Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 15-05-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 13-05-2025
- 3: Interesting Links for 10-05-2025
- 4: Interesting Links for 22-04-2025
- 5: A thing I wish Google Maps could do
- 6: Interesting Links for 12-05-2025
- 7: Photo cross-post
- 8: Interesting Links for 11-05-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 28-04-2025
- 10: Why I don't think that "UPF" is a very useful term
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 12:15 pm (UTC)What was true was if the deficit had continued at that rate it would've been.
This: Is disingenuous at best. There was a recession in the early 90s and during a recession, as this bloke correctly points out, a deficit should happen. Clarke took over from Lamont and did an amazing job bringing Govt finances under control and sorting the economy out. As can be seen from that paragraph wihtout even following the link, the deficit was shrinking.
Labour promised in 1997 to follow Tory spending plans for the first 3 years (and got a lot of flack from the backbenchers for, rightly, sticking to the promise). It was those spending plans that saw the deficit turned into a surplus and hte national debt repaid by significant amounts for the first time in ages. Combine that with the 3g spectrum selloff and it explains the entirety of Brown's deficit/debt reduction.
Guess what happened immediately after they stopped following Tory spending plans? Yup, deficit comes back, Golden Rule forgotten, what was that Prudence thing that he said he believed in...
If the IMF says the deficit was caused by the recession alone, how come it existed in 2007 at the height of the boom? I think that's selective quoting at best, imbecilic stupidity is more likely, or just HuffPo being as accurate as usual. The increase in savings during a recession (um, yeah, normal and predicted) in no way covers the amount needed to cover the deficit.
Plus, if ratings had fallen, many regular bond buyers, like pension funds, wouldn't be able, by regulation, to buy them anymore, if you buy an annuity the regulations say you get that, so the people providing it have to ensure the money's in something 100% secure, like a treasury bond.
But if it's believed there's a risk of default, like high deficit countries in recession are statistically prone to, then the cost of borrowing goes up-Chinese savers don't want to invest in unsafe bets, etc.
Basically, it's claptrap, several grains of truth, and a few easy shots at the Idiot Boy, but the deficit was there in 2006 and 2007, if they'd been as prudent as Brown promised he would be and said he was being, then the deficit wouldn't be structural.
Plus, Govt spending continues to go up year on year, it's cuts in projected increased budget not actual reductions in overall budget, it's reductions in what Labour said they were going to spend based on growth predictions made in 2007 for the next 10 years, not cuts in what was being spent in 2010.
Labour did create a mess, despite many promises that they wouldn't do so, they promised the Golden Rule and prudence, we got deficit spending at the height of a boom, utter insanity and a complete breach of basic Keynesian principles.
Don't know what axe to grind that particular conservative has, but, y'know, HuffPo article, the level of economics is right up there with the scientific rigoru they use to endorse homeopathy or whatever crackpot nonsense Ariana's decided is good for you this month.
(there are some truths and half truths in the thing, but the central foundation for all three points is bobbins)