The closed mindedness in this thread is ridiculous. I'm done on this topic until someone actually wants to discuss the reasoning I put forward, rather than post youtube videos and links to books. I'm interested in your opinion and reasoning, not someone else's.

I never claimed I did. I do know the basics though, learned as part of other topics.

I do question the motive of any sources though.

Priceless - you take your ball home mate.

Offer is still open on you actually engaging and challenging my reasoning - happy to anytime. As ever though, you'll avoid a real discussion. Give it a go, we might both learn something.

What reasoning?
You really are making yourself look silly - add a poll to the thread if you doubt it.

My line of thought is:
Structural reform was/is necessary to control our borrowing cost
Regardless of how low yields are we can't run a deficit forever, and we shouldn't have been running one pre financial crisis.
Yes, yields might be low and we can borrow cheaply now, but the risk of growth not materialising from spending is a much bigger risk than some lost growth due to austerity.
If that happens and we then do become a riskier bet for lending too, we're in real trouble.
There's structural reasons why yields are as low as they are, it's not necessarily and indication that our economy is a rock solid bet.

A poll is only relevant if I respect the opinion of those that answer.

This was hilarious btw that you felt you needed to qualify that. Wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite right?

Maybe hilarious to you and no hypocrisy - they're my pension.
There's an incredible arrogance and sense of entitlement about you.

To address your line of thought.

Firstly explain why we can't run a deficit forever.
If you increase the deficit while decreasing the GDP/Debt ratio it's not an issue.
Our debt/GDP ratio has risen massively since the start of austerity.
Investment in times of recession historically leads to a decrease in the ratio.
For a post crash case compare and contrast the US and UK's position.
It's difficult to compare us with any nation that doesn't have a sovereign currency so US/UK is the easiest as we both had the same tools available.
The risk of growth not materialising after capital inflation is far less than the guarantee of lost growth through austerity.
Another factor being cited for the slowing of growth is that personal debt levels are topping out as people borrow on credit cards,loans etc to combat the real term wage decreases under austerity.
The rest I can make neither head nor tail of.
Swallow your pride and read some articles about austerity (for and against although you won't find many credible pro austerity articles.
Watch that biased video.
If you find anything with a compelling case for austerity please link it here.

Paul Krugman is far smarter than I will ever be and to date has been able to provide an answer, via his work, to any economic question I have mentally asked. Admittedly it's not a huge amount as most of my time is eaten up with work, football (watching), drinking, climbing, triathlon & DnB. Also I'm not an economist.

I do however think that arguing (In a sort of faux academic way) with trolls has a certain value, as too a certain point they have to understand the material and reach level 2 to continue trolling, which in turn kills of a large % of them off.

Constant simple references to studies and the literature is the only way we will win this online battle with the lowest form of proletariat.

You still felt the need to qualify it though, that was amusing to me. I'm perfectly happy with you owning property, but you felt the need to justify that you aren't an evil land baron, so it's your issue not mine.

Let's be fair, it's risen slowly since austerity started, it rose massively from 2007 to 2010 (for obvious reasons) and at the same rate from 2001 to 2006 when the economy was booming, having decreased from 1995 to 2001.

Feel free to post the GDP to debt graphs to back up your points, is the ratio decreasing in the US?

Also please explain this - The risk of growth not materialising after capital inflation is far less than the guarantee of lost growth through austerity. I see it as a dangerous cycle that could be self perpetuating, if it doesn't work then we spend more and more until we are in serious danger.

Woohoo, the insults are back.

Through my profession I've come across many horrible landlords so I'm qualifying it to myself as much as anyone else. It's why I'm a firm believer in licensing and supporter of legislation to make sure landlords make their properties fit for human habitation.
I also offer free advice on energy efficiency for tenants through CAB and landlord's associations and forums. Roll on next April when properties let out must reach a minimum of E rating.

Again with the sense of entitlement - look it up yourself the rest of us taking part in the discussion have done our homework.
You claimed that we can't run a deficit forever - show me why before we move on to your next mistake please.

Good for you, I'm fortunate that I have only had two landlords and both were very fair.

I have looked it up. I was offering you the chance to post it and explain how it proves your point - because it doesn't from the figures I can see. The US has had the same tools and hasn't decreased debt to GDP. If i'm looking at false data though then you posting it would fix that.

I apologise for my loose wording before, we can't run an increasing unbounded debt to GDP ratio forever.

This is what I'm looking at:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...nt-debt-to-gdp

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...nt-debt-to-gdp

My uneducated view of these charts is that we are slowing growth of the ratio and the US aren't.

This has to be a joke.

You post a graph of debt % and cite the US having a better deal when we have a Lower % and their economy is better. Let alone mentioning Japans 250 score and being the 2nd? Biggest economy.

****in hell japan is yoloing to the max

must spend a few bob on interest payments

The simple response to most of these points is a simple why?

Why cant we run a deficit for ever?

Running a deficit for ever is not in anyway a remotely a controversial thing to do.

Perpetual deficits are seen as perfectly sustainable by nearly all economists.

Obvious size of each yearly deficit is important factor.

So if you could link me to an authoritative source that claims we cant run deficits into perpetuity please do, as I am not going to take your word against the consensus of informed thought.

A government running a surplus is taking money out of the economy.

That has to be good for growth.

There's plenty on the left who believe in fiscal responsibility. I'm one of them.

The big 'economic' debate* at them moment is whether to tax more to spend more. That's not fiscally irresponsible either way even if both parties play a bit fast and loose with their plans. If anything it's currently the tories who are toying with the idea of spending more while not taxing more, which they themselves believe is fiscally irresponsible and most likely it is.

*Another is borrowing very cheaply to invest. That's generally a very good idea. The only objection is that the money might be misspent but a large degree of inefficient spending can be factored in and still make it a very good idea when the borrowing is very cheap.

I've already clarified that we are discussing running an unbounded increasing debt to gdp ratio. I agree we could run a deficit forever if we keep debt to GDP under control, but its not clear to that we would be.

This sounds like a joke to me. The point was epc was using the US as a comparison when its clear they don't have the debt to GDP ratio under control and the data shows ours is peaking (brexit could screw that though obv)

You want to put Japan forward as the economy to aspire to - a country that's dipped in and out of negative growth since 1980. Abenomics is probably the biggest economic gamble ever, it might just be working, but that chart shows what's at stake.

Japan is 3rd btw. Maybe check how far ahead of China they were 30 years ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories increased taxes to pay for public services. It obviously wasn't an oversight to omit the pledge not to raise IC, NI or VAT from their latest manifesto.

I think most people would be more than happy to pay a little more tax as long as they saw a visible improvement in public services.

I'd personally be happy to see up to 2% on basic IC, with perhaps 5% on the higher tax band.