Must the recession be global?
18 January 2008, 07:07 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but this is just utter nonsense, find one, just one commentator, ecconimist who desribes this governemt as socialist.
Your arguement presupposes that more money wasn't needed to be spent on the public services, even today after all the extra money we still spend less of health care as a % of GDP of nearly all major economies. The debate should be how the money is spent, not should it have been spent in the first place, that arguement is over, it was ended by 3 general election defeats for the Tory's, they now have the SAME spending commitments, is David Cameron a socialist too?
Socialist governments increase progressive taxes, not regressive ones. Under the last socialist government the top rate of tax was 70%. Regressive taxation has been going up for 30 years (or more) was Maggie a socialist? Is David Cameron proposing to cut tax, nope (well alright inheritence tax), why? because 95% of this government economic policy is also their economic policy!
Would a socialist government free up labour markets, propose the introduction of ID cards, approve Trident, build more nuclear powerstations, propose 90 day detention for terrorist suspects and align itself with a neo-con driven White House - is GW Bush a socialist?
The simple truth is that we don't have ideologically driven politics anymore, not since Michael Foot squared off against Mrs T, and Thatcherism won hands down, why? because socialism doesn't work, never has, never will!
Both party's have converged upon the centre ground, because that's where the great British public are. The very notion that a socialist government could win 3 straight elections is fantasy.
The real debate should be around delivery, thats where this government has underachieved, so lets have a grown up debate about that, no throwing ridiculous ideological inaccuracies about.
Your arguement presupposes that more money wasn't needed to be spent on the public services, even today after all the extra money we still spend less of health care as a % of GDP of nearly all major economies. The debate should be how the money is spent, not should it have been spent in the first place, that arguement is over, it was ended by 3 general election defeats for the Tory's, they now have the SAME spending commitments, is David Cameron a socialist too?
Socialist governments increase progressive taxes, not regressive ones. Under the last socialist government the top rate of tax was 70%. Regressive taxation has been going up for 30 years (or more) was Maggie a socialist? Is David Cameron proposing to cut tax, nope (well alright inheritence tax), why? because 95% of this government economic policy is also their economic policy!
Would a socialist government free up labour markets, propose the introduction of ID cards, approve Trident, build more nuclear powerstations, propose 90 day detention for terrorist suspects and align itself with a neo-con driven White House - is GW Bush a socialist?
The simple truth is that we don't have ideologically driven politics anymore, not since Michael Foot squared off against Mrs T, and Thatcherism won hands down, why? because socialism doesn't work, never has, never will!
Both party's have converged upon the centre ground, because that's where the great British public are. The very notion that a socialist government could win 3 straight elections is fantasy.
The real debate should be around delivery, thats where this government has underachieved, so lets have a grown up debate about that, no throwing ridiculous ideological inaccuracies about.
I'll tell you what's nonsense. What's nonsense is some not reading anything other people have typed previously. For about the 5th time on this thread I've said we have a socialist gov't in terms of economic policy, GET THAT, ECONOMIC POLICY, not any other policy they may have. Jesus wept.
In very simple terms, a gov't that vastly increases taxes and spent heavily in the public sector, (has employed millions of more workers in the public sector for instance) is following a social economic policy. This gov't has progressively taxed middle England and have tried to distribute wealth to the lower income bands by increasing benefits (and having soft unemployment targets, remember Frank Field's recommendations on social security, look it up), pensions, tax credits etc. Re your point on the NHS, spending in real terms has doubled under NL.
Regarding your point, "Under the last socialist government the top rate of tax was 70%." I assume you are refering to Callaghan who had a top rate of 98%, not a lowly 70%. Of course this tax was quite unworkable as a revenue raiser as virtually no-one paid it, prefering to use clever accountants. That's why Brown never increased headline taxes but vastly increased stealth taxes. In fact the proportion of tax on income has gone up steadily since Thatcher, so not socialism at all is it?
I'm just about fed up debating points with you. You seem to have a very limited grasp on just about every subject I clash with you on. The thing that upsets me the most is you still can't spell argument properly. It's pointless talking to you as my A levels in gov't/politics and business studies with a BA in Business too, are wasted.
Last edited by scoobynutta555; 18 January 2008 at 07:09 PM.
18 January 2008, 10:04 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you what's nonsense. What's nonsense is some not reading anything other people have typed previously. For about the 5th time on this thread I've said we have a socialist gov't in terms of economic policy, GET THAT, ECONOMIC POLICY, not any other policy they may have. Jesus wept.
