I'm enjoying this recession

[AtW]

Can't argue with what you have said, but it isn't just the deficit is it? It is no single thing; and many of the things (American home loans, global credit availability, etc) are completely outside of GB's immediate control.

1st: he could control any exposure of UK banks to subprime markets (UK or otherwise) - that's what regulation is for.

2nd: he could have saved up money for the rainy day - he spent it all, raised taxes and borrowed too - that's his fault as he was the Chancellor all this time.

3rd: he actively encouraged people to get into debt - he is responsible for the house pricing bubble in the UK and all the consequences of the bubble bursting now.

[HeliCraig]

MyCo's profits grew by 7% in Jan to Dec 2008 compared to 2007 and we took on 5 extra staff. If we achieve 0% growth with no job loses next year I think we will have done well.

Merry Christmas.

I think that's a fair assessment - Next year I am going to try and relaunch sales of some software I wrote two years back but failed to sell well (I am not a salesman, but a friend is and finds himself short of work atm!); and am expecting it to be tough going. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

[HeliCraig]

1st: he could control any exposure of UK banks to subprime markets (UK or otherwise) - that's what regulation is for.

He could have; and so could the government in most other developed economies! However to do so to the extent which would have prevented/minimised the current situation would have made the UK uncompetitive and then we wouldn't have had any good times!

Fiscal & Monetary policy is a very very complicated arena and has many "gotcha's" and the law of unintended consequences works in abundance.

2nd: he could have saved up money for the rainy day - he spent it all, raised taxes and borrowed too - that's his fault as he was the Chancellor all this time.

Yes, he could have. Didn't though. Must say that my local brand new super hospital is very nice. The new West Coast Mainline is quite handy too. We also have more police / doctors / nurses than we did in 1997. The problem was no money had been spent for so long under "the last lot."

But you are right, he was wasteful in a lot of area's.

3rd: he actively encouraged people to get into debt - he is responsible for the house pricing bubble in the UK and all the consequences of the bubble bursting now.

You must be living somewhere else. I don't recall any letter from GB or HMG encouraging me to get into debt. Not a single one.

[Cyberman]

Can't argue with what you have said, but it isn't just the deficit is it? It is no single thing; and many of the things (American home loans, global credit availability, etc) are completely outside of GB's immediate control.

Granted he may not have left us well prepared for the times we find ourselves in - but DC would have done no different, and may have even done worse!

DC would have spent far less than GB on the public sector. Brown has created a massive public sector. The Tories would also have tackled public sector pensions and not spent billions on ID cards, NHS computer systems etc. Your argument that Tories would spend as much as Labour just does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be very hard for any government except Labour to waste so many billions. Losses of billions on sales of gold, tax credits, Iraq war and the EU rebate also immediately spring to mind.

[HeliCraig]

DC would have spent far less than GB on the public sector. Brown has created a massive public sector. The Tories would also have tackled public sector pensions and not spent billions on ID cards, NHS computer systems etc. Your argument that Tories would spend as much as Labour just does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be very hard for any government except Labour to waste so many billions. Losses of billions on sales of gold, tax credits, Iraq war and the EU rebate also immediately spring to mind.

I can see from where you are coming. The problem is that neither does your argument that DC wouldn't have done any of the above things. We are both engaging in speculation; largely based upon on personal view of the world!!

[AtW]

He could have; and so could the government in most other developed economies!

Among G7 I'd say UK is far more indebted - situation is worse than in USA.

It can be argued that Bush inherited house price bubble from Clinton - but Gordon Brown created it with his policies.



Yes, he could have. Didn't though. Must say that my local brand new super hospital is very nice. The new West Coast Mainline is quite handy too. We also have more police / doctors / nurses than we did in 1997. The problem was no money had been spent for so long under "the last lot."

But you are right, he was wasteful in a lot of
area's.

He was very deliberate about debt - like say take PFIs - big scam that is not in the long term taxpayers interest but he went for it because it allowed him to keep this public debt off the books.

You must be living somewhere else. I don't recall any letter from GB or HMG encouraging me to get into debt. Not a single one.

You didn't get those 0% APR credit cards letters?

Gordon Brown encouraged debt by having tax on interest earned on savings (an outrage in my view - at least for low amounts), high taxes on earnings thus encouraging people to borrow to buy what they want rather than earn it first, the more tax he took the more people had to resort to credit to get what they want. Most importantly he clearly supported (ie pushed) BoE policy of low interest rates that helped drive up house price bubble - this allowed people to feel rich and take "cheap" loans using "equity" in their houses - this is what was driving UK growth in the last few years and Brown, as chancellor, is totally responsible for it.

I'd say he is more responsible than Bush because a lot of US junk started happening due to Clinton policies.

[Cyberman]

I can see from where you are coming. The problem is that neither does your argument that DC wouldn't have done any of the above things. We are both engaging in speculation; largely based upon on personal view of the world!!

The Tories are abolishing ID cards, IR35, and HIPS so that is at least three things that are not open to speculation. Throughout history, the Tories have never spent at the levels of Labour and their basic beliefs are for lower government spending, thus lower taxes and more reliance on the private sector. Labour are the party of growing the public sector and commonsense says that they will always require more tax to spend, and history has also shown that !!

[HeliCraig]

You didn't get those 0% APR credit cards letters?

Gordon Brown encouraged debt by having tax on interest earned on savings (an outrage in my view - at least for low amounts), high taxes on earnings thus encouraging people to borrow to buy what they want rather than earn it first, the more tax he took the more people had to resort to credit to get what they want. Most importantly he clearly supported (ie pushed) BoE policy of low interest rates that helped drive up house price bubble - this allowed people to feel rich and take "cheap" loans using "equity" in their houses - this is what was driving UK growth in the last few years and Brown, as chancellor, is totally responsible for it.

I'd say he is more responsible than Bush because a lot of US junk started happening due to Clinton policies.

I did. But none of them came from HM Government!

I baulk at the argument you forward in the second paragraph AtW - thats the most contrived reasoning I have seen in quite some time. But the crooks of the matter are highlighted in bold. If I can't afford something, I don't instantly think "I know, I'll borrow more than I can afford." People who do will come unstuck eventually. Thats not to say I never borrow - just within my means!

I shan't even comment on the Bush -vs- Clinton debate, because I don't think you'd be able to substantiate that argument with facts if pushed!

[HeliCraig]

The Tories are abolishing ID cards, IR35, and HIPS so that is at least three things that are not open to speculation. Throughout history, the Tories have never spent at the levels of Labour and their basic beliefs are for lower government spending, thus lower taxes and more reliance on the private sector. Labour are the party of growing the public sector and commonsense says that they will always require more tax to spend, and history has also shown that !!

Hate to brake it to you old pal, but they aren't. They aren't elected yet! They have committed to do so, yes. But New Liebour also committed to doing things they haven't done.

Yes, recent history does suggest that Tory's favour lower public sector spending; but the populace does have expectations of the state and they need paying for. I should make it clear here that I generally believe that we spend too much on public sector "non sense" and that too many (lazy) people have too many unrealistic expectations of the state.

[Cyberman]

I would go as far as to say that it is high taxes that have pushed people into debt. Even low income people have been drawn into paying taxes, which is a stupid policy. Less disposable income means that people rely more on credit cards etc. It also means that people spend less because they have less to spend and thus higher taxes also drive a country into recession. Full marks for incompetence to GB !!