Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I think its a done deal -no doubt he will be sat with the owner tonight
Villa should be a big big club remember going to cup semis there but probably need an owner willing to throw in some quick money .
No messing around in football these days from any of the owners.

[dynamark]

Mac probably because it is excessive borrowing.
If you can borrow and 'profit' from it then you can afford to pay back the loan- a factor of production if you like in basic terms and that is partly why we can get away with our huge deficits.
If you pitch up at the bank and ask to borrow they will require proof that you can meet the repayments and some security and there are limits that applies.Its a lot lot harder now to get serious loans than it was 20 years ago .Unless I'm completely wrong we as a country still borrow a ton of money

[I'm never wrong]

Mac, that was me that voted you down. Apologies. Fat fingers on a phone.

[Diggers]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

[super_realist]

Suoer you must have missed it -at the weekend Robinson announced they were going to get the money out of the post office !!
So that's all sorted then

??? They suggested using the Post Office as a means to allow people access to non digital banking and help keep a bit of life in the High Street.
They've also suggested that flogging off state owned banks when they become profitable might not bet he brightest idea. I suppose there is no logic in that either?

Mac, are you blind as well as unable to spell? Post offices are closing at an astonishing rate, equitable to the loss of high street banks. There used to be post offices everywhere. In the villages I grew up in there are now NONE.

Think you are the blind one. Do you not think the measure might also be a means to reverse that trend?

So is Dianne Abbot going to come up with figures to reinstate banks and PO's to villages? I thought Mac was the one who hatched out of an egg.

[super_realist]

For those posters who worry about government borrowing could you tell me what it is about higher borrowing that worries you?  

Mac we're talking about borrowing equal to 20% or more GDP than the UK or  the entire GDP of the country of NORWAY or Austria for goodness sake. Who the hell is going to lend the UK that much money?

You don't seem to understand the implications of such massive borrowing and if you have to ask someone what these might be then you shouldn't be engaging in the conversation. (interest rates, credit rating, future tax rises etc)

[super_realist]

Super

Like football, you don't need to put on an act that you understand politics.  Diggers is schooling you here and it would be wise for you to listen.

Diggers isn't schooling anyone Mac. I'm pointing out his double standard. It's fine to have a go at the Tories, they're doing a terrible job, but to completely ignore the laughable witterings of the Labour party to provide a viable alternative government is the shocking bit.

As has just been pointed out, Diggers thinks you can raise 500bn through higher corporation tax. That's Dianne Abbott type accounting and deserves as much ridicule, if not more than what the worthless turd Abbott would come out with. Raising another 500bn on top of the  500bn raised through taxation is absolutely effing hilarious. What company is going to hang around if they corporation goes up 100%? None. Companies already leave the UK for far more minor reasons than this. There will be a brain drain too if you put the taxes up of people, but then again Diggers has also claimed that Labour are NOT the party of high taxes. Well you can't have it both ways Diggers, if you've got 500bn in your spending, you can't borrow that much, you'll have to tax for it.

Labour clearly haven't costed this in the slightest, like they are keen on doing, they've just plucked a figure out of the air, safe in the knowledge that as a Marxist led party they don't stand a chance of getting in, even against the worst Tory government in living memory.

A marxist party with a similar manifesto pledge to the Scandinavian models you say aren't even socialist.    I'd like to see the post where I said Labour were not the part of high taxation. Unlike you're post on Zola being a massively prolific striker, I think you have interpreted that post incorrectly.

You did you claimed that Labour were not in the business of raising taxes in their manifesto then you claim that they are going to raise 500bn through an increase in corporation tax, that's exactly what they've always done, taxes are always higher under Labour, and you think they can magic 500bn out of the air without having to raise tax. You make Dianne Abbott look like Carol Vorderman.

That's before you even take into account how ridiculous a sum 500bn is.

Where are they going to get 500bn? You expect them to borrow it? You expect them to increase corporation tax? Who's going to stick around if they have their corporation tax raised by the amount necessary to raise that amount?
Those companies that can, will simply move abroad. Huge companies like Shell and BP will just leave the country, they don't have to have assets here, they aren't a big part of their portfolio anyway. They could just move to other countries with more favourable tax rates and they will if Corbyn was stupid enough to try to raise corporation tax enough to raise the laughable sum of 500bn.

