advertisement


Spending review 2013

paul auster said:
that is the biggest load of biased bollocks you have ever written and ignores plethora of other variables and factors [ population , land size , natural resources to name 3 ] to equate economic growth to laisse faire government is bollocks of the highest order .

edit - incidentally there was some yank on radio 4 today programme spouting this shit this morning and the interviewer may as well have sucked his dick rather than ask questions . Anybody from the Today programme on pfm , pm me and I will give you a lesson in interviewing techniques so you can abandon the useless façade of objectivity which allows any old idiot to talk unchallenged shite .
Click to expand...

You really do spout some garbage sometimes Paul. The figures speak for themselves.

Having worked in both countries, I can tell you from direct experience that it is literally orders of magnitude easier to start a business in the USA than the UK. And it's start-ups which are the dynamo of GDP growth.

Please don't confuse how you would wish the world to be with how it actually is. It makes you look daft.

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
You really do spout some garbage sometimes Paul. The figures speak for themselves.

Having worked in both countries, I can tell you from direct experience that it is literally orders of magnitude easier to start a business in the USA than the UK. And it's start-ups which are the dynamo of GDP growth.

Please don't confuse how you would wish the world to be with how it actually is. It makes you look daft.

Chris
Click to expand...

maybe if you looked into their military spend since the 30's you would find just how small the u.s. state is.... it's massive compared to ours.
 
Mescalito said:
Let's compare the economic growth rates of the UK & the USA, shall we?

UK 1950 -1973 = 2.96%
USA 1950 - 1973 = 3.91%
USA outperforms UK by 32%

UK 1973 - 1992 = 1.59
USA 1973 - 1992 = 2.39

USA outperforms UK by 50%

The USA state has a much smaller footprint in business & the private lives of it's citizens. And, as you say, they still managed to put a man on the moon.

So the evidence supports my assertion that smaller state = higher prosperity & growth.

Chris
Click to expand...

If you look at the GDP per head of population you can see some of the Nordic countries are ahead of the US, if you were correct and small Government was a pre requisite for economic well being, then they would be behind the US. So the evidence is crystal clear that your theory is incorrect.


1 Luxembourg 107,206 2012
2 Qatar 99,731 2012
3 Norway 99,462 2012
4 Switzerland79,033 2012
5 Australia 67,723 2012
6 UAE 64,840 2012
7 Denmark 56,202 2012
8 Sweden 55,158 2012
9 Canada 52,232 2012
10 Singapore 51,162 2012
11 USA 49,922 2012
12 Austria 47,083 2012
13 Japan 46,736 2012
14 Netherland 46,142 2012
15 Finland 46,098 2012
16 Ireland 45,888 2012
17 Kuwait 45,824 2012
18 Belgium 43,686 2012
19 Iceland 41,740 2012
20 Brunei 41,703 2012
21 Germany 41,513 2012
22 France 41,141 2012
23 UK 38,589 2012
 
Mullardman said:
[/B]


Fracking is lunacy when you have a country literally built on coal. We used to get ALL of our domestic and industrial gas supplies by processing coal in the old Victorian gasworks, of which there was one in every town. And that was back when our old heavy industries were hungry for gas. We could do this again and in all probability more efficiently. This provides Gas, Coke, Tar for all sorts of construction and road building uses along with masses of useful chemicals.

What's not to like?

Mull
Click to expand...

Cue the largo from the "New World Symphony".

Fracking makes a lot of sense, actually, and will have a far, far smaller environmental impact than coal mining. It will also be a lot cheaper and orders of magnitude less labour intensive.

Chris
 
Economic growth is the consequence of all the actions by all the populace all the time, it is very little understood by economists . All economic theory explains the past , economic predictions are overwhelmingly useless , economists carry on willy nilly as if this fact doesn't discredit all they have to say .

Small government is meaningless shit . US as tougher regulations, laws, policies in the areas of tax , regulation and business as well as more relaxed policies in the same areas . A simple small versus large government comparison is simply not possible .
 
paul auster said:
Economic growth is the consequence of all the actions by all the populace all the time, it is very little understood by economists . All economic theory explains the past , economic predictions are overwhelmingly useless , economists carry on willy nilly as if this fact doesn't discredit all they have to say .

Small government is meaningless shit . US as tougher regulations, laws, policies in the areas of tax , regulation and business as well as more relaxed policies in the same areas . A simple small versus large government comparison is simply not possible .
Click to expand...

So I guess lawyers & engineers stand no chance then.:)

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
You are also a charmless, humourless, snide bugger, But I love you just the same. Gizza kiss!!!!!:D

Chris
Click to expand...
Chris, in our interactions on pfm I play a role in a pantomime in which we both participate; as do you. My participation is loaded with humour which appears to be misunderstood, but it amuses me anyway :)

<x smooch x>

Coming back to your point though, it's clear you've made a leap of logic to conclude that the success of the US economy is fundamentally due to the size of the state. There are a ton of other factors that are more likely to explain their success AND your comparison is with the UK economy which further skews the meaning of the US numbers by comparison. The UK was a spent force just as the US economy exploded.

In terms of the size of the state in the US, if you take into account the size of their military and accept (which you ought to) that it forms part of the state, then their state is mahoosive.

The other point - and to me one of the most significant - is the ratio of ownership of the wealth between the various socio economic stratas - being overwhelmingly weighted towards the top 1% and even moreso for the top 0.1%. Overall that's a great narrative for a very very small number of people, but generally speaking it's a problematic narrative for the vast majority of the population.
 
Mescalito said:
Ok, prove me wrong. Take a look at how the world actually is, not how a bunch of idealists want it to be.

CFhris
Click to expand...

FFS!!! Seriously?

You're not the first person to imagine that the time they are living in is the be all and end all of human progress. I doubt you'll be the last.

The world has changed dramatically over the last 500 years. I can well imagine someone with limited vision in, say, Victorian or Elizabethan or even Aparthied times suggesting that the way the world worked was down to "human nature" and that their social and economic structure was the only way. Pick any time frame you wish and you will find plenty of people holding those views. Were they correct? Of course not or we'd still live that way! Societies have got fairer over time. We're no longer ruled by absolute rulers or the church. The resources and opportunities of the world are more evenly distrubuted. It's happened because people wanted it to change

But of course it's far from perfect and there's still much to be done. But as it has changed in the past it will continue to change. To quote a renowned thinker who posts on here "anyone with half a brain cell can see that"

Do I expect you to agree or accept any of the above? Not for a second. You have limited vision.
 
gassor said:
As I said before you cannot talk of inflating the money supply, only increasing or reducing it.
Click to expand...

Inflating the money supply means increasing it. Indeed people regularly refer to the BoE "inflating its balance sheet" via QE which is the means by which it increases, on inflates, the money supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top