Socialists

[southstand1882]

Simple. After the World War, Britain voted to change society as a whole. Churchill was thrown out of office after leading the Empire to her finest victory. It did not come without cost, that victory; Britain was tired, broke and in ruins. But the soldiers returning home did not want society to go back to the way it was; they did not want to be left begging on the streets, as their fathers had after the First World War. And the British public didn't want that either.

So they voted for Labour. They voted to banish the five giant evils of society. Squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, disease. They voted for the NHS, they voted for social security, they voted for the Beveridge Report.

And every British citizen since has had the privilege of being able to access these services.

A serviceable debt is good; I agree with you. And that is what every country should aspire to.

But the debt was serviceable, is what I've been trying to point out all this time. It was serviceable, until the bankers had their little cocaine and investment party and forced the government into unsustainable spending. So you shouldn't blame the NHS, or pensions, or the public sector; blame the people who caused this mess. The bankers.

Good post, then you ruin it at the end.

Government spending is out of control and has been for too long.

It has simply been hidden by easy access to debt.

If I get tinkled tonight and drive my car and kill somebody.

Who would you put in jail? Me, or my pub landlord.

It really is as simple as that.

Governments OVERSPEND and BORROW too much.

Banks help them get tinkled, but they don't force borrowing.

 

[southstand1882]

Haven't you been watching the riots in Egypt, Greece and Spain? People, middle class people, have lost all hope, not just for themselves, but for their children too. All because of policies you apparently advocate for Britain.

Do you want that for the UK?

Do you want that misery here?

Because that's what we'll get if we continue to do what Greece and Spain have done.

SPENT TOO MUCH and NOT PAID ENOUGH IN TAX

 

[DubaiSpur]

And as for Japan. If you fancy a 20 year recession, they would be the model to replicate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)

They didn't abandon their social security. And if you read the article, you'd see that Paul Krugman describes that recession as a liquidity trap, when people save too much, consumers and government alike. If you read on, he points out that relying on deposits to secure low-interest loans led to crony capitalism and lax lending standards, which caused the crisis.

Another argument for regulation of the private sector. Hooray.

And just out of curiosity, would you not consider Japan to be a 'major world economy'? Their GDP (PPP), as of 2012's estimates, is $4.616 trillion, which puts them third on the world list, behind China and the United States. Far above the 'major world economy' that is the UK. Far above Brazil, for that matter, and two places ahead of Germany.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Tax yes. The riots are in response to reduced pensions, cutting services etc, exactly what you advocate. How do you think that would go down in Tottenham?

 

[DubaiSpur]

Tax yes. The riots are in response to reduced pensions, cutting services etc, exactly what you advocate. How do you think that would go down in Tottenham?

Exactly. Most residents only have the NHS and social security nets (benefits, tax rebates et al) to provide for them. Take those away because some fudgers in the City got creative with packaged debt, and the riots of last year will be chicken-feed.

What you advocate southstand, will lead to worse unrest than keeping the present system going.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Good post, then you ruin it at the end.

Government spending is out of control and has been for too long.

It has simply been hidden by easy access to debt.

If I get tinkled tonight and drive my car and kill somebody.

Who would you put in jail? Me, or my pub landlord.

It really is as simple as that.

Governments OVERSPEND and BORROW too much.

Banks help them get tinkled, but they don't force borrowing.

Again, banks fail because they got too creative with money that isn't theirs-->goverment bailouts of banks too big to fail, which costs billions--> leads to a recession ,which necessitates massive government spending (As per Keynesian economics) to get us out of it------>debt increases.

The root cause is the root cause, and is the key in differentiating between serviceable and unserviceable debt. the UK's debt became unsustainable in 2008. The crisis occurred in 2008. These are both IMF figures. Ergo, correlation shouldn't be that hard.

 

[Hootnow]

Read the words again

'Families affected by cancer'

I didn't say 'patients inflicted with cancer'

Do you have any experience with cancer in your family?

If you did you would be aware that doctors and nurses don't support your family at all. They provide medical care to patients.

But really.......indeed

I don't really want to get into this argument because I love Macmillan, they're a superb organisation whose work is outstanding.

But without those public sector workers, Macmillan's job would be limited to grief counselling.

Yes, I have. And the NHS and Macmillan did fine fine jobs. I am grateful for both. I am also a mature medical student so have seen cancer from the other side and seen how doctors and nurses do help and how much the patients and their families appreciate this.