[super_realist]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

[Diggers]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

[dynamark]

Ive never quite understood the HS2 logic even though the railways are pretty prehistoric in many ways.I can get from Birmingham to Euston in just over an hour why would it make a difference to be 10 minutes quicker?
I'm sure capacity is an issue as on most transport systems but surely longer term people will be doing less travelling not more.
Lets see what if anything May and Jezza can cobble together today.Interesting dynamic to this on both sides.Cant help thinking they will have little in common.

[Roller_Coaster]

Mac, you asked what the problem was and JAS made a comment in relation to who was it from and what the payback rates were. My post was merely a (very brief) summary of all those elements.

Who - everyone, everywhere
How much - what it takes to get what you need in the first place
Problem - payback versus everything else you could have spent that cash on

It might be a "dummies guide" in your opinion, but there you go, perhaps I don't operate up in the rarefied atmosphere of your mind. I thought it did answer your question.

Dyna highlighted that the definition of the problem (which becomes much more subjective) is by extension excessive borrowing. Defining excessive in this context is the political problem with borrowing. Do I think the UK will default - No. Do I think that other countries think the UK will default - No. Is there a level of borrowing at which either of those become more likely - Yes. Was that thought process the same when talking about Russia before they defaulted - Yes. Look at the spread on credit default swaps on Google, that would give you an indication of the global view as to the probabilities of countries not paying their debts, but just because default is not likely it doesn't mean borrowing is a good idea.

When excessive borrowing has (or is thought to have) occurred then at some point those that thought it was excessive have to come in and cut spending to make sure there is sufficient cash to meet the debt obligations, particularly if the economy retracts and reduces the expected tax revenue that was supposed to result from the additional spending in the first place. Or you borrow more and more and spend more and more to try and get yourself out of it. Look at any financial advice anywhere and the latter is not recommended. When the fun stops, stop. Etc.

The joy of politics means that literally everyone has different ideas about everything including levels of spending and borrowing. At different times, spend, borrow and tax has been proven to be wrong as has cuts and lower tax.

One thing I'm certain about, based on the posts I've seen down the years I wouldn't like any country to be subject to MAC ro economic policy.

You're welcome

[dynamark]

Very good roller love a bit of mac ro economics.
Good job we don't have a mike on here.
I just loved economics from the very first lesson aged 16 the teacher was superb with all manner of quirky examples to back up the theory.

[McLaren]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates? (every decision has risk/reward)

[Diggers]

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

[kwinigolfer]

Roller,
I hope that means you're no fan of trumponomics - the consequences of which will be dire for the bottom 90%, most of whom haven't figured that out.

[JAS]

Very good roller love a bit of mac ro economics.
Good job we don't have a mike on here.
I just loved economics from the very first lesson aged 16 the teacher was superb with all manner of quirky examples to back up the theory.

When did you do economics dyna? just wondering if the teaching today would be any different (post 2008 crash). Yes theory would have indicated the 2008 crash was possible but it was such a catastrophic, economic landscape changing event that I wonder if it’s had any implications for the teaching of the theory?

Must admit it’s a subject that fascinates me. Never been formally taught but I consider myself fairly well researched. Probably driven by 2 sets of political parties lying their tits off for decades making me want to understand for myself who tells the biggest porkies.

[navyblueshorts]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

[McLaren]

Navy

How does asking people to express their reasoning count as fishing?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

How does asking people to express their reasoning count as fishing?  

Mac. You're looking for a bite. Roller has given you reasoning - over-extending credit is bad for individuals and Governments. Your turn...

[dynamark]

Jas it was well before 2008 sadly but it just grabbed my attention.
Samuelson and Keynes if that means anything.
My teacher did all manner of practical examples to back up the bookwork and it has always sat with me.
Plenty of time for Martin Lewis-money saving expert fella.Debt isn't bad but bad debt is bad.That applies to countries and governments.I have some German war time stamps that have been over stamped with 10000 dm -for a stamp! Also the story of the person standing in a queue in wartime inflation Germany with a basket full cash and a passer by stole the basket not the cash,

[McLaren]

Navy

I'ill ignore that you haven't acknowledged that individuals and government are totally different in terms of the economics of debt. And secondly if you say "over extending" you are by definition starting from the point where an entity has over borrowed.

I ask again, for those that are against high rates of borrowing by a government can you tell me specifically what you have against that?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I'ill ignore that you haven't acknowledged that individuals and government are totally different in terms of the economics of debt.  And secondly if you say "over extending" you are by definition starting from the point where an entity has over borrowed.

I ask again, for those that are against high rates of borrowing by a government can you tell me specifically what you have against that?

Roller has given you an answer. Why don't you start the debate by laying out your thoughts on Government borrowing as a concept?

