e2511c8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
These ideas were considered heretical when published in 1705.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees
Last edited:
D
Doggit
Just because they do, doesn't mean that they should. Nowadays, spending pushs up growth both within the government, and with consumers. Kensyan theory has been used by governments simply because they manage the economy, yet fail to manage the country. Thatcher set the rot in by suggesting we didn't need manufacturing any longer as we had the city to gerenerate income, but she failed to realise that manufacturing gave jobs to those at the lower end of the education scale. We then ended up with masses of people that couldn't find jobs, so that pushed up unemployment, and welfare payments etc etc etc. Germany has a strong manufacturing base, and it's debt to GDP ratio was under 70% last year, whilst ours was nearing 90%.
Most governments of which evere persuasion, have inept people in them, and it's invariably an accountant type that's got the chancellors job. They're also too afraid to make radical changes, because they know they won't get re-ellected.
Most governments of which evere persuasion, have inept people in them, and it's invariably an accountant type that's got the chancellors job. They're also too afraid to make radical changes, because they know they won't get re-ellected.
Sponsored Links