There is space for both private and public in cancer care. And it is certainly not the example to use imo for how the private sector can take over all of welfare. Especially when we move away from healthcare such as cancer and move to something like unemployment, the elderly, disabled, education or the prison services, where people are far more likely to be taken advantage of.

Just having a quick read through the thread, I'm also not particularly sure how Brazil, Germany and the UK are all major world economies while Japan, a country that has a significantly higher GDP (in fact, more than double both ours and Brazil's) is apparently irrelevant?

 

[southstand1882]

Again, banks fail because they got too creative with money that isn't theirs

To feed what?

Our government's insatiable lust for spending money

Your insatiable lust for having the latest iPhone, 3 holidays a year, a brand new car

They are the pushers

But the real problem are the users

Banks simply created complex instruments to fuel this "must have now, pay later" mentality

It needs to end

 

[DubaiSpur]

To feed what?

Our government's insatiable lust for spending money

Your insatiable lust for having the latest iPhone, 3 holidays a year, a brand new car

They are the pushers

But the real problem are the users

Banks simply created complex instruments to fuel this "must have now, pay later" mentality

It needs to end

The credit crunch happened because of cheap loans given to questionable people with little to no record or proof of ability to repay them. Why? Because by the time they had to pay up, it wouldn't be the issuing bank's problem. The local branch in Fresno, California wouldn't need to worry about the defaults on debt building up around them, because all those debts had been sold to a bank in Mongolia, which then packaged them in with solid, AAA rated debts and sold them on to a bank in India, which did the same and sold them to Northern Rock. Etcetera, etcetera. And yes, this was fueled by the 'must have now, pay later' mentality.

But then, you look at Canada. A Western, liberal country with a magnificently strong social welfare program. When the recession hit, they didn't close up all the Ontario health insurance plans and say 'that's it, no more social welfare'. They didn't cut pensions, or public services, for fear of appearing 'socialist'. Why? Because their banks were regulated; consolidated, and very, very well regulated, with their investment and private banking arms separated and ring-fenced to prevent debt contamination. In short, they had a bureaucracy dedicated to preventing this sort of rampant capitalism having its way with an entire economy. They had regulations.

As a result, the recession was barely felt in Canada, and only then because of the contaminant effects of the recession in the States, Canada's largest trading partner. They weathered it and came through, with manageable public debt, and as a result, their central bank governor's just been appointed as the head of the Bank of England, because he was right and Mervyn bloody King was wrong.

They spend money too. They have a debt as well. They have rampant consumerism, and 3 holidays a year, and the iphone 2000 or whatever bloody iteration of it is out now, and brand new cars. What's the difference?

1) Their rich people pay their dues in taxes.
2) Their banks are regulated.
3) Their economy is ring-fenced.
4) Their social security is seen as a right, and not a disposable deadweight on the economy.
5) Thier government operates on the principle that people are greedy and stupid, and that the society must be protected from these two individual traits.

Hence you see regulations on banks, which filter through to the banks not giving loans to people with bad credit ratings. I had an experience of it myself when I was hauled into a lawyer's office for owing 12 dollars on a student credit card I had back in my university days and told in no uncertain terms that it had screwed my credit rating to brick.

As long as the government properly regulates private industry, and people pay their fair share in the knowledge that society benefits sometimes outweigh individual benefits, you will never see the kind of greed-fuelled clusterfudge that the US and the UK went through in the heady days of 2008.

The bankers were the problem. The only difference is, in Canada, they weren't allowed to get away with the brick they did in the UK/US, hence no overspending and debt increases were needed.

 

[southstand1882]

The credit crunch happened because of cheap loans given to questionable people with little to no record or proof of ability to repay them. Why? Because by the time they had to pay up, it wouldn't be the issuing bank's problem. The local branch in Fresno, California wouldn't need to worry about the defaults on debt building up around them, because all those debts had been sold to a bank in Mongolia, which then packaged them in with solid, AAA rated debts and sold them on to a bank in India, which did the same and sold them to Northern Rock. Etcetera, etcetera. And yes, this was fueled by the 'must have now, pay later' mentality.

But then, you look at Canada. A Western, liberal country with a magnificently strong social welfare program. When the recession hit, they didn't close up all the Ontario health insurance plans and say 'that's it, no more social welfare'. They didn't cut pensions, or public services, for fear of appearing 'socialist'. Why? Because their banks were regulated; consolidated, and very, very well regulated, with their investment and private banking arms separated and ring-fenced to prevent debt contamination. In short, they had a bureaucracy dedicated to preventing this sort of rampant capitalism having its way with an entire economy. They had regulations.

