General Election 2024....

[multitool]

It bears repeating for the bollocks that it is.

There isn't a myth that government can't choose to invest. All state provision represents investment. The myth is that there aren't consequences to unfunded spending. There's a reason why UK debt to GDP matters whereas, say, Japanese debt to GDP doesn't...and it's a reason that theclaud doesn't understand.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

It bears repeating for the bollocks that it

Nah, it bears repeating because it's a powerfully expressed, cogent sentiment. Heartfelt and taut, not like the usual, myself up towards the top of the suspects, verbiage.

 

[theclaud]

Nah, it bears repeating because it's a powerfully expressed, cogent sentiment. Heartfelt and taut, not like the usual, myself up towards the top of the suspects, verbiage.

 

[multitool]

It's a fact-free statement. Sounds convincing to the ignorant, but ultimately vapid.

I mean here we are a fifth of the way through a GE campaign that was called to the surprise of most Tory MPs. In a masterstroke of spin, it was claimed that it was capitalising on good economic news about the economy. The reality is that national debt overshot it's forecast meaning that Jeremy Hunt's planned headroom for pre-election Autumn tax cuts evaporated. The gilt markets have gone into overdrive as a result.

Think about that for a moment. We have the highest tax burden since WW2, there will be tax rises fairly soon in the new (Labour) administration AND this will be to maintain public services that are crumbling.

 

[theclaud]

The myth is that there aren't consequences to unfunded spending.

Yeah cos that's really the dominant myth.

You always add in the "without consequences" bit when you talk about about public spending. It's very disingenuous.

 

[theclaud]

Sounds convincing to the ignorant

Winning friends and influencing people again, I see.

 

[multitool]

Winning friends and influencing people again, I see.

I don't play to the crowd, TC. That's your bag.

 

[multitool]

Yeah cos that's really the dominant myth.

You always add in the "without consequences" bit when you talk about about public spending. It's very disingenuous.

What is disingenuous is adding the word "dominant" to move the goalposts.

You can go on about national economy not relating to household budget all you like, and you'd be correct, but that doesn't mean any of your ensuing fact-free statements are necessarily true.

 

[winjim]

Bears repeating

🧸
🧸🧸
🧸🧸🧸
🧸🧸🧸🧸
🧸🧸🧸🧸🧸

 

[theclaud]

What is disingenuous is adding the word "dominant" to move the goalposts

LOL "move the goalposts". You are advocating for a party whose economics are based on a dominant but discredited ideology. I mean, fair enough in a sense, as the only parties in and danger of winning a majority under FPTP share the same bullshit doctrine. But it's objectively true that the UK government can choose to spend money on public services, and that fiscal rules (like Reeves's, Osborne's, Hunt's, Brown's) are arbitrary - actual shifting goalposts designed to connote things such as "prudence" and "You Can Trust Us With The Economy". There's no public discussion of the effects of spending beyond pronouncements in the media and political spheres by economists peddling the same narrative. Chancellors having been marking their own homework for decades. You admit the shopping-basket mentality is a falsehood, but you're happy to advocate for a party that pushes it.

 

[multitool]

LOL "move the goalposts". You are advocating for a party whose economics are based on a dominant but discredited ideology

More Varoufakis-level bollocks.

. I mean, fair enough in a sense, as the only parties in and danger of winning a majority under FPTP share the same bullshit doctrine. But it's objectively true that the UK government can choose to spend money on public services, and that fiscal rules (like Reeves's, Osborne's, Hunt's, Brown's) are arbitrary - actual shifting goalposts designed to connote things such as "prudence" and "You Can Trust Us With The Economy". There's no public discussion of the effects of spending beyond pronouncements in the media and political spheres by economists peddling the same narrative. Chancellors having been marking their own homework for decades. You admit the shopping-basket mentality is a falsehood, but you're happy to advocate for a party that pushes it.

There's no 'public' discussion because the public aren't interested in details. You aren't interested in details which is why your posts are full of trite phrases like "discredited ideology" with no attempt to explain what this means. You are winging it, and you know it.

There is discussion that is public, which is why I know why the respective administrations are doing what they are doing. Largely the Tories are cutting public spending in order to pay for tax cuts which generally favours the better off, whose interests they represent. Labour are going to have a hard job moving money into the public sector because it relies on tax receipts which in turn relies on economic activity. Your answer is rampant borrowing, blind to negative economic effects whilst pretending there aren't any, even though you were witness a short time ago to the market effects of unfunded spending.

 

[multitool]

...not to mention the glaring hole in your argument. If borrowing is consequence-free, why aren't the Tories doing it to fund excellent public serviceswhilst simultaneously offering tax cuts and in so doing offering an unassailable electoral package?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

There is discussion that is public, which is why I know why the respective administrations are doing what they are doing.

Please explain for the benefit of the less educated.

 

[multitool]

Please explain for the benefit of the less educated.

I already have. Try reading.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I already have.

So 'housekeeping' economics then?