Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:29 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Well he's got his head up his arrse there's no reason to think he won't have a pair of eyes up there too...

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:14 pm  

DaveO wrote:

It is also worth adding that 201,029,000,000 is written as two hundred and one billion and twenty-nine million pounds. So shortening that to 201,029bn ought to get that across given the context unless you want to be obtuse. As I said you knew exactly what I meant.

No I did not know what you meant, because you did not. The fact that you continued to talk about c. 200000 / 200,000 billion without being able to see that such figures were so far out of context relative to the UK economy shows you are full of 'BS.' You would not write the figure as 201,029 but as 201.029 bn - these are very standard conventions in numeracy, ones which should have been drummed into you at about 7 years of age. You are financially, numerically and economically illiterate and now starting to look even more so with your excuses.

In future, when trying to present a point of view based on links to articles please at least try to vaguely to understand what you have read. That's the end on my comments on the subject.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:12 pm  

Dally wrote:

In future, when trying to present a point of view based on links to articles please at least try to vaguely to understand what you have read.

Thats as fine a definition of irony as I've ever seen.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:50 pm  

Dally wrote:

You would not write the figure as 201,029 but as 201.029 bn - these are very standard conventions in numeracy, ones which should have been drummed into you at about 7 years of age.

Unless you're European.

Just pointing that out, that's all.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:20 am  

Dally wrote:

No I did not know what you meant, because you did not. The fact that you continued to talk about c. 200000 / 200,000 billion without being able to see that such figures were so far out of context relative to the UK economy shows you are full of 'BS.' You would not write the figure as 201,029 but as 201.029 bn - these are very standard conventions in numeracy, ones which should have been drummed into you at about 7 years of age. You are financially, numerically and economically illiterate and now starting to look even more so with your excuses.

In future, when trying to present a point of view based on links to articles please at least try to vaguely to understand what you have read. That's the end on my comments on the subject.

That is rich coming from you given your daily demonstrations of being
clueless.

As to convention you demonstrate your ignorance since both comma and dot notation are valid.

It is quite plain I meant circa 200 billion. If you could not see that then you are even less bright than I thought and you were not starting from a high point on that score as it was.

Your pedantry is just a lame attempt to detract from the obvious point that was made. The fact you can't even indulge in that without the insults speaks volumes.

Re: Coalition to break? : Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:19 am  

DaveO wrote: As to convention you demonstrate your ignorance since both comma and dot notation are valid. You used neither in your original post. Nor in this follow up post. Are you still unable to see the very clear pattern in the deficit from 1991-1996? It increases during the recession, peaks the year after the recession ends and then reduces year on year after that. This pattern continues all the way to the Labour surpluses from 1998-2000. Comparisons of this period to Labour's overspending from 2002-2007 are simply not valid as the economy was not in a comparable state. It is as meaningless a comparison as saying that Labour ran an even greater deficit for the two years 2008-2009 than in either of those six year periods. Context matters.

DaveO wrote: As to convention you demonstrate your ignorance since both comma and dot notation are valid. You used neither in your original post. Nor in this follow up post. Are you still unable to see the very clear pattern in the deficit from 1991-1996? It increases during the recession, peaks the year after the recession ends and then reduces year on year after that. This pattern continues all the way to the Labour surpluses from 1998-2000. Comparisons of this period to Labour's overspending from 2002-2007 are simply not valid as the economy was not in a comparable state. It is as meaningless a comparison as saying that Labour ran an even greater deficit for the two years 2008-2009 than in either of those six year periods. Context matters.

Re: Coalition to break? : Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:40 am  

SBR wrote:

Comparisons of this period to Labour's overspending from 2002-2007 are simply not valid as the economy was not in a comparable state. It is as meaningless a comparison as saying that Labour ran an even greater deficit for the two years 2008-2009 than in either of those six year periods. Context matters.

Quite, and I think we are all well aware of why the Labour Party needed to spend tax and borrowed money on public services during their tenure.

Those of us who have been around for a few parliaments (and I still find it hard to come to terms with the fact that there are 30 year olds who have only ever known three parliaments) will be well aware that its always been the nature of parliament to have a socialist government spend money on public services and a capitalist government cut those services to the bone in favour of tax handouts (which by their nature usually benefit the more wealthy, more).

Has always been thus, will always be thus, you might say it balances the country out nicely and that three term governments upset that balance.

Re: Coalition to break? : Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:08 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote: It's quite simple. Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill". The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain. I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money. This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view " In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."The Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired

XBrettKennyX wrote: It's quite simple. Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill". The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain. I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money. This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view " In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."The Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired

Re: Coalition to break? : Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:22 pm  

major hound wrote: This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view " In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."The Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired The Graudiad. That well known impartial newspaper.......... Absolute garbage. My favourite quote is As for all that public sector borrowing, it is being done at negligible interest rates – much lower than the rate at which the private sector can borrow for all those "private" infrastructure initiatives the government is doctrinally trying to encourage. WHY are public sector interest rates so low? It's precisely because the money markets have confidence in the economic measures that are being implemented. What a moron the author is. I find it amusing that the left wingers try and pick holes in what is obviously correct. Why on earth would the Coalition government want to impose such fiscal prudence if it wastn't deemed absoulutely necessary, knowing that it will make themselves more unpopular? We have tried the Labour policiy of "buying votes with other peoples money". It doesn't work and has left us with an unprecedented debt.

major hound wrote: This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view " In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."The Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired The Graudiad. That well known impartial newspaper.......... Absolute garbage. My favourite quote is As for all that public sector borrowing, it is being done at negligible interest rates – much lower than the rate at which the private sector can borrow for all those "private" infrastructure initiatives the government is doctrinally trying to encourage. WHY are public sector interest rates so low? It's precisely because the money markets have confidence in the economic measures that are being implemented. What a moron the author is. I find it amusing that the left wingers try and pick holes in what is obviously correct. Why on earth would the Coalition government want to impose such fiscal prudence if it wastn't deemed absoulutely necessary, knowing that it will make themselves more unpopular? We have tried the Labour policiy of "buying votes with other peoples money". It doesn't work and has left us with an unprecedented debt.

Re: Coalition to break? : Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:00 pm  

I find The Guardian awful these days. The pages around the cartoon are constantly full of slanted negativity. It makes the Daily Mail look optimistic!