[McLaren]

Navy

Roller has said that some people (he is yet to confirm his view) might worry about the countries ability to meet debt repayments. Is that really the extent to the anti borrowing argument?

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

[navyblueshorts]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

[McLaren]

I really thought this would be simple, but it appears people are very cagey about revealing what it is that they have against higher rates of government borrowing.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

[Roller_Coaster]

I have confirmed my view twice Mac. In my opinion, the problem with borrowing is the amount/ability to repay and the opportunity cost of what the money that is being spent on interest payments could have been used for. I have avoided the subjective "excessive" to keep it simple, as the so called dummies guide doesn't appear to have cut it.

It is, in a number of ways, the same for individuals as governments, you just need to be able to see how.

I can't (or can no longer) afford the £250 a month interest payment on my personal loan until pay day.
The UK government does not have the free cash flow to be able to pay the £25 billion interest payment this month until tax receipts are in.

We can both default and have no-one willing to lend to us without an extortionate interest rate or we could both find other ways to meet our obligations. I may go to a payday lender, a government may issue more debt. Both cost more money without addressing the underlying capital outstanding problem and so are helping feed a debt spiral, which may at some point in the future cause real issues.

In each case, the amount of interest to be paid cannot be spent on alternatives. So the £250 I need for interest (however I fund it) can't be spent on bus fares to the municipal golf course and the £25 billion the government has to pay to the Chinese in interest can't be spent on hospitals and nurses or schools and teachers to educate people on economics.

If I like getting a bus to a municipal golf course and my debt servicing prevent me from doing that, it is a problem.
If the government likes affording services and debt servicing prevent it from doing that, it is a problem.

No, this is not the extent of the argument against borrowing but it is again worth going over the very basics in what I thought were understandable or relatable terms.

I am generally right of centre leaning so (at the basic level put forward a few times so far) I find that these arguments outweigh the borrow and spend for growth route generally seen from the left. But I am at least willing and to a small extent able to see both sides of the argument and acknowledge that some borrowing will be required and has to be seen as one small cog in a colossal global mechanism of socioeconomicodiplomaticopolitico life. Knowing/acknowledging that countries do have to borrow, then the inability to borrow at a reasonable rate is a problem. See Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain as examples. These PIIGS of Europe had/have debt following the crisis 10 years ago had to be issued at a much higher interest rate to make people buy it and so they have to pay more out in interest rather than fund services. They still suffer now and the extra financial burden is a real world example of what I see as a problem of borrowing. If you've got this far, let us know what the triptrapoverthewoodenbridgeonomics school of thought has to say on the matter.

Kwin - not knowledgeable enough on Trump's policies to know exactly what or how far trumponomics goes. I did have a meeting with a New York Republican Fund Manager who thinks he's a kn0b, but, he did say that one of Trump's policies is that for every bit of legislation put forward, 2 related pieces have to be removed. Which, the guy explained, was a great idea for cutting through swathes of red tape enacted through the years.

Obviously that does have the potential to cut both ways, but the examples he cited were along the lines of (ie this is hypothetical), say, making digitisation of public record available through an app to all registered users. But to get that through, the need for a public official to countersign an original application for said public record and the rule that information had to be disseminated by mail with an original wet ink signature of a public officer were removed.

[navyblueshorts]

I really thought this would be simple, but it appears people are very cagey about revealing what it is that they have against higher rates of government borrowing.

You won't answer the question asked as to what it is you do for a career, will you? Anyway, people aren't going to set themselves up. There was some mention previously re. State-level borrowing and debt. I don't recall anyone really pillorying it outside of suggesting that too much borrowing is a bad idea.

The fact you're pursuing this suggests you think there's nothing wrong with large-scale State borrowing. Assuming this and the fact you say posts have previously suggested it's bad, I would have thought the logical thing for you to have done was refute that it's bad and explain why you think this. Instead of that, you go fishing. I thought Roller was pretty clear, as a starter for 10, in putting forward a position on this, but, again, rather than entering into a discussion on his points, you ask for more specifics.

Again, perhaps you can give us all the benefit of your wisdom, and explain why high levels of State debt are a good thing, or at least, not as bad as is widely assumed?

Anyway, why am I wasting energy? Either elaborate your position to start a conversation, or accept it isn't happening.

[navyblueshorts]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Of course. I give you permission . I'm referring to evidence, of which I've seen stuff all.

