Him wrote:
A legacy of liberalisation and under regulation of financial markets across the world.
BiffasBoys wrote:
That old chestnut.
Yes, that old chestnut.
Do you dispute it?
If so, give reasons.
Him wrote:
Who says we can't afford the spending? Borrowing rates are at about the lowest rate for decades.
BiffasBoys wrote:
No they aren't. Look at the debt/gdp ratio
That's the level of borrowing not the yield rate.
Jeez.
Him wrote:
There seems to be an obsession by those of a left leaning persuasion to constantly point at the US model. Why is this? It's acase of kicking the debt down the road for someone else to deal with. the US is in rude health is it?
The US has had rising GDP growth for the last fourteen successive quarters, all of which were greater increases in growth than ANY that the UK has had since the recession.
e.g. Obama lent huge amounts to the US car industry, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs, the industry has restructured and has now almost completely paid back those loans.
It is not a case of kicking the debt down the road ... the greater the number of people that are employed, the greater the tax take (obviously!) to pay down debt ... and the greater the GDP (obviously!).
BiffasBoys wrote:
Where is supply falling short of demand? Higher purchase prices & rents? Relative to when? I think you'll find the house price boom is a thing of the past.
Who mentioned the boom?
Take a look at the house-price-to-earnings ratio which currently stands at about 5.5 ... that is to say that the average house costs around 5.5. times the average salary.
Averaged-out since 1981 the ratio has been around 4.0
Just before the banking crisis it was about 6.5 times.
It's come down since to 5.5 but is still high.
Considering that for decades up to the late 1980's the level was about 3.0, it is still nearly twice as high.
Greater supply would bring the price down in terms of multiples of annual earnings (obviously!).
BiffasBoys wrote:
You mean like cutting VAT to stimulate the economy, when all it did was lose the exchequer billions & produce not a scintilla of growth
Untrue, look at the stats, Darling's stimulus brought GDP from minus 6.8 to plus 0.5 and still rising ... until the election, two quarters later it went down again.
This government cancelled the greater part of all capital investment in infrastructure etc, immediately depressing GDP.
Cuts were needed, Labour said they'd halve the deficit in one parliament ... Tories said they'd eliminate it entirely in one parliament but every year over the last four years, that estimate has moved by another year ... it's still five years away, so they say, so they have failed miserably in their own past estimation.
BiffasBoys wrote:
Boot them out? Why should there be social housing apart from the most needy in society? Why should anyone who can afford not to be subsidised by the state be so?
Have you not read my reply?
Who said they can afford it? Look at the earnings to price ratio.
BiffasBoys wrote:
The benefits paid out may be higher, but there's no capital outlay & ongoing capital costs. You seem to be missing this point.
No, it is you who is missing the point that capital outlay and ongoing capital costs don't vanish just because they are in the private sector, they are recouped via rents, hence the higher benefits required to pay for them.
Christ, this is like pulling teeth.