It's not needless keeping the banks afloat, letting poor people starve, not healing the sick and not housing the homeless or those persecuted abroad. It's reckless to not do these things, it's reckless to let the banks fail and the economy crash.

All the governments of late have not been great or have made all the correct decisions, but we're not in a disaster zone. All we need, like most, is for a revolutionary change with politics of the centre ground with a better mandate from the people.

Edit: Also, we do not need the Empire to service our debt or prop us up. We have enough within these shores thank you very much.

Yeah, but the idiocy isn't in putting out the fire. The idiocy is in not installing a sprinkler system. The big failing is in preventing the need for a bailout through regulation. That will be a much larger failing than in having these bailouts if nothing changes.

Australia has a completely different economy with a much lower population. It's not comparable. We have an asset rich economy which far outweighs our debt and i think this is sometimes overlooked.

1. Trade flows are the truest indicator of economic reality. Sooner or later that will reflect itself in economic life. These readjustment usually are dramatic. One can see the arc of the U.K. historically as declining economically - usually the peek is placed @1917. Where you were the world 2nd largest exporter of manufactured goods, the worlds largest creditor and in the top 5 for living standards per capita. Each readjustment has been downwards. I would be greatly suprised if this economic readjustment did not continue.
2. With periodic exceptions you have been increasing the obligations of the public finances in a net declining economic environment. This can be temprorarly be sustained via debt but not sustainably.
3. You have had a spasmodic and schizophrenic foreign policy for almost 2 generations.

The positives are you have a relatively healthy apporoach to migration and birthrate - this should ameriorate the economic decline.
Also the preeminence of London as the world premier financial market - should offset some of the decline - so long as the regulatory environment remains positive.

No i did not, misquote. I said they are not running the country how i, or many, would like it run. It has, however, been run and we had a decade of record growth (in recent history) prior to the financial crisis.

Spare you the truth? When has it ever been different?

OP can copy and paste this thread for his paper.

Regulation and insurance is not just another tax, it prevent us from having the same crap happen again. It's a safeguard. Why not have a nominal tax on the banks when they reap huge profits from the productivity of hard working people? It's not punishing the achievers. I do not agree with tax to punish those who want to produce wealth.

Most of these assets are not used for productive activity - most of the debt is either for consumption or for recurrent government expenditure.

The rubber meets the road with regards to the effectiveness of dent and productiveness of the economy is the equation of

$ of debt required to produce a $ of GDP - you cannot escape this reality.

With open globalised trade and the flattening and commoditisation of most products - it is inevitable that the U.K. a high cost operating environment will be comparablly less favourable for production and investment. Particularly in the non finance sector.

One only needs to look at foreigh direct invetment flows for decades to know the economic arc of the U.K.

Basically a debt fuelled spending spree. If it was a soundly based economic grwoth period - your public coffers would have been overflowing prior to the crises.
If private indebtness had not been for consumption purposes - most of the financial instutions would not have had nearly as many toxic assets.

This is anarchism. The economy will obviously decline when an empire is broken up, and rightly so. We have 60ish million population, a diverse economy, a lot of potential to produce and increase production and have strong trading partners, trading links. We also have a population with a relatively high skill base and some of the best educational institutions in the world and great assets. The size of a country does not determine it's economic potential.

I don't much like the political/tax structure of the Germans but at least they produce things the rest of the world wants.
I believe they are overtaxed, over subsidised and over governed but at least they produce things that other people need and thier poltical acumen in gaining political hegemony in Europe against the background of WW2 and the cold war - can only be admired for its success even if I oppose its end.

Compare that arc to post - war Britain.

The high skilled based is not reflected in the proportion of high value added exports.
Compare the engineering backbone of the German economy with the engineering backbone of the English economy. It is chalk and cheese.

You have strong views toward the UK and i think you are underestimating it's economic diversity and also overlooking a lot of facts. As far as trade goes, we are now, whether we like it or not, part of a trading block called Europe and there is a huge amount of room for growth. It all depends on investment in manufacturing, science, R&D.

The toxic assets were investments largely made in the US sub-prime market, which would have been prevented with good regulation.

Come to Australia - and see what almost 2 decades of economic growth and boom times is like.

No need to be cold and miserable in London.

Put some sun on your face old chap.

Will brighten you up abit. No need to fret about dreary scottish socialists ruining your country.

I find a lot of your arguments are just fueled by anti-british sentiment. I've made my point and feel confident in my argument. It looks as if we'll never agree. It's best to just agree to disagree.

I love you pommy bastards - I am just trying to break you out of your delusion. I am telling truth as only a true friend can.

i need somebody. (thread title) not just anybody.

When i was younger ...

Australia is a lovely country, but my home is in London and i wouldn't call anywhere else my home. it's not cold all the time, it's actually very sunny today with clear skies and fairly warm. A lovely day indeed! My second home is on a lovely island called Koh Samet in Thailand where me an my wife go every year (She is Thai).

**And to quash any stereotypical thoughts. No i'm not 60 and she's not 18, we didn't meet on the internet. I'm 28, she's 26 and we met 6 years ago in London.**

Great debate though, thoroughly enjoyed an intelligent discussion.

Truth is in the mind of the beholder. My truth is as legitimate to me as your truth is legitimate to you. I respect your view.

I'll write your paper. You'll probably fail, but at least you'll get it for the cut-rate price of $215. Ship to PokerRon247 on Stars and I'll start writing.

Hate to pile on, but a year ago, I went with some friends to a British pub styled bar outside of DC.

And I ate some of the food...

I believe it is no small coincidence that bankers, politicians and the public at large - for the first time since the Depression - had no experience of that economic period and possibilities of how much worse it can get.

This is illustrated - with the most relevance in our attitude to debt.

I think it is overly optimistic to believe that we are out of the crisis.

That debt does not disappear - it results in a decline, temporary or permanently, in living standards - either via inflation or via contraction.
I dont believe this has taken place.

I would be very worried that the U.K. and U.S. adopted the Japanese approach to their financial crisis from which they have not yet recovered 20 years later.