[beninho]

Anyone watch the Laura Kuensberg programme the other night. Was really good. Also brought back into light how the 2017 general election screwed the tories. Surely as soon as they lost a majority after banging on about brexit showed that brexit wasn't as important as they thought. Labour increased its share on the back of refusing a no deal brexit. That it has taken this long to figure out that compromise is better then the erg lunatics is beyond staggering.

Brexit will happen, but it will be with a customs union or something similar. It will anger both sides, which is good. It should anger both sides because it has to be a middle ground.

No deal is hopefully dead, anyone wanting one, is probably an idiot.

[navyblueshorts]

I have confirmed my view twice Mac. In my opinion, the problem with borrowing is the amount/ability to repay and the opportunity cost of what the money that is being spent on interest payments could have been used for. I have avoided the subjective "excessive" to keep it simple, as the so called dummies guide doesn't appear to have cut it.

It is, in a number of ways, the same for individuals as governments, you just need to be able to see how.

I can't (or can no longer) afford the £250 a month interest payment on my personal loan until pay day.
The UK government does not have the free cash flow to be able to pay the £25 billion interest payment this month until tax receipts are in.

We can both default and have no-one willing to lend to us without an extortionate interest rate or we could both find other ways to meet our obligations. I may go to a payday lender, a government may issue more debt. Both cost more money without addressing the underlying capital outstanding problem and so are helping feed a debt spiral, which may at some point in the future cause real issues.

In each case, the amount of interest to be paid cannot be spent on alternatives. So the £250 I need for interest (however I fund it) can't be spent on bus fares to the municipal golf course and the £25 billion the government has to pay to the Chinese in interest can't be spent on hospitals and nurses or schools and teachers to educate people on economics.

If I like getting a bus to a municipal golf course and my debt servicing prevent me from doing that, it is a problem.
If the government likes affording services and debt servicing prevent it from doing that, it is a problem.

No, this is not the extent of the argument against borrowing but it is again worth going over the very basics in what I thought were understandable or relatable terms.

I am generally right of centre leaning so (at the basic level put forward a few times so far) I find that these arguments outweigh the borrow and spend for growth route generally seen from the left. But I am at least willing and to a small extent able to see both sides of the argument and acknowledge that some borrowing will be required and has to be seen as one small cog in a colossal global mechanism of socioeconomicodiplomaticopolitico life. Knowing/acknowledging that countries do have to borrow, then the inability to borrow at a reasonable rate is a problem. See Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain as examples. These PIIGS of Europe had/have debt following the crisis 10 years ago had to be issued at a much higher interest rate to make people buy it and so they have to pay more out in interest rather than fund services. They still suffer now and the extra financial burden is a real world example of what I see as a problem of borrowing. If you've got this far, let us know what the triptrapoverthewoodenbridgeonomics school of thought has to say on the matter.

Kwin - not knowledgeable enough on Trump's policies to know exactly what or how far trumponomics goes. I did have a meeting with a New York Republican Fund Manager who thinks he's a kn0b, but, he did say that one of Trump's policies is that for every bit of legislation put forward, 2 related pieces have to be removed. Which, the guy explained, was a great idea for cutting through swathes of red tape enacted through the years.

Obviously that does have the potential to cut both ways, but the examples he cited were along the lines of (ie this is hypothetical), say, making digitisation of public record available through an app to all registered users. But to get that through, the need for a public official to countersign an original application for said public record and the rule that information had to be disseminated by mail with an original wet ink signature of a public officer were removed.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Of course. I give you permission . I'm referring to evidence, of which I've seen stuff all.

I've seen some evidence in his initial comments and I think his line of questioning has a clear purpose and in itself shows understanding.

[beninho]

Borrowing is not a bad idea in general. Overborrowing at bad terms is a bad idea. Being unable to repay the money is very bad. Its all pretty simple.

[navyblueshorts]

Anyone watch the Laura Kuensberg programme the other night. Was really good. Also brought back into light how the 2017 general election screwed the tories. Surely as soon as they lost a majority after banging on about brexit showed that brexit wasn't as important as they thought. Labour increased its share on the back of refusing a no deal brexit. That it has taken this long to figure out that compromise is better then the erg lunatics is beyond staggering.

Brexit will happen, but it will be with a customs union or something similar. It will anger both sides, which is good. It should anger both sides because it has to be a middle ground.

No deal is hopefully dead, anyone wanting one, is probably an idiot.

No, but must go take a look. Ta for reminder.

[Diggers]

Borrowing is not a bad idea in general. Overborrowing at bad terms is a bad idea. Being unable to repay the money is very bad. Its all pretty simple.

