Is anybody actually watching?

[P. G. Tipps]

Furthermore, you mention "debt" whereas what was under discussion was the national deficit, which is not the same thing.

Indeed not, but both are clearly connected, and increasing the debt as you seem to propose means even more interest to be paid by future generations. And once growth stalls (as it most assuredly will at some point) then the deficit automatically increases unless cuts to spending are made. Plus the fact it is naive to assume that some lenders may not in the future demand repayment of the debt itself if they get worried about the country's ability to pay the interest. Look at poor Greece. Borrowing by 'nations' is no different than borrowing by 'people'. Nations are actually made up of 'people' as far as I know. Instead of just one person borrowing it's millions of the blighters!

Economics is not that difficult to grasp really, it's simply a matter of scale whether that be national or domestic.

[P. G. Tipps]

Folks who go on about "the real world" (and aren't talking recording studios ) always make my hackles rise

I'm sure they do, Mr GG!

If the truth hurts, shoot the messengers, eh ... ?

[teamsaint]

Indeed not, but both are clearly connected, and increasing the debt as you seem to propose means even more interest to be paid by future generations. And once growth stalls (as it most assuredly will at some point) then the deficit automatically increases unless cuts to spending are made. Plus the fact it is naive to assume that some lenders may not in the future demand repayment of the debt itself if they get worried about the country's ability to pay the interest. Look at poor Greece. Borrowing by 'nations' is no different than borrowing by 'people'. Nations are actually made up of 'people' as far as I know. Instead of just one person borrowing it's millions of the blighters!

Economics is not that difficult to grasp really, it's simply a matter of scale whether that be national or domestic.

the stuff they teach at University is, unless you are a very good mathematician.

try this, starting around page 50.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2T89AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=professor+morishima+london+school+of+economics+lecture&source=bl&ots=J-m0GyzHDJ&sig=pRU9rdvBk7n_8jhy6e_FflnueMw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9RokVdzLLIW5UYz2geAD&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=professor%20morishima%20london%20school%20of%20economics%20lecture&f=false

Piece of cake.

whether it is worth bothering with , especially as the graduates all seem to go to work for banks, is another matter.

[MrGongGong]

And once growth stalls (as it most assuredly will at some point) then the deficit automatically increases unless cuts to spending are made..

OR

Those with more pay more

Economics is not that difficult to grasp really, it's simply a matter of scale whether that be national or domestic.

That's not comparing like with like at all as anyone who understands economics will tell you

[MrGongGong]

I'm sure they do, Mr GG!

If the truth hurts, shoot the messengers, eh ... ?

"TRUTH" my arse

[P. G. Tipps]

It's also an absurdity - and a gratuitously patronising one at that.

It would indeed be an absurdity if it were at all true.Needless to say no one (as far as I know) has ever suggested such a horrid thing.

'Gratuitously patronising' sounds like a diversionary party-political sound-bite and is wholly meaningless in this particular context.

[Anastasius]

I thought 'gratuitously patronising' was when you walked out without leaving a tip?

[P. G. Tipps]

I thought 'gratuitously patronising' was when you walked out without leaving a tip?

I can sense a 'Tippster' comment from the usual suspect now ...

[ahinton]

Indeed not, but both are clearly connected, and increasing the debt as you seem to propose means even more interest to be paid by future generations.

Never mind that - just look for a moment at the alternative, i.e. increasing stagnation and lack of opportunity for investment and potential growth; the more all of this is stifled, the les chance tghere is for economic recovery and thereore the les chance there will be for deficit reduction. We all have to borrow to do anything, whether "we" are governments or private individuals (for all that Mr GG rightly points out that these are two entirely different phenomena).

And once growth stalls (as it most assuredly will at some point) then the deficit automatically increases unless cuts to spending are made. Plus the fact it is naive to assume that some lenders may not in the future demand repayment of the debt itself if they get worried about the country's ability to pay the interest. Look at poor Greece. Borrowing by 'nations' is no different than borrowing by 'people'. Nations are actually made up of 'people' as far as I know. Instead of just one person borrowing it's millions of the blighters!

Even if growth doesn't stall, who's to say that debt can be repaid? Live with it! We're all in debt and always will be! One small business person wants to start up an new business and hopes to employ two or three people; he/she has to BORROW to be able to do that. We all borrow to do almost everything that involves money and financial transactions, yet we cannot, when doing so, have any idea if we'll ever be able to repay anything!

[ahinton]

I thought 'gratuitously patronising' was when you walked out without leaving a tip?

No - that's gratuitously non-patronising

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed not, but both are clearly connected, and increasing the debt as you seem to propose means even more interest to be paid by future generations. And once growth stalls (as it most assuredly will at some point) then the deficit automatically increases unless cuts to spending are made. Plus the fact it is naive to assume that some lenders may not in the future demand repayment of the debt itself if they get worried about the country's ability to pay the interest. Look at poor Greece. Borrowing by 'nations' is no different than borrowing by 'people'. Nations are actually made up of 'people' as far as I know. Instead of just one person borrowing it's millions of the blighters!

Economics is not that difficult to grasp really, it's simply a matter of scale whether that be national or domestic.

This guy (and others who think similarly) think your viewpoint and that of the coalition is back to front. You might like to have a read.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

[ahinton]

It would indeed be an absurdity if it were at all true.Needless to say no one (as far as I know) has ever suggested such a horrid thing.

That remark was in response to mine that
"The idea that somehow we will all benefit by making the most vulnerable worse off is a lie."
Who are you to say that no one has suggested such a thing?

Gratuitously patronising' sounds like a diversionary party-political sound-bite and is wholly meaningless in this particular context.

To you, perhaps; to me, as a non-party-political animal not given to promulgating any sort of diversionary tactics when discussing such issues, it's nothing of the kind.

[ahinton]

Borrowing by 'nations' is no different than borrowing by 'people'. Nations are actually made up of 'people' as far as I know. Instead of just one person borrowing it's millions of the blighters!

But who are they "blighting" and how - and whose fault (if anyone's) is it?

Almost everyone borrows because they have to; if they didn't, no businesses, including government ones, would exist and be capable of functioning.

[Serial_Apologist]

But who are they "blighting" and how - and whose fault (if anyone's) is it?

Almost everyone borrows because they have to; if they didn't, no businesses, including government ones, would exist and be capable of functioning.

Dante expressed strong views on this in L'Inferno, of course.