Idiot question on economy

[OwlHoot]

I really don't understand economics at all. If Brownstuff is to increase borrowing, who is he borrowing it from?

It can't be the banks as the govt is pouring money into them, or the US or other countries as they are in the tulipe too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7680449.stm

The Govt borrows by issuing bonds which investors purchase, which is the latter "lending to the Government". But they buy these to be paid interest for X years where X can be one of several values depending on when the bonds "mature", at which point the bonds are repaid. The interest and this repayment is the "future generations groaning under debt" bit.

I think that's roughly right, although it may be that repayments are sufficient to cover the principal over the lifetime of the bond as well as the interest, analogous to a repayment mortgage rather than an interest-only mortgage.

As I'm always saying, and people are probably sick of hearing it by now, the silver-lining to increasing Government debt is that sooner or later it correspondingly narrows their scope for blowing money on non-essential and intrusive projects, because only so much tax can be levied without the economy imploding.

In fact it's staggering that most of these expensive projects, like the olympics, and ID cards, and National Health backbone, haven't been ruthlessly thrown overboard already.

[BrilloPad]

The Govt borrows by issuing bonds which investors purchase, which is the latter "lending to the Government". But they buy these to be paid interest for X years where X can be one of several values depending on when the bonds "mature", at which point the bonds are repaid. The interest and this repayment is the "future generations groaning under debt" bit.

I think that's roughly right, although it may be that repayments are sufficient to cover the principal over the lifetime of the bond as well as the interest, analogous to a repayment mortgage rather than an interest-only mortgage.

As I'm always saying, and people are probably sick of hearing it by now, the silver-lining to increasing Government debt is that sooner or later it correspondingly narrows their scope for blowing money on non-essential and intrusive projects, because only so much tax can be levied without the economy imploding.

In fact it's staggering that most of these expensive projects, like the olympics, and ID cards, and National Health backbone, haven't been ruthlessly thrown overboard already.

And which investors are buying?

[mailric]

Sorry I expect a Business Analyst to write in proper English without me needing to correct the documents before presenting to the client. I certainly wouldn't use your services based on your post.

That was V0.1 for internal review only...

[xoggoth]

If our decendents pick up the bill that's ok, I never liked the little barstewards anyway, just as long as time travelling intergalactic aliens don't come round my door threatening to break my legs if I don't find my part of the readies by Saturday.

[TykeMerc]

That was V0.1 for internal review only...

In my experience people who think txtsp34k is acceptible in other communications don't notice when it creeps into their business docs, as a result it's necessary to intensively proof read their output to remove the U, UR, URE, URS rubbish and even use the right word for THEIR and THEY'RE since they tend to only use there. They tend to forget to capitalise and punctuate too.
It's a matter of habit with the txtsp34king crowd and as a result I won't work with them especially a BA where language is totally critical.

I canned a BA from a project once because his docs were peppered with the errors, I don't have the time or money to waste as a PM dealing with inept and unprofessional Business Analysts.

[mailric]

In my experience people who think txtsp34k is acceptible in other communications don't notice when it creeps into their business docs, as a result it's necessary to intensively proof read their output to remove the U, UR, URE, URS rubbish and even use the right word for THEIR and THEY'RE since they tend to only use there. They tend to forget to capitalise and punctuate too.
It's a matter of habit with the txtsp34king crowd and as a result I won't work with them especially a BA where language is totally critical.

I canned a BA from a project once because his docs were peppered with the errors, I don't have the time or money to waste as a PM dealing with inept and unprofessional Business Analysts.

I bet you don't like smilies either....

[NotAllThere]

... as a result I won't work with them especially a BA where language is totally critical...

...whore. Language...

I suppose that one of the advantages of being a nuclear power, is that when the loan sharks come round to figuratively break your legs for non-payment, you can blast them into radioactive atoms. So they don't have quite the leverage.

[TykeMerc]

I bet you don't like smilies either....

In a document no.

[mailric]

In a document no.

no swear words either?

[zara_backdog]

In my experience people who think txtsp34k is acceptible in other communications don't notice when it creeps into their business docs, as a result it's necessary to intensively proof read their output to remove the U, UR, URE, URS rubbish and even use the right word for THEIR and THEY'RE since they tend to only use there. They tend to forget to capitalise and punctuate too.
It's a matter of habit with the txtsp34king crowd and as a result I won't work with them especially a BA where language is totally critical.

I canned a BA from a project once because his docs were peppered with the errors, I don't have the time or money to waste as a PM dealing with inept and unprofessional Business Analysts.

acceptable
And as a BA I have spent too much time correcting the PM's documentation.

This is a forum not a Functional Specification.

PS - I have not bothered to correct the grammer.