As a result, the recession was barely felt in Canada, and only then because of the contaminant effects of the recession in the States, Canada's largest trading partner. They weathered it and came through, with manageable public debt, and as a result, their central bank governor's just been appointed as the head of the Bank of England, because he was right and Mervyn bloody King was wrong.

They spend money too. They have a debt as well. They have rampant consumerism, and 3 holidays a year, and the iphone 2000 or whatever bloody iteration of it is out now, and brand new cars. What's the difference?

1) Their rich people pay their dues in taxes.
2) Their banks are regulated.
3) Their economy is ring-fenced.
4) Their social security is seen as a right, and not a disposable deadweight on the economy.
5) Thier government operates on the principle that people are greedy and stupid, and that the society must be protected from these two individual traits.

Hence you see regulations on banks, which filter through to the banks not giving loans to people with bad credit ratings. I had an experience of it myself when I was hauled into a lawyer's office for owing 12 dollars on a student credit card I had back in my university days and told in no uncertain terms that it had screwed my credit rating to brick.

As long as the government properly regulates private industry, and people pay their fair share in the knowledge that society benefits sometimes outweigh individual benefits, you will never see the kind of greed-fuelled clusterfudge that the US and the UK went through in the heady days of 2008.

The bankers were the problem. The only difference is, in Canada, they weren't allowed to get away with the brick they did in the UK/US, hence no overspending and debt increases were needed.

For the last fudging time

Here is our mounting debt pile, BEFORE the banking crisis:

YEAR £million
1992 238153
1993 290062
1994 329085
1995 370898
1996 397178
1997 413215
1998 410211
1999 405660
2000 400606
2001 385510
2002 402921
2003 444919
2004 491646
2005 533157
2006 577123
2007 624691

Can you spot a trend?

These number are taken directly from the ONS data tables.

They represent "General government gross consolidated debt at nominal value"

BEFORE THE BANKING CRISIS

DURING "BOOM" YEARS

Government spending is the problem

 

[southstand1882]

Canada

A recent report entitled "Public Sector Pensions: a Runaway Train?" by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) examines the looming disaster facing Canada's severely underfunded pension plans.

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/4329-public-sector-pensions-a-runaway-train.html

These plans are backed by Canadian taxpayers and will ultimately result in higher taxes. On top of that, Canada's defined benefit public sector pension plans are far ahead of their private sector counterparts, an issue that will create resentment as the two issues combine.


Canada's public sector is a rapidly growing entity. At the beginning of 2011, there were 3.14 million non-retired members of public sector pension plans, an increase of 26.6 percent over the decade as shown on this graph:

By way of comparison, the growth rate of private sector employment was less than half the rate of the public sector, reaching 12.8 percent over the same decade.


The graph shows us that membership in municipal government pension plans grew at 39.9 percent, followed by 23.1 percent for provincial government pension plans and "only" 21.6 percent for those enrolled in federal government pension plans. The overwhelming majority of these future pensioners are enrolled in defined benefit plans, the Cadillac of pensions, where pension income is guaranteed. In sharp contrast, private sector pension plan enrolment remained flat at 2.9 million members over the decade and again, in sharp contrast, only half of those future pensioners are beneficiaries of defined benefit plans.


Public sector employees do contribute a portion of their earnings to cover their future pensions, however, those contributions are only 41 percent of the total set aside. In 2011, of the $31.3 billion set aside for public sector pensions, employees contributed $12.8 billion (highlighted in light blue) and the unfettered generosity of Canadian taxpayers set aside the remaining $18.6 billion (highlighted in dark blue). On top of that, taxpayers funded liabilities averaging $1.3 billion per year (highlighted in black) over the past decade as shown in this graph:

Way back in 2001, an average of $5,754 (in 2011 dollars) was being set aside for the pension of an average public servant; by 2011, this had risen to $9,976 annually, a 73 percent increase.


Despite the setting aside of all of this money, the fact that most public sector pension plans are defined benefit plans means two things; first, taxpayers' liability for funding shortfalls is unlimited and second, the ultimate cost of the pensions is a complete unknown since pension entitlements are tied to salary levels. Estimates by the CFIB suggest that public sector pension plans have a total liability of about $1 trillion against assets of $673 billion, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for more than $300 billion. To put this number into perspective, this is over half of the current federal net debt.

