Been waiting weeks for you to answer plenty but I've given up now.
Are you saying that you have an argument for austerity but won't put it forward?

I've already put it forward, and have explained that's the case already. I'm putting my own views forward because I'm capable of forming some - not just quoting someone else's.

As you said, you want me to post information so you can "poke holes in it". The very little you have posted on any topic is full of holes, which is why you crosspost from twitter and news and offer nothing else.

If you want to carry on the discussion then fine, answer the question I asked, as I'm really struggling to understand which part of fiscal responsibility you don't get. Maybe if I can find the bit you don't follow I might do a better job of explaining it to you.

In b4 inevitable refusal and "post the case for austerity", in which case i'm done on this, as everyone's bored.

Could you requote the bit were you put forward a case for austerity I must have missed it.

I saw the bit where you say X is bad ok, but cant remember any point where you said X is bad because [insert chain of causality here].

What a weak cop out jecross. GTFO

Her partner Roger Kendrick caused a bit of stir at the hustings too.
I suppose things were different in his day.

Tory candidate distances herself from 'racist remark' made by her agent and partner at hustings
Newton Abbot Tory candidate Anne Marie Morris has distanced herself from comments made by her electoral agent and partner who claimed 'that the crisis in education was due entirely to non-British born immigrants and their high birth rates'.
Read more at http://www.devonlive.com/anne-marie-...f6fYBLKHiVu.99



Read more at http://www.devonlive.com/anne-marie-...f6fYBLKHiVu.99http://www.devonlive.com/anne-marie-...ail/story.html

Was it before or after he said you can't run a deficit forever?
Maybe it was when he said you have to cut in a slump because cuts weren't made in the boom?

Remember he doesn't do "tone" well on the internet and sometimes you might not understand what he actually means until he decides the meaning based on your answer.
Maybe his case is in cryptic form - shame on us for not seeing it.

Disclosure: I have only done Econ 101 and 102 courses but I read a lot of econ papers and economists' blogs from very different sides. This kind of allows me to put my thoughts in writing so I hope people can point out logical fallacies, errors...

Case for lower levels of public spending expressed as a % of GDP is pretty much always the same and is not linked directly(except extreme cases that do not apply to the UK economy where loss of confidence of investors) to debt as % of GDP:

1) When you have a deficit, it has to be funded through borrowing and that money has to come from somewhere, investors might prefer low but entirely secure returns of gilts over private investing. Public spending therefore crowds out private investment. Private investment is what fuels productivity growth which the only source of long term growth for an economy whereas public spending will often (case in point: Greece) to either wealth transfer from one group to the other or investments that don't pan out. I would point that a lot of ties governments will present wealth transferring measures as investments to increase productivity.

For reference, public spending in % of GDP for the UK since the end of the 70s:

http://imgur.com/a/MaAli

2) There is also a traditional liberal (in the European sense) argument that the world organises itself spontaneously pretty well and specialised, local knowledge and proper incentives are key for productive investments to appear: central (and even local because often local governments still have very large portfolios of responsibilities and vast populations to administer) governments lack this specialised, local knowledge and will run afoul of the socialist calculation problem.
So why have public spending since it won't work out that well would be the summary of argument 2)

I'm not saying I'm sure all of this is accurate but it does sound a lot more convincing to me and more interesting than people think.

I also missed the part where you made the case against it, apart from by posting youtube videos making false comparisons with history.

EPC failed at making the case against it by comparing to the US (I already said I think comparisons are hard to make but played along), lied about what the numbers said, falsely compared the numbers when I posted them for him and then refused to explain his logic behind the false comparison. If you want to discuss it, lets play fair please.

Debt to GDP needs to decrease (or flatten) at some point, can we agree on that, or do I need to explain why forever increasing (unbounded for the pedants) debt to GDP is bad?

I'll ask again, when do you want to cut debt to GDP?

She said something dumb and racist and was suspended, why is this interesting? All this is doing is further demonstrating how you aren't interested in actual discussion and just want to cement your "all Tories are evil" beliefs.

lol at you ever "playing fair"
"You have to cut in a slump" because cuts weren't made in the boom.
No you don't and it's pretty silly to do so according to the CBI,IMF,dozens of leading economists and many Tory MPs.

You have to turn your sprinklers on when it's raining because you didn't turn them on during the drought?
And if you believe you do then why?

Spending cuts negatively impact aggregate demand and lead to lower economic growth and lower inflation unless consumer spending is rising(it's currently at a 4 year low and consumer debt at a record high).
If you cut when the economy is in a slump you get a significant fall in real GDP.
If you cut in a boom then it brings inflation down with only a small fall in real GDP.
Getting the economy growing is the best way to sort everything out.
A sure fire way of doing this is investing in infrastructure through very cheap borrowing.
I asked what you had against infrastructure spending long ago but it was yet another question you ducked.

What are you blathering on about now?

All tories are evil though, they implement **** policies that affect the poorest in society and tax breaks for them and their friends.

Bunch of war mongering, dishonest and self serving bastards.