In very simple terms, a gov't that vastly increases taxes and spent heavily in the public sector, (has employed millions of more workers in the public sector for instance) is following a social economic policy. This gov't has progressively taxed middle England and have tried to distribute wealth to the lower income bands by increasing benefits (and having soft unemployment targets, remember Frank Field's recommendations on social security, look it up), pensions, tax credits etc. Re your point on the NHS, spending in real terms has doubled under NL.
Regarding your point, "Under the last socialist government the top rate of tax was 70%." I assume you are refering to Callaghan who had a top rate of 98%, not a lowly 70%. Of course this tax was quite unworkable as a revenue raiser as virtually no-one paid it, prefering to use clever accountants. That's why Brown never increased headline taxes but vastly increased stealth taxes. In fact the proportion of tax on income has gone up steadily since Thatcher, so not socialism at all is it?
I'm just about fed up debating points with you. You seem to have a very limited grasp on just about every subject I clash with you on. The thing that upsets me the most is you still can't spell argument properly. It's pointless talking to you as my A levels in gov't/politics and business studies with a BA in Business too, are wasted.
In very simple terms, a gov't that vastly increases taxes and spent heavily in the public sector, (has employed millions of more workers in the public sector for instance) is following a social economic policy. This gov't has progressively taxed middle England and have tried to distribute wealth to the lower income bands by increasing benefits (and having soft unemployment targets, remember Frank Field's recommendations on social security, look it up), pensions, tax credits etc. Re your point on the NHS, spending in real terms has doubled under NL.
Regarding your point, "Under the last socialist government the top rate of tax was 70%." I assume you are refering to Callaghan who had a top rate of 98%, not a lowly 70%. Of course this tax was quite unworkable as a revenue raiser as virtually no-one paid it, prefering to use clever accountants. That's why Brown never increased headline taxes but vastly increased stealth taxes. In fact the proportion of tax on income has gone up steadily since Thatcher, so not socialism at all is it?
I'm just about fed up debating points with you. You seem to have a very limited grasp on just about every subject I clash with you on. The thing that upsets me the most is you still can't spell argument properly. It's pointless talking to you as my A levels in gov't/politics and business studies with a BA in Business too, are wasted.
It's hard to know how to respond, I gave you the facts, you are simply blind to them.
Never before has someone been so obviously blinded by their own political dogma.
Between Maggie and Blair came Major, why don't you go check the 'stealth tax' issue during that time. A socialist government would have increase income tax (progressive taxation) rather than disproportionatley taxing the poor via regressive taxes, it's just a fact, you must of picked that up in your 'A level' surely.
Incidentally there has been no MASSIVE increase in taxation, just check the numbers. Investment in public services has been (largely) funded by economic growth.
Spending on public services doesn't automatically mean socialism, sometimes we need to increase spending, you said it yourself Health spending as % of GDP has doubled, and we're still behind most major economies, are you saying it was wrong to increase spending in health?
So finally given that the Tories and Labour are 'dancing on the head of a pin' on economic policy, are we about to have the first, socialist conservative government?
Given my 'very limited grasp' as you put it, I'm still able to put across the reality of the situation in terms that most people would find hard to disagree with, you would argue day was night rather than admit you're just flat wrong
Last edited by Martin2005; 18 January 2008 at 11:40 PM.
18 January 2008, 11:03 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It amazes me this rescue package that the US are planning... they already have a deficit, surely this will devalue the dollar even more, it is effectively giving the last bit of credit and surely will not work? Presently the US CPI and interest rates are already ridiculously close. Could they credibly reduce interest rates below the CPI?
Similarly the bright idea of freezing interest rates and stopping subprime foreclosure will just paralyse the mortgage market, because no one will want to lend at the enforced rates with a negative return.
This meltdown of Ambac to AA will surely result in a fire sale of bonds by investors who must hold AAA? This is 20% of the US bond market CDS insurance up in smoke overnight?
To the original thread topic, it seems that the international markets are all following the US market with no hint of decoupling yet? I thought Brazil looked enticing still, I put a bit in and noticed that it is taking a hammering as well. Japan is disappointing too, given that I feel that it is in a different stage of the cycle and could be a recovery play, plus the Yen is only likely to strengthen. India and China look very vulnerable to me, and I have no direct investment there. Greenspan's book is interesting in his assessment of the two nations. India he says is bound with ridiculous red tape that means that progress is very slow to enforce property rights or start a business. I have heard from other sources (Moneyweek IIRC) that it takes a lot of money in bribes to get anything done. China has a veneer of Westernization, brought on in just a few decades by dictators who have driven it, but surely there is political risk to property rights for Western investment like Russia? I'm sure they wouldn't confiscate Western assets just now, but it might be one to watch?