Good luck Canada

 

[southstand1882]

I have bolded the important bits.

Canada is fudged over the next couple of decades

 

[southstand1882]

And my final post. I hope you read it in its entirety and UNDERSTAND it.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) released its 82nd annual report for the year 2011

The BIS is an intergovernmental organisation of the world's central banks located in Basel, Switzerland; in other words, it's the central bank for the world's central banks.

Highlights from the report:

The economies that were at the centre of the 2008 - 2009 financial crisis are still experiencing that splitting hangover headache from the collapse of their respective real estate booms and their excessive household debt levels.

BIS states that household debt levels remain close to 100 percent of GDP in several countries including Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Accompanying high household debt levels is the problem of highly leveraged governments and financial sectors that are very slow to improve the problems on their balance sheets, particularly in the world's developed economies.

BIS points the fickle finger of fate at government inaction for backing the world's central banks into a corner as average government deficits have risen from 1.5 percent of GDP in 2007 to 6.5 percent in 2011 and debt has risen from 75 percent of GDP to more than 110 percent in the same timeframe.

To bring government fiscal situations back to pre-crisis levels, it will take 20 consecutive years of surpluses exceeding 2 percent of GDP just to bring the debt-to-GDP levels back to pre-Great Recession levels.

Here's what BIS has to say about where the fault lies:

"The extraordinary persistence of loose monetary policy is largely the result of insufficient action by governments in addressing structural problems. Simply put: central banks are being cornered into prolonging monetary stimulus as governments drag their feet and adjustment is delayed. As we discuss in Chapter IV, any positive effects of such central bank efforts may be shrinking, whereas the negative side effects may be growing. Both conventionally and unconventionally accommodative monetary policies are palliatives and have their limits....In fact, near zero policy rates, combined with abundant and nearly unconditional liquidity support, weaken incentives for the private sector to repair balance sheets and for fiscal authorities to limit their borrowing requirements. They distort the financial system and in turn place added burdens on supervisors.

With nominal interest rates staying as low as they can go and central bank balance sheets continuing to expand, risks are surely building up. To a large extent they are the risks of unintended consequences, and they must be anticipated and managed. These consequences could include the wasteful support of effectively insolvent borrowers and banks – a phenomenon that haunted Japan in the 1990s – and artificially inflated asset prices that generate risks to financial stability down the road. One message of the crisis was that central banks could do much to avert a collapse. An even more important lesson is that underlying structural problems must be corrected during the recovery or we risk creating conditions that will lead rapidly to the next crisis.

 

[DubaiSpur]

You're right, I'm tired of this as well. So let me attempt, one more time, to explain;

1) Government debt = not inherently bad
2) 'Sustainable' key word
3)Government spending borrowed money = has existed since 1694, with tens of deficits and unsustainable spending periods
4)Britain maintains policy of aiming for 40 percent debt to GDP ratio as ideal, sustainable
4) Sustainable debt = serviceable within current revenue projections
5)Up till 2008, debt was sustainable
6)2008, Banks collapsed due to defaults on cheap, unreliable loans, unsustainable profit-driven regulation-free practises
7) government stepped in, spent billions bailing out, nationalising banks
8) Economy shaken, nosedived into recession
9) Keynesian economics holds that you should spend money during recession to stimulate demand and growth
10) Government spends, despite revenue loss from tax decreases and falling import/export gradients
11) Where is it forced to get money from? BORROWING
12) Spending has continued for four years, because of the massive impact of recession caused by banks
13) Has driven debt from 'sustainable' to 'unsustainable'
14) But does that mean we should cut back on social welfare? No
15) Because social welfare is what makes UK a first-world nation
16) Beveridge report still high point of post-war idealism , should not be abandoned in favour of tax loopholes, rich getting richer and corporate profit-motive taking over public good
17) Japan third economy in world by GDP (PPP), and has very strong social welfare system
18) This despite fact that Japanese debt default would shake world far more than 8th economy in the world (UK) defaulting
19) And despite fact that Japan has more than 200 percent debt to GDP
20) So if Japan looks after its citizens, should UK abandon them in favour of 1 percent and corporate profit seeking? No.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I've read both thoroughly, understood both thoroughly. And I still think it's stupidity to demand cuts. The second quoted article states very clearly what caused this present deficit boom; the fudging financial crash. Governments are trying their hardest not to cut social security because a bunch of suited sharks preyed on people's greed and offered easy loans using depositors' money, which is A GOOD THING. Why? Because the people who CAUSED this crash should be the ones PAYING for the costs of deficit decreases. Logical? Not governments looking after their people, banks upsetting the system.

