conservatives are

[Brigadier]

You got the point. Focusing solely on debt and deficit misses the larger issues within an economy - there is no hard or fast rule - those with lower debt perform better or with higher debt perform worse. There is more to the ecomomy than just debt.

Overall though, would it be desirable for a government / successive governments to work towards reducing their debt, ultimately eradicating it, and spending no more than their annual receipts on an ongoing basis?

 

[Doggit]

The right wingers would say yes, and the left wingers no, but that still wouldn't be the correct answer either. Personal mortgages and government debt are both appropriate example of where borrowing helps fund growth, so debt can be considered good, so it comes back to the question of what's a good level of debt to live with.

 

[JohnD]

The right wingers would say yes, and the left wingers no

I'm not aware of any studies proving that.

Are you?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Who would study such things?

 

[JohnD]

People who, like yourself, are looking for evidence that economists are biased.

Other sources, such as The Stun or the Ragmail, would make the claim without caring if it was true.

A few, such as Breitbart, would deliberately and falsely pretend to quote a study, but would say it said the opposite of what it really did.

 

[Brigadier]

The right wingers would say yes, and the left wingers no, but that still wouldn't be the correct answer either. Personal mortgages and government debt are both appropriate example of where borrowing helps fund growth, so debt can be considered good, so it comes back to the question of what's a good level of debt to live with.

But you can only spend the borrowed money once, so surely "debt can be considered good" is a bit of a one-shot-deal?
Similarly with a "good level of debt to live with"; again, you can only spend it once.

 

[Doggit]

If you purchase assets with the borrowed money, then you can sell that asset later, and then reinvest in other things. It's only when you spend the borrowed money on services that it's a spend only once deal.

Who would study such things

Well it's a bit like "lies, damned lies and statistics". You look at the evidence that supports your theories; unless you're an economist or an anthropologist, then you study it because it's interesting to you.

For the rest of us, we form views by experiencing things, so don't need studies so much. Nor do we use them to justify our point of view - which will at times be erroneous of course, because we didn't take the time to study things.

Life can be so much more fun if you don't take it too seriously.

 

[JohnD]

The right wingers would say yes, and the left wingers no, but that still wouldn't be the correct answer either. Personal mortgages and government debt are both appropriate example of where borrowing helps fund growth, so debt can be considered good, so it comes back to the question of what's a good level of debt to live with.

You might consider yourself right-wing, and you might think that correlates to ambivalence on borrowing.

I might consider myself left of centre, and I might think that borrowing to purchase assets is a good move if the future value of the assets, and the return it brings, outweighs the cost of the loan. This is not a left/right stance, but it does correlate to business awareness. I might think that borrowing for current spending is a good move to bale through a recession, but not when there is no prospect of future income improving so the debt can be serviced or repaid in better times. This is not a left/right stance, but it is connected with economic literacy. I might be a Keynesian. I might think that the wirtschaftswunder did more for growth and prosperity than fifty years of austerity. I might think that right-wing monetarism is unwise, especially in the butchered ultra-right Thatcherite model. This view might correlate to left/right orientation, but it also correlates to economic literacy/illiteracy.

 

[Doggit]

Unfortunately, there are some very obvious left wingers on here that are not as far sighted as you John, and have been advocating for borrowing and spending just to maintain a lifestyle.

It's been interesting watching some on here admit to things they would have kept secret years ago, and it makes you realise that left and right are never as clear cut as they once might have been, but I always read, evaluate, and then come to a conclusion, and it's one that I will always change as I gather further information. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I did like what you've just posted.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Is it right, morally and constitutionally, that a minority government are allowed to 'buy' support for their policies?

A senior DUP source said the party could not be "taken for granted" - adding that if the PM could not reach a deal, "what does that mean for bigger negotiations she is involved in?"
It is a week since DUP leader Arlene Foster visited Downing Street for talks with Theresa May, with reports that a final agreement is being held up by discussions over extra funding for Northern Ireland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40339330

 

[Doggit]

That's the beatuy of politics for you. It's been done since time immermorial, and by every country in the same situation, so why the moral outrage. Ahh, you wanted the Labour party to be able to do it instead.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Are you saying it is perfectly right, morally and constitutionally, or does it depend on where you buy your support?
Are any implications or repercussions, because of the political 'beauty', merely 'incidental' irrespective of the seriousness of those repercussions?

 

[JohnD]

Even if everybody agreed that it was immoral; and wrong and shouldn't be allowed, it's unlikely it could be stopped.

International organisations with sufficient power can influence national governments sometimes with economic sanctions.

Consider how long the South African Apartheid system persisted. It might possibly have collapsed faster if there were not governments willing to support it.

Consider how ineffective world opinion has been over Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine. EU economic sanctions have been enough to see the country fall into economic recession, but not enough to change the dictator's mind or reduce public support.

Consider how 1930's Germany treated minorities. It was condemned but considered to be an internal problem and nobody else's business. War broke out only due to traditional mutual defence treaties. There was great doubt later that the Nuremburg trials could be legal.

The powerful USA strong-arms weaker countries into promising that they will never take action against it in the International Criminal Court even if, for example, their forces abuct, torture and murder the small county's citizens.

The UK government intends to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK drafted and foisted onto other European countries. If you are unlucky enough to be sold into slavery, or your belongings are seized, or the Sun taps your phone and bugs your home, and the UK government decides not to help you, for example because you are Welsh or a Methodist or because Rupert Murdoch chooses the Prime Minister, there will be no-one else you can appeal to.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

But if the government openly 'buy' support from other parties, does it not follow that the government 'buy' support by spending money on areas of the country, in order to gain support, i.e. the accusation of governing parties favouring areas of the country would appear to be evident.

Does that not extrapolate to sections of society?
Does that not then have repercussions on others?

 

[transam]

Even if everybody agreed that it was immoral; and wrong and shouldn't be allowed, it's unlikely it could be stopped.

International organisations with sufficient power can influence national governments sometimes with economic sanctions.

Consider how long the South African Apartheid system persisted. It might possibly have collapsed faster if there were not governments willing to support it.

Consider how ineffective world opinion has been over Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine. EU economic sanctions have been enough to see the country fall into economic recession, but not enough to change the dictator's mind or reduce public support.

Consider how 1930's Germany treated minorities. It was condemned but considered to be an internal problem and nobody else's business. War broke out only due to traditional mutual defence treaties. There was great doubt later that the Nuremburg trials could be legal.

The powerful USA strong-arms weaker countries into promising that they will never take action against it in the International Criminal Court even if, for example, their forces abuct, torture and murder the small county's citizens.

The UK government intends to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK drafted and foisted onto other European countries. If you are unlucky enough to be sold into slavery, or your belongings are seized, or the Sun taps your phone and bugs your home, and the UK government decides not to help you, for example because you are Welsh or a Methodist or because Rupert Murdoch chooses the Prime Minister, there will be no-one else you can appeal to.

yep human rights

I see that Saudi Arabia was elected onto the UN's womans rights panel way to go imho

think they were voted on to it by EU countries

blimey even the daily wail questioned it (may be ?)