Similarly the bright idea of freezing interest rates and stopping subprime foreclosure will just paralyse the mortgage market, because no one will want to lend at the enforced rates with a negative return.
This meltdown of Ambac to AA will surely result in a fire sale of bonds by investors who must hold AAA? This is 20% of the US bond market CDS insurance up in smoke overnight?
To the original thread topic, it seems that the international markets are all following the US market with no hint of decoupling yet? I thought Brazil looked enticing still, I put a bit in and noticed that it is taking a hammering as well. Japan is disappointing too, given that I feel that it is in a different stage of the cycle and could be a recovery play, plus the Yen is only likely to strengthen. India and China look very vulnerable to me, and I have no direct investment there. Greenspan's book is interesting in his assessment of the two nations. India he says is bound with ridiculous red tape that means that progress is very slow to enforce property rights or start a business. I have heard from other sources (Moneyweek IIRC) that it takes a lot of money in bribes to get anything done. China has a veneer of Westernization, brought on in just a few decades by dictators who have driven it, but surely there is political risk to property rights for Western investment like Russia? I'm sure they wouldn't confiscate Western assets just now, but it might be one to watch?
19 January 2008, 09:19 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just give up. I've highlighted one of your 'facts' to be total guesswork. The rest is just drivel not worthy of a reply. <<<<<<<<back on topic.
19 January 2008, 02:49 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 January 2008, 04:49 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What abuse? Find some personal abuse and infract me for it. I've never lost an argument to anyone who can't even spell it properly.
19 January 2008, 10:15 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It amazes me this rescue package that the US are planning... they already have a deficit, surely this will devalue the dollar even more, it is effectively giving the last bit of credit and surely will not work? Presently the US CPI and interest rates are already ridiculously close. Could they credibly reduce interest rates below the CPI?
Similarly the bright idea of freezing interest rates and stopping subprime foreclosure will just paralyse the mortgage market, because no one will want to lend at the enforced rates with a negative return.
This meltdown of Ambac to AA will surely result in a fire sale of bonds by investors who must hold AAA? This is 20% of the US bond market CDS insurance up in smoke overnight?
To the original thread topic, it seems that the international markets are all following the US market with no hint of decoupling yet? I thought Brazil looked enticing still, I put a bit in and noticed that it is taking a hammering as well. Japan is disappointing too, given that I feel that it is in a different stage of the cycle and could be a recovery play, plus the Yen is only likely to strengthen. India and China look very vulnerable to me, and I have no direct investment there. Greenspan's book is interesting in his assessment of the two nations. India he says is bound with ridiculous red tape that means that progress is very slow to enforce property rights or start a business. I have heard from other sources (Moneyweek IIRC) that it takes a lot of money in bribes to get anything done. China has a veneer of Westernization, brought on in just a few decades by dictators who have driven it, but surely there is political risk to property rights for Western investment like Russia? I'm sure they wouldn't confiscate Western assets just now, but it might be one to watch?
Similarly the bright idea of freezing interest rates and stopping subprime foreclosure will just paralyse the mortgage market, because no one will want to lend at the enforced rates with a negative return.
This meltdown of Ambac to AA will surely result in a fire sale of bonds by investors who must hold AAA? This is 20% of the US bond market CDS insurance up in smoke overnight?
To the original thread topic, it seems that the international markets are all following the US market with no hint of decoupling yet? I thought Brazil looked enticing still, I put a bit in and noticed that it is taking a hammering as well. Japan is disappointing too, given that I feel that it is in a different stage of the cycle and could be a recovery play, plus the Yen is only likely to strengthen. India and China look very vulnerable to me, and I have no direct investment there. Greenspan's book is interesting in his assessment of the two nations. India he says is bound with ridiculous red tape that means that progress is very slow to enforce property rights or start a business. I have heard from other sources (Moneyweek IIRC) that it takes a lot of money in bribes to get anything done. China has a veneer of Westernization, brought on in just a few decades by dictators who have driven it, but surely there is political risk to property rights for Western investment like Russia? I'm sure they wouldn't confiscate Western assets just now, but it might be one to watch?
19 January 2008, 10:16 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scotty, I've run out of fingers but I think you'll find the combined populations of China and India are, in very round numbers, 100 fold greater than the USA.