Play on fears of the electorate to get in then have no idea wtf to do when in power (granted this is a new situation where they might be better off with a mannequin in charge rather than that **** May). Now begging everyone else to share policies (take the blame when **** hits fan) with them.

FFS they in league with the ****ing DUP/Pinochet/Trump/Apartheid/arming half the despots on earth/state sponsored murder of their own citizens, what else needs to be said here?

Bunch of ****s.

The argument appears to be, you splashed out recklessly funding public services and now you pay it back. There was reckless irresponsible lending but it wasn't spent on services it was bad credit to the private sector, notably housing bubbles. Hence the Bailouts to the banks by the ECB or sovereign banks eg in the UK in return for massive austerity, most acutely in the case of Greece. All austerity has done is restrict spending in the economy leading to further recession.

You can't separate economics from politics. The political consensus of neo liberalism prevented a long term solution post 2008, the answer was more neo liberalism: More deregulation, more privatisation, more wealth transfer to the privately sector.
The solution is investment in infrastructure, housing, jobs, public services and the welfare state are a key part of this. Citation: post war boom.

I see Greece has been offered an £8.5b loan. Not sure of the stipulations on this but it could be a sign the austerity agenda is starting to give way to an investment model.

Please explain why you left 2016 out of your analysis before. You misrepresent numbers to make a point. It's dishonest and that's what I'm referring to. If you don't want to explain, then stop throwing baseless accusations.

I agree that spending can increase growth, but you need it to grow enough to offset the borrowing, which isn't indefinitely cheap for an infinite amount of borrowing, and is currently unnaturally low because of the impact of quantitative easing and high levels of demand from institutional investors. You seem to think growth is some unstoppable steam roller, that once it's kicked off we'll be into another boom cycle and we just reap the rewards. It's not, the last recession was like nothing we've ever seen before.

I also don't think any historical comparisons ring true because I think the level of achievable GDP growth is now much lower than it has been historically as the marginal gains in productivity are harder to realise.

What are your thoughts on Abenomics?

Just pointing out more evidence that you aren't interested in a debate, you're just here to engage in red v blue **** throwing.

Oh definitely not, that's not an argument that I am making at all, like I don't even how you got that from my post. That sounds more like a moral argument that a right wing politician makes "spending was high, we got complacent, let's rein it in" because he feels 1) that's the only argument that people will understand 2) that has the better shot at getting him elected. Politicians should be the last people to listen to for economic opinions. My arguments were about what economists would say as a case for "austerity" or the term I prefer because it is not as rhetorically loaded and better describes reality "lower levels of public spending as a % of GDP".

I think you also forget that my post provided a reasoning for why people might believe that public investment does not lead in general to rises in productivity growth and therefore long term growth. You did not address those concerns in your post.

Short term austerity does have an effect on the economy that is probably bad but if it was spending that was non productive, medium-long run it's probably fine and even better to cut it. Also monetary policy can offset the austerity measures (hence the problems for Greece because they can't control that) which actually has happened in the UK. It's just that of course monetary policy doesn't really have an effect on productivity growth.

We're not Japan running at 250% debt to GDP with an ever declining and ageing labour force,historically low growth and deflation,post earthquake problems, China and North Korea sabre rattling at the door leading to record spending on the military (can't rely on the US) ,2020 olympics round the corner.
I have no clue if it is working or not or if long term it will work or not but Japan's is a very different situation to that of the UK and to what labour are planning
What are yours ? Or do you just intend to ask others so you can find fault as usual.

Actually save that for after you've made a case for austerity and explained why you have to turn your sprinklers on when it's raining because you didn't turn them on during the drought.
Link please

Is this it?

Go ******* yourself

Quite amusing I got criticised (admittedly not by you) for using a personal finance analogy, but gardening ones are fine.

If you really want to use this weak analogy, I'm saying there isn't enough water to keep the plants alive all year, so I'll top up the water butt when it's raining so the grass doesn't die during the drought.

The poorness of your analogy shows the lack of understanding I pointed out earlier.

Deficits dont matter.*

Deficits have to be above inflation before they even really are deficits. If inflation is 2% and your deficit is 1.5% congrats you're in surplus.

Even if they are above inflation a government isnt like a business, people will lend to them at market rates pretty much forever even if they lose money every year.

Even if the government were like a business debt to gdp is a silly figure to use. A debt ratio in a business is debt vs assets. The UK govenrment has an amazing debt to asset ratio (what is the asset value of the lake district for example) and can borrow trillions before that figure gets into anything like worrying territory.

Crowding out is an issue. But, it assumes that government spending is by definiton less useful and productive than private spending on average which I think is a pretty poor assumption that certainly shouldn't be taken as a given.


* usually

Oh, the irony. You literally said this is what you were doing a page ago.

I was asking an open question to get your views, it's called having a conversation. I brought it up as it's an example of a big gamble on generating growth. I stated my view before, the juries still out on whether it's worked, but it's a huge economic experiment.

I think I'll take a break from engaging you tbh, it's too poisonous.

If you are never going to sell it or charge people to use it then it's not worth anything. (There is a secondary impact from income brought in to the local area due to tourism)