are we still a fair country

[Ferru123]

Interesting that you quote a left-wing study reported by a left-wing news organisation! You're not turning red on us, are you Frank?

For a bit of balance, consider this (copied from http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... eGFzCRAhSw):

Financial and professional services continue to make a
substantial contribution to the UK economy. Key aspects include:
● Over 1 million people working across the UK in financial services, nearly 4% of total
UK employment. About one third are employed in London and two thirds in the rest
of the UK.
● The UK financial services trade surplus of £36bn in 2010 helping to offset the £98bn
deficit in trade in goods.
● The UK’s financial services industry contributing £124bn to UK GDP in 2009,
accounting for 10% of total economic output.
● UK financial services contributing £53bn in tax revenue in 2009/10, 11% of total UK
tax receipts

Myth my arse.

Jeff

it's about time people stop believing the myth that the financial sector is somehow a massive net earner for the UK...
Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8410489.stm

Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.

[Ferru123]

The £1 trillion firewall was esentially set aside to be used but it wasent needed. The point still remains that over £1 trillion of tax payers money was at risk due to the banking sectors "ingenuity"....

But that assumes that, if the banks hadn't been based in London, we wouldn't have acted. Who's to say that we wouldn't have contributed massively to an IMF bailout fund had the banks been located elsewhere, just as we may be stumping up big time towards a Eurozone bailout fund in the near future?

The debts racked up by the labour gov would arguably not have been racked up if the banking sector had not been allowed to use excessive leverage resulting in phantom gdp that in fact was reliant on asset prices continuing to soar.

You can't blame the banks for Labour's delusions...

If you look at Labours spending during their years in power their budget defeceit never exceeded the 3.5% level up until the crisis in 2007/2008. Not that im singing their praises, just pointing out the facts that they never broke any fiscal golden rules.

Public debt soared under Gordon Brown's premiership - see http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/u ... onal-debt/. And given that we only spent 37 billion on the bank bailouts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm), the banks can't be blamed for that.

QE in conjunction with record low interest rates allowed both companies and households to continue to pay back borrowed money on mortgage and card debt .

IMHO, all QE does it kick the proverbial can down the road, with ugly consequences. There's a reason why the German's won't touch QE with a 10 ft barge pole...

Politicians are generally only interested in winning the next election. So if the pain can be delayed till after the next election, then they've either got 5 years to sort out the mess, or they can land the newly elected government with a huge mess to sort out, which will hopefully result in the current regime returning to power five years further down the road.

Jeff

[Ferru123]

How would you make up the tax revenue decrease that would result from lowering duty on alcohol?

The money for the increases in benefits you advocate need to come from somewhere...

Jeff

ill have a pint of birra moretti please but
i hope thats not a bar in the UK

[mister man]

no i dont think you could make it up

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70235.html

[superfrank]

no i dont think you could make it up

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70235.html

that's just a continuation of a trend that actually accelerated in the Labour years.

Social mobility also decreased sharply under Labour - one of the good things about the Thatcher years was that social mobility increased hugely.

[superfrank]

Jeff,

it was my mistake to say "financial sector" - what i really meant was the banking sector (or certain large elements of it). much of the financial services net gain comes from the insurance sector, in which the UK is a big player.

if an investment bank or hedge fund makes loads of money it has effectively taken the money from somewhere else - it hasn't created any wealth.

SF

[mulberryhawk]

But that assumes that, if the banks hadn't been based in London, we wouldn't have acted.

RBS had a balance sheet that was over 2 Trillion when it was nationlised in 2007. Just to clarify thats one UK bank with a balance sheet over 100% of gdp......that had to be bailed out by the government and taxpayers. Do you genuinely believe that the UK government would contribute such a considerable ammount to either the IMF or another country.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55253388-0125 ... z1oQYZlutG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog ... uk-economy

Also dont forget that it was not that long ago the UK went cap in hand to the IMF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm

You can't blame the banks for Labour's delusions...

Labour and Tory delusions, The conservatives promised to match Labours spending pound for pound prior to the 2007 crisis and Cameron and co gave Tony Blair a rousing standing ovation on his final PMQ`s appearance.

For three years after Cameron and Osborne took over their party in 2005, they pledged to "match Labour's spending plans". The nonsense the Conservatives spoke about fiscal policy back then was almost as irresponsible as that spouted by Gordon Brown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... borne.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8dSVnQCDA

Also there is a such thing called moral hazard which applies in free market economics, but when it came to the 2007 bailout I dident hear any calls from the right extolling the virtues of a "free market" financial system that encourages survival of the fittest ordinarily. Hmmm right wing economic rhetoric was unusually absent from that debate, I wonder why.

Public debt soared under Gordon Brown's premiership - see http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/u ... onal-debt/. And given that we only spent 37 billion on the bank bailouts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm), the banks can't be blamed for that.

Liberal use of the word "soared" I would have said....

After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007.

IMHO, all QE does it kick the proverbial can down the road, with ugly consequences. There's a reason why the German's won't touch QE with a 10 ft barge pole...

The LTRO is a belated and ham fisted approach to the spiraling debt cycle being experienced in Europe at the minute. Effectively QE in all but name. But with aggregrate unemployment at over 10% in Europe and over 20% in the periphery, and with bond prices at unsustainable levels its arguably too little too late.

[mister man]

How would you make up the tax revenue decrease that would result from lowering duty on alcohol?

The money for the increases in benefits you advocate need to come from somewhere...

Jeff

ill have a pint of birra moretti please but
i hope thats not a bar in the UK

ive already answered that before in this thread too.

[Ferru123]

Not really - You've evaded most of my questions.

OK, you've told us that you'd get rid of Foreign Aid. But would that be enough to fund the benefit increases you're after, particularly if you're cutting duty on alcohol?

Jeff

[mister man]

yes it would be enough. and yes ive answered before more than once, i suggest a reading course, as well as recognising a reply you could then, research cost/benefit ratios and price elasticity.a cut in alcohol duty down to similar european levels of our competitors, would slow the rate of closure of british pubs, thus reducing unemployment, help our brewers,thus reducing unemployment, help our glass maunfacturers thus reducing umemployment, help our potttery industries, thus reducing unemployment, and our specialist bar equipment and supply manufacturers thus reducing unemployment. If we were to reduce our massive fuel duties, similar savings and reductions in unemployment could be made in our logistics and transport industries many of which are going to the wall due to foreign companies having the advantage of lower fuel costs.
the savings to the economy benefit bill would far outweigh the reduction costs.
also you could scrap the nhs reforms that nobody but a few nutcases in the tory party wants,certainly the doctors nurses and virtually all professional bodies oppose it, the price tag to even implement this needless bill is 3billion, before it does anything.
I could go on but little point debating with a closed mind.
the fee we are paying for our taxpayer owned banks to pay the bankers in unwarranted bonuses this year alone would cover the entire payments for all job seekers allowance, and if they the banks left the country we would still own them, and they cant while in majority state ownership.
The inescapable truth is we are governed by a prime ministers and a cabinet mostly eton educated who wouldnt know fairness and how to govern as if we are all in this together, if a fairness fairy came and sprinkled them all with reality dust.
i dont know who to feel most sorry for,the poor and desperate being targeted by this government,or the ignorant who are currently allowing cameron to sleep walk us into social anarchy, and moral bankruptcy.
the latter will suffer,like the former soon enough.
as a betting man, my odds on more riots this summer are 10/1 0n..