Pete, your last sentence is the tricky, and very pertinent, question. Again in very simplistic terms, it is the international collapse of communism that is the main driver of economic shift - the astronomic rise of China, resurgence in Russia as a major player, immigration from Eastern Europe - huge repercussions. I applaud Gordon Brown's current trip to China - if we can bridge the cultural gulf between us and actually form a lasting trade base, that will be good for Britain. But I don't expect it to be easy.
Combine that with with a global lack of energy (petrol/gas) and the volatile politics that exist between the West and the Middle East (we also need good relations with Russia) and we have a potentially explosive situation that needs to be handled with extreme care. And that is currently conspicuous by its absence in the hands of the deluded Mr Bush.
The US has shown its hand by invading Iraq, ie it will use force if needs be. And the sabre-rattling between the West and Iran, with Israel the messy meat in the sandwich, is extremely worrying.
Then there is the human tragedy that is Africa, seemingly permanently embroiled in its own tribal slaughter. In blunt economic terms, that is a good thing for us but politically increasingly unacceptable.
Throw all that lot in the melting pot and it is hard to see a happy, smiling global village any time soon. Nothing new there then, except that is the wealthy West that looks most likely to take a tumble this time.
Richard.
Pete, your last sentence is the tricky, and very pertinent, question. Again in very simplistic terms, it is the international collapse of communism that is the main driver of economic shift - the astronomic rise of China, resurgence in Russia as a major player, immigration from Eastern Europe - huge repercussions. I applaud Gordon Brown's current trip to China - if we can bridge the cultural gulf between us and actually form a lasting trade base, that will be good for Britain. But I don't expect it to be easy.
Combine that with with a global lack of energy (petrol/gas) and the volatile politics that exist between the West and the Middle East (we also need good relations with Russia) and we have a potentially explosive situation that needs to be handled with extreme care. And that is currently conspicuous by its absence in the hands of the deluded Mr Bush.
The US has shown its hand by invading Iraq, ie it will use force if needs be. And the sabre-rattling between the West and Iran, with Israel the messy meat in the sandwich, is extremely worrying.
Then there is the human tragedy that is Africa, seemingly permanently embroiled in its own tribal slaughter. In blunt economic terms, that is a good thing for us but politically increasingly unacceptable.
Throw all that lot in the melting pot and it is hard to see a happy, smiling global village any time soon. Nothing new there then, except that is the wealthy West that looks most likely to take a tumble this time.
Richard.
Very well put Richard
20 January 2008, 12:03 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brecon
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the figures from here there are approx. 8 times more Chinese and Indians than there are Americans, not 100
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by ScoTTyB; 20 January 2008 at 12:06 AM.
20 January 2008, 12:41 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the figures from here there are approx. 8 times more Chinese and Indians than there are Americans, not 100
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apologies. But I don't think it alters my point re the massively unequal distrubution of wealth.From your same source, the richest 20% of Nations (ie the US and Western Europe) enjoy 83% of global wealth.
This is the balance that is is changing.
Richard.
21 January 2008, 02:50 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another problem is our natural resistance to change and while economic shifts can happen quite quickly, our ability to embrace them, in terms of attitude and cultural acceptance, is IMHO, linked to generations, ie a 25-40 year cycle. The phrase "you can't teach old dogs new tricks" spings to mind. That's too slow if we are to catch Barry's ship.
Why aren't we teaching Mandarin in all our schools? It makes a lot of sense, but I suspect hardly a vote winner. I have a colleague in China who asked me how good her English was. I told her, truthfully, that it was excellent (certainly better than much of what you read on here) but she apologised that it was not as good as her French! How many Brits do you know that are fluent in both English and Mandarin, or Hindi, or Arabic? Do you know anybody that even has the inclination to learn?
We either come to terms with the new world order quickly, or sink. On another current SN thread, there is a suggestion to blockade fuel depots to reverse the recent few pence rise in petrol costs. How pathetic is that?
Richard.
Last edited by Hoppy; 21 January 2008 at 02:54 PM.
21 January 2008, 03:15 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Kingston ( Surrey, not Jamaica )
Posts: 4,670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why aren't we teaching Mandarin in all our schools? It makes a lot of sense, but I suspect hardly a vote winner. I have a colleague in China who asked me how good her English was. I told her, truthfully, that it was excellent (certainly better than much of what you read on here) but she apologised that it was not as good as her French! How many Brits do you know that are fluent in both English and Mandarin, or Hindi, or Arabic? Do you know anybody that even has the inclination to learn?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post