Could borrowing be used to make a bad time good? How do you forecast what over borrowing would be? You can't take borrowing in isolation as some kind of policy in itself, it needs to be seen as a means to fulfill economic (or social) policy.

[Diggers]

Borrowing is not a bad idea in general. Overborrowing at bad terms is a bad idea. Being unable to repay the money is very bad. Its all pretty simple.

Could borrowing be used to make a bad time good? How do you forecast what over borrowing would be? You can't take borrowing in isolation as some kind of policy in itself, it needs to be seen as a means to fulfill economic (or social) policy.

Though I guess if your idea of good economic forecasting is say, a no deal Brexit won't be as bad a world war 3....

[navyblueshorts]

Borrowing is not a bad idea in general. Overborrowing at bad terms is a bad idea. Being unable to repay the money is very bad. Its all pretty simple.

Could borrowing be used to make a bad time good? How do you forecast what over borrowing would be? You can't take borrowing in isolation as some kind of policy in itself, it needs to be seen as a means to fulfill economic (or social) policy.

Though I guess if your idea of good economic forecasting is say, a no deal Brexit won't be as bad a world war 3....

I think that's a pretty safe forecast.

[McLaren]

Roller

In economic terms the individual and the nation are treated by different branches of the subject. The choices of an individual are covered by microeconomics and the monetary policy of a nation is dealt with by macroeconomic theory.

You also seem stuck on the opportunity cost of debt repayments, but why not worry equally about the opportunity costs of not spending that borrowed money in your economy?  

Oddly for someone on the other side of the debate Dyna mentioned Keynes as an interest of his, and Keynesian economics is all about creating demand via government spending (from borrowing).

One way to think about the difference between a micro and macro economic view of spending debt is to look at the different perspectives an individual and nation have.  The individual might think about debt from more of an accounting position whereas a nation has to think about the size and health of the economy as a whole. If you can create a healthy economy you would hope to get way more back from the funds invested in your nation than the cost of repaying the debt. This is where the question is more about economics than accounting, you need to find the optimal rate of borrowing rather than trying to meet a certain monthly cost.

Also sounds like you are involved in the corporate world. Word of warning, people involved in the business world often have the worst understanding of economics because they want to treat a country like a company.


Navy

I am just trying to get some reasoning for why quite a few of the posters on this board come from the fiscal hawk school of economics.  I am not sure why no one other than Roller will give an answer, and even his answer is based more on budget responsibility rather than economic principles.  And as I said his answer mixes accountancy, micro and macro economics up a little.

[beninho]

Problem with over borrowing is that you don't realise you've done it until you can't pay it.

[JAS]

I do find macroeconomics a fascinating subject these days so I’ll indulge MAC a little. I don’t see Government borrowing as bad although I accept that there will be a level that beyond which is too much. Don’t think there’s anyone here with a tight enough grasp on the Uk fiscal levers and world events which may impact to be able to put a figure on what too much is. In any case...too much for who? What would be the purpose? To end austerity and make sure all government services were financed appropriately? To cover a short term before increasing tax receipts kicked in? To finance pie in the sky infrastructure projects?

There is also a case for saying the whole system as it is is flawed. Keynesian economics works but just because it hit a bit of an inflationary spiral in the 70s it lost favour.

Neoliberal monetarism of the Milton Friedman kind is much worshipped but really it’s fingerprints are on the smoking gun of the 2008 crash.

When in a crisis, one encourages borrow to rebuild (1945 anyone?) the other espouses the supposed virtues of austerity - essentially screw the poor and the middle class so the rich can rebuild their assets that were squandered when the flawed system hit the rocks.

I honestly think we need to emphatically burn our bridges with monetarist neoliberal economics, as austerity has helped to prove, it is there to serve the elite and the elite alone.

[Roller_Coaster]

Roller

In economic terms the individual and the nation are treated by different branches of the subject. The choices of an individual are covered by microeconomics and the monetary policy of a nation is dealt with by macroeconomic theory.

You also seem stuck on the opportunity cost of debt repayments, but why not worry equally about the opportunity costs of not spending that borrowed money in your economy?  

Oddly for someone on the other side of the debate Dyna mentioned Keynes as an interest of his, and Keynesian economics is all about creating demand via government spending (from borrowing).

One way to think about the difference between a micro and macro economic view of spending debt is to look at the different perspectives an individual and nation have.  The individual might think about debt from more of an accounting position whereas a nation has to think about the size and health of the economy as a whole. If you can create a healthy economy you would hope to get way more back from the funds invested in your nation than the cost of repaying the debt.  This is where the question is more about economics than accounting, you need to find the optimal rate of borrowing rather than trying to meet a certain monthly cost.