As for the first, that demands a more considered reading, and may or may not prove correct, I don't want to make a premature judgement.

Adios, game coming on soon.

 

[southstand1882]

You're right, I'm tired of this as well. So let me attempt, one more time, to explain;

1) Government debt = not inherently bad
AGREED

2) 'Sustainable' key word
AGREED

3)Government spending borrowed money = has existed since 1694, with tens of deficits and unsustainable spending periods
AGREED

4)Britain maintains policy of aiming for 40 percent debt to GDP ratio as ideal, sustainable
IT HASN'T DONE A VERY GOOD JOB!!!

1993 43.9
1994 47
1995 50
1996 50.4
1997 49.4
1998 46.5
1999 43.6
2000 41.1
2004 41
2005 42.2
2006 43.3
2007 44.2

4) Sustainable debt = serviceable within current revenue projections
AGREED

5)Up till 2008, debt was sustainable
DISAGREE. It tripled from 20 billon to 60 billion from 1992 to 2007

6)2008, Banks collapsed due to defaults on cheap, unreliable loans, unsustainable profit-driven regulation-free practises
AGREED

7) government stepped in, spent billions bailing out, nationalising banks
AGREED. Effectively the tax payer owns the banks. In theory, we get our money back.

8) Economy shaken, nosedived into recession
AGREED

9) Keynesian economics holds that you should spend money during recession to stimulate demand and growth
AGREED. But see number 5. YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT!!!

10) Government spends, despite revenue loss from tax decreases and falling import/export gradients
AGREED

11) Where is it forced to get money from? BORROWING
BUT IT BORROWED BEFORE THE CRISIS. WHEN IT DIDN'T NEED TO. THAT'S MY POINT!!!

12) Spending has continued for four years, because of the massive impact of recession caused by banks
NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND

13) Has driven debt from 'sustainable' to 'unsustainable'
HALF AGREE. THE DEBT WAS TOO HIGH BEFORE THE CRISIS. IMO IT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE

14) But does that mean we should cut back on social welfare? No
THERE ARE NO CUTS. I'VE ALREADY COVERED THIS. DON'T BELIEVE THE BBC OR LABOUR. THEY ARE LIARS

15) Because social welfare is what makes UK a first-world nation
IT CERTAINLY INCREASED IMMIGRATION LEVELS

16) Beveridge report still high point of post-war idealism , should not be abandoned in favour of tax loopholes, rich getting richer and corporate profit-motive taking over public good
HAVEN'T READ IT

17) Japan third economy in world by GDP (PPP), and has very strong social welfare system
JAPAN HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. 20 YEAR RECESSION IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF

THEIR DEBT TO GBP IS 230%!!!!!!!

18) This despite fact that Japanese debt default would shake world far more than 8th economy in the world (UK) defaulting
AGAIN, 230!!!!!! YOU SAID WE SHOULD AIM FOR 40%

19) And despite fact that Japan has more than 200 percent debt to GDP
THAT WOULD CRIPPLE US

20) So if Japan looks after its citizens, should UK abandon them in favour of 1 percent and corporate profit seeking? No.
WE DO LOOK AFTER OUR CITIZENS. WE SPEND MANY BILLIONS EVERY YEAR

PLEASE REVIEW JAPAN'S SUICIDE RATE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

Noted. I am enjoying the debate

 

[jts1882]

You're right, I'm tired of this as well. So let me attempt, one more time, to explain;

1) Government debt = not inherently bad
2) 'Sustainable' key word

5)Up till 2008, debt was sustainable

9) Keynesian economics holds that you should spend money during recession to stimulate demand and growth

But Keynesian economics also holds that you pay down the debt during economic growth so you can spend during recessions.

As the numbers Southstand posted show ...

1993 43.9
1994 47
1995 50
1996 50.4
1997 49.4
1998 46.5
1999 43.6
2000 41.1
2004 41
2005 42.2
2006 43.3
2007 44.2

... the debt burden went up from 41% in 2004 to 44% in 2007 so that extra spending required during the recession started from a level that was beginning to get too high. If the downward trend of the the first term, when Brown said he would follow the previous governments policy of balancing the budget over the economic cycle, the government would have been in a much better position to respond to the economic crisis.

