conservatives are

the people who lend you money take care to set the interest rate at inflation plus x, so they make a profit.
 
Sponsored Links
bit like this PPI in the NHS then

(labour ;))
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)
What is Patient and Public Involvement?
http://www.wwl.nhs.uk/public_involvment/


Payment protection insurance (PPI)
also known as credit insurance, credit protection insurance, or loan repayment insurance, is an insurance product that enables consumers to ensure repayment of credit if the borrower dies, becomes ill or disabled, loses a job, or faces other circumstances


Private finance initiative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative

 
Sponsored Links
the people who lend you money take care to set the interest rate at inflation plus x, so they make a profit.

As the government doesn't lend me money, it doesn't set the interest rate high to make a profit.

It borrows money, so it set the interest rate as low as it can. It is currently lower than inflation.
 
It was you who suggested that outsourcing and identification of core business was an economic theory.

Oh my word you have totally gone loopy. I have repeated and for the final time the concept of 'core business' is a construct or concept it isn't economic theory and I have asked you to provide references to say it is.

I give up when someone cannot see their own error. Good day to you sir.
 
Oh my word you have totally gone loopy. I have repeated and for the final time the concept of 'core business' is a construct or concept it isn't economic theory and I have asked you to provide references to say it is.

I give up when someone cannot see their own error. Good day to you sir.
I have never suggested that 'core business' is economic theory. I have argued that identification of 'core business' is a strategic decision.
Allow me to remind you:
The core business - whatever that is. ........
Look into Coase 'Transaction cost theory of the firm' ......
You mean Coase's Nature of the Firm, written in the '30's? He was more concerned with economic decisions, than strategic ones.
Identification of a 'core business' is a strategic decision.
That 'core business' is not some vague concept. It is real everyday tangible business.

For instance, a builders core business is building, which is not some vague concept, (although it could be called a 'construct' ;)).
A shop keepers core business is selling which is not some intangible construct.

A business process or business method is a collection of related, structured activities or tasks that produce a specific service or product ...
There are three types of business processes (citation by August-Wilhelm Scheer and Mark von Rosing):[1]

  1. ...
  2. Operational processes, processes that constitute the core business and create the primary value stream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process
ergo, a strategic process
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have a house, and I've had mortgages, but they've only ever been ones that I can afford. They were for a set time, and paid off at the end of that term. Govenment debt seems to be more akin to a credit card whereby the borrowing limit keeps going up to keep the inflated lifestyle going.

The housing crash in America was caused by lending to people that couldn't aford to live within their means. The Uk defecit is running at 89.3% of GDP, but no bank would ever allow you to run your personal lifestyle at that level, so why do government think it's okay. And whilst we're not as bad as some, that still doesn't justify anything. We are currently paying back interest on the debts at £40bn a year, and thats money that could go towards desperately needed services. The recent governments have traded debt for growth, and it's a house built on poor foundations.



But if we haven't got the resouces because we're living beyond our means, then there aren't the resources to allocat e. You seem to be advocating a "borrow to be able to continue spending" policy, and ignore the consequences.

You are making the simple error of comparing your personal income/ expenditure model to that of an economy / government. For governments there is a link become expenditure and income ie if the government spends more it's income will rise through higher tax receipts (gov spending is putting money into the economy).

What would you describe as an 'inflated lifestyle?

In the same breath you criticise Banks for lending irresponsibly you then say they wouldn't lend to you due to prudence.

When you purchased your home you consumed the benefits before you were able to pay it off - governments do that as well.

You yourself lived beyond your means - you did not pay cash outright for your home it required debt. You yourself borrowed to spend money and buy a home.

Look you need to understand that government finance is different to personal finance even though they share some similarities. Can you print your own money?

You assume that I am advocating borrow to spend, well what matters is what no one has answered which is what type of society do we want?

If you take one thing away I hope that it - Government Income /Expenditure is linked and is not like personal finances.
 
bit like this PPI in the NHS then

(labour ;))

Its PFI and it is a total waste of time. But why hasn't the current government not cancelled these deals and why is Hinkley C another PFI where we will owe money to the Chinese and have it built by the French? Btw Hinkley has a £22bn poison pill.
 
I'm sorry Kankerot, but I can accept very little of your arguments. You keep saying that you can't equate government income expenditure to personal finance, but the same principle applies. it just depends who's doing the financing, and what they're parameters are. At the end of the day, the same basic principle should apply to both - learnt to live within your means, and although you haven't been prepared to admit it, you are advocating raising borrowing to support the sort of society that you think is appropriate. You keep asking people to answer what sort of society they want, yet you shy away from answering the same question, or how you'd finance it prudently.

If I live beyond my means, that means I have to work harder, or to dig into my savings, but taking out a mortgage isn't living beyond my means, so I wonder if you rent, or you'd understand the principle.

Banks now have to lend prudently for mortgages (but they did get away with it with self certified mortgages) but they haven't been regulated to the same degree with credit cards; and I doubt if they will, because the government is using the banks to help fund growth in the economy.

Basically, you and I will never agree, so I think it's best to leave this one on a nice note
 
You keep saying that you can't equate government income expenditure to personal finance, but the same principle applies. it just depends who's doing the financing, and what they're parameters are.
Your views were widely held prior to 1936, but since the middle of the last century, economic theory has more generally accepted that governments can borrow and spend to fight recession. There was unfortunately a hiatus in the UK during the Thatcher years, due to ignorance and unwillingness to learn.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm

In hard times, thrift may be sensible for the individual, but not for the community at large.

https://www.ft.com/content/00b05180-dba8-11d9-913a-00000e2511c8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

These ideas were considered heretical when published in 1705.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees
 
Last edited:
Just because they do, doesn't mean that they should. Nowadays, spending pushs up growth both within the government, and with consumers. Kensyan theory has been used by governments simply because they manage the economy, yet fail to manage the country. Thatcher set the rot in by suggesting we didn't need manufacturing any longer as we had the city to gerenerate income, but she failed to realise that manufacturing gave jobs to those at the lower end of the education scale. We then ended up with masses of people that couldn't find jobs, so that pushed up unemployment, and welfare payments etc etc etc. Germany has a strong manufacturing base, and it's debt to GDP ratio was under 70% last year, whilst ours was nearing 90%.

Most governments of which evere persuasion, have inept people in them, and it's invariably an accountant type that's got the chancellors job. They're also too afraid to make radical changes, because they know they won't get re-ellected.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top