Also sounds like you are involved in the corporate world. Word of warning, people involved in the business world often have the worst understanding of economics because they want to treat a country like a company.


Navy

I am just trying to get some reasoning for why quite a few of the posters on this board come from the fiscal hawk school of economics.  I am not sure why no one other than Roller will give an answer, and even his answer is based more on budget responsibility rather than economic principles.  And as I said his answer mixes accountancy, micro and macro economics up a little.

Yes, micro and macro do differ, but there are parallels in some principles, which can be useful if having to find nuanced ways of trying to explain the same thing a few times. (I'm not stuck on it at all. You claimed repeatedly that I hadn't answered, I had nothing else I wanted to add to my first answer so had to effectively answer in slightly different ways with little more than the same thing.) You asked what posters thought was bad, I answered. Other people may not have answered because they find it dull. Or they prefer to watch your posting exchange with someone else for a change. What's the microeconomic theory about non-participation? Or when it gets to the majority of regular contributors to a small sub-section of a forum it's technically macro for that sub-set?

Also sounds like you are involved in the corporate world. Word of warning, people involved in the business world often have the worst understanding of economics because they want to treat a country like a company.

Thanks for the warning Mac. I shall heed it immediately and begin organically farming peace biscuits in a non-profit co-op. Can I borrow a couple of million quid to start it?

[navyblueshorts]

Roller

In economic terms the individual and the nation are treated by different branches of the subject. The choices of an individual are covered by microeconomics and the monetary policy of a nation is dealt with by macroeconomic theory.

You also seem stuck on the opportunity cost of debt repayments, but why not worry equally about the opportunity costs of not spending that borrowed money in your economy?  

Oddly for someone on the other side of the debate Dyna mentioned Keynes as an interest of his, and Keynesian economics is all about creating demand via government spending (from borrowing).

One way to think about the difference between a micro and macro economic view of spending debt is to look at the different perspectives an individual and nation have.  The individual might think about debt from more of an accounting position whereas a nation has to think about the size and health of the economy as a whole. If you can create a healthy economy you would hope to get way more back from the funds invested in your nation than the cost of repaying the debt.  This is where the question is more about economics than accounting, you need to find the optimal rate of borrowing rather than trying to meet a certain monthly cost.

Also sounds like you are involved in the corporate world. Word of warning, people involved in the business world often have the worst understanding of economics because they want to treat a country like a company.


Navy

I am just trying to get some reasoning for why quite a few of the posters on this board come from the fiscal hawk school of economics.  I am not sure why no one other than Roller will give an answer, and even his answer is based more on budget responsibility rather than economic principles.  And as I said his answer mixes accountancy, micro and macro economics up a little.

Bravo! See what you can do? Not my area, at all, but just out of interest, if the theories of macroeconomics are so sound, why is there never agreement on what to do? If it's evidence-based, why do we have to endure all the nonsense from right and left about how to fund the UK?

[Diggers]

Hammond seemingly throwing his hat into the referendum camp. Would a confirmatory referendum include remain, I’d imagine so. It’s certainly creeping back up the possible outcomes table.

[super_realist]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

[super_realist]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

[super_realist]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase

Studying for a career change Diggers?

ps "sadcase" isn't a word.

[super_realist]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

Sure, of course, completely reasonable claims. Lots of people are 1 handicappers. Lots of 40 year olds run sub 3 hours, especially when they don't have to prove it with actual, you know, proof. I've just gone to scratch after a bit of hard practise. Ran a park run in 17 minutes as well. And my school pays triple normal salaries.

[JAS]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

Sure, of course, completely reasonable claims. Lots of people are 1 handicappers. Lots of 40 year olds run sub 3 hours, especially when they don't have to prove it with actual, you know, proof. I've just gone to scratch after a bit of hard practise. Ran a park run in 17 minutes as well. And my school pays triple normal salaries.

Must admit, I disagree with a lot of Super’s views on our political discourse and the bizarreness of some of his point making on both politics and football make me chuckle but I must admit I’ve never doubted for a second that he’s a very low handicapper and a fairly able runner (says a former 4 handicapper with a 24 year old marathon PB of 02:51:52). To get to those levels in either pursuit (regardless of talent) requires a considerable amount of dedicated time and single mindedness, that single mindedness does come across in a lot of Supers postings to be fair.

[Sponsored content]