While the banks deserve the most blame for the global economic crisis - risky lending and repackaging toxic loans as AAA rated derivatives - the government didn't do its part during most of the 00s.

 

[southstand1882]

And what a ridiculously high number anyway. 40% !!!

Who the fudge came up with that?

That would put our household on >£60,000 of credit card debt / loans

What happens if one of us loses our job (equivalent to a financial crisis)

It's simply too high. I'd have thought 20-25% would be more sustainable in the long term.

Still an eye watering amount of money.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Noted. I am enjoying the debate

Same here. It's an energizing debate to have. Re your points, though;

5) When New Labour came to power, the budget was evenly balanced, and was sustainable. Political memoirs and the outgoing chancellor confirmed it at the time. In 1995, the GDP was 718 billion dollars. In 2005, it was 1.2 trillion dollars. The 2012 estimate pegs GDP (PPP) as being 2.2 trillion dollars.All three are IMF figures. The UK has (in real terms, albeit not relative) tripled its GDP value in that time-span. Now, in 2007, according to your figures, debt had tripled from the amount in 1992. Considering that the UK's GDP has tripled in that same time span, wouldn't it be logical to assume that debt would remain at a manageable level if the banking crisis hadn't blasted borrowing and quantitative spending sky-high?

9) The key point of this entire debate, I feel. And here, note this; I agree with you. Keynesian economics explicitly tells you to save and scrimp during boom times and spend during a recession. However, New Labour thought it could use ever-rising house prices and easy credit to keep spending until the GDP had grown to a sufficient size to be able to easily absorb public debt (see the tripling figure above). The gamble failed, but not through their efforts; it's because the banks failed, something New Labour didn't expect, because for some reason they believed the no regulations on institutions that can bring down entire economies was the best way to go.

11) But it did need to. Expanding social services to cover every area of the country, revolutionizing social welfare, establishing benefit payments on a regularized scale...these things cost money, money the government can't just magic out of thin air. If you want to fully implement the dictates of the Beveridge report, you have to do what New Labour tried to do. The idea that Saudi Sportswashing Machine deserves the same standard of A&E as London is a worthy one, I'm sure you'll agree. And there was little risk involved, as long as the economy proceeded to its targets and thus allowed debt to stay around the 40 percent mark.

13) See 5.

14) I believe Osbourne when he says the government will cut an additional (above the planned cuts he's already announced) 7 billion pounds worth of services due to the deficit, and I believed Lansley when he declared that the government would outsource the NHS to private contractors to cut costs. These are cuts, and they are real.

15) Yes, it did. An anti-immigration debate is for another day, though for the record, the idea of being driven by colonial guilt and allowing semi-skilled immigrants free access is one that needs revamping. Canada only allows skilled immigrants or those with the intention to invest in the country itself. The UK needs to set at least a couple of standards on that front, though not the draconian UKIP or BNP madness. Reducing the quota of immigrants should be enough for now, I feel. When the economy's up and running again,then more can be assimilated into UK society. Not now.

16) You should. It was the document which booted Churchill out of office during his finest hour, and I'm sure you understand how much of a task that was. It revolutionized the way people saw the government, and saw society.

17)No, it isnt. The fact they maintained social services throughout, though, is. And their 20 year recession was caused by poor corporate oversight, as Krugman explained, so really, it's an argument in favor of tighter government regulations and more bureaucracy, not less.

18) Absolutely. The UK must always aim for 40. However, my point was that Japan refuses to give up its strong social welfare policies even when saddled with such a massive debt, which is surely something the UK can do with comparatively less debt to manage.

19)Agreed, it would cripple the country. See above, though.

20) Japan has a history of traditional suicide. In many respects, its culture glorifies suicide, from the samurai down to the peasant, as a way of honorably escaping earthly woes. I didn't see the miners committing bushido when Thatcher closed their coal pits down, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the UK has a different culture to Japan, and so comparing suicide rates is pointless.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

So can we say summarise this by agreeing that..

1. Politicians, both right and left-wing, are to blame for not regulating the banks sufficiently from the 80's onwards

2. The banking sector are responsible for the economic shock of 2008 which sent government spending to higher levels whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of monies being raised through taxation, levies etc thus resulting in a significantly higher level of debt:GDP.

Now the debate becomes about how to get out of the current problem and those facing us in the future. Correct?