egafd.com

If you want to repudiate the document you provided a link to, that is fine.

The point you are struggling to understand is that unemployment benefit and tax receipts are NOT, got that NOT linked to bank bailouts in the statistics book that you have swallowed without understanding.

My point is that tax receipts have been hammered and unemployment greatly increased AS A RESULT, got that, AS A RESULT of the credit crunch related to the banking collapse. But it wont appear as a BANK BAILOUT CHARGE, got that!

You are obsessed with the word structural. I couldnt care less about the word structural. You are the one who introduced the word.

My point is in line with your document that a substantial part of the national debt is related to bank bailout, unemployment benefit increases as unemployment shoots up, tax drops etc etc. And Osborne's plans are aimed at reducing the national debt.

Do yourself a favour, take a breather, my little potty mouthed chum and read the document you linked to. You are just goiing round in circles and sound very tired and confused.

I am off out for the evening now.

[quote] being a Tory I should charge you really for this lesson in economics.[/quote]

Nah.... A proper Tory would charge him 50 quid for the lesson but pay some poor cunt 50p to teach it him while you sit on your fat arse being sucked off by rent boys (they might get a quid and a puff on your cigar if they swallowed)...and you'd make sure the poor cunt getting 50p feel really grateful he was getting that. The following year you'd give the worker 45p for the same job and when he complained he didn't have enough to live on you'd tell him he'd be far better off buying his own home instead of renting. When he complains he couldn't afford to buy his own home you'd direct him to one of your Tory mates who'd lend him the money to buy his home and he'd feel like a king for a few years and be happy. Your mate would be raking in the interest payments and join you, sat on his fat arse, being sucked off by rent boys (the rent boys are down to 95p if they swallow and you've cut out the puff of your cigar and replaced it with a sniff of your bourbon).

Once you have plenty of cheap workers and borrowers you and your mate can now afford extra rent boys to lick your rings at the same time. Because of the extra service the rent boys are down to 90p and no sniffs of bourbon and your workers down to 40p.....and they're grateful for that because they need to keep up the interest payments to your mate who lent them money for their homes.

After plenty of sucking, arse-licking, bourbon drinking and cigar smoking you realise lots of workers are packing in the houses and going back to rented homes. Your mate doesn't feel too fussed because he can repossess their houses and sell them. Yay! Three rent boys at a time for him! But after a while he finds that he can't sell the houses because no one else is lending. He also realises all his capital is tied up in the homes he can't sell and he stops any more lending, making it worse! You realise that your economic lesson business is being taken away because you didn't realise that while you were drunk and being sucked off you'd also borrowed off your mate to expand your business. All your 40p a lesson workers are without jobs and making your mates job of getting his money back even harder. You're both in a right pickle now and cancel the rent boys (ok, you cut them down to one a week.....a Tory can't go without a good arse licking after all....tee-hee...).

You realise you've both been daft with your money and got your comeuppance by exploiting others for your gain. But you've made others' lives much worse and people are pointing fingers at you. What to do? They might piss in your bourbon! Well.....you go to the government and ask to be bailed out. How else will rent boys earn a living? They agree and you're happy again! Trouble is people don't trust you any more and you're both called nasty names. This isn't good for business, is it? Luckily, when you went to government you noticed they weren't the mates you knew from Eton as a lad. Well, since they're not part of the old boys' club you can point the finger at them! They let you exploit workers and lend money for housing so it's their fault! Job's sorted.

Now that is what you'd do as a Tory.

Most sensible post from you in a long time.....




































............make that 'ever'.

Good Evening my little potty-mouthed pseudo-economist.

Glad to see you have posted a link to something that you have actually perused, if I suspect very briefly, to see if the article agrees with your simplistic views or not. This obviously wasnt the case with the article you linked to earlier in the thread.

Have you read the documents linked to it? I suspect not.
For example
"The OECD, for example, thinks the UK's structural budget deficit in 2009 will be 7.2% of GDP. Does that mean that the OECD thinks all that borrowing is unrelated to the recession? Well, yes and no.
If we were still living with the unsustainable boom we had before, a lot of that 'structural' deficit wouldn't exist (and of course, neither would the "cyclical" borrowing either).
In that sense that structural borrowing is very much related to the credit crunch. But the key word is "unsustainable". Bubbles come and go. Just like when you are frothing at the mouth, possum.

Let me translate so you get it. Its stating that if we had another bubble like the last one we wouldnt have a structural deficit. Therefore this structural deficit is linked to the credit crunch. This contradicts your argument, unfortunately. "Is it possible for someone to be so ignorant ? The "structural" deficit......STRUCTURAL got it, does NOT include any bank bailout or unemployment (aka automatic stabilisers) debt"

Now your answer to the above, I suspect, would be something on the lines of "look here you fucking cunt, that would still leave us with piles to pay off and there aint going to be another bubble, you twat!"

The next bit I want you to sit down before reading, my little, pseudo-economist. First, economists are not always correct, together with the statistics they predict. And second, not all economists agree about the best way to deal with a recession. So however much you google on the words "structural deficit" and then post whatever comes up as a link it may not necessarily be correct, possum.

Here's a comment on George Osborne's speech at the Conservative conference. PS. Vote for us and we will make your life a right misery. Good election winning speech, that.
"Cutting public spending in a recession is a really bad idea" The writer is in favour of public spending as a way of getting out of a recession. You may have heard of Roosevelt and the New Deal. If you havent, try googling it. But in summary, it was about public spending and banking reform etc etc as a way of getting out of the Great Depression.

Now I can imagine, that you will describe the person who made this comment as a Labour cunt. It is David Blanchflower who was a former member of the Bank of Englands monetary policy committee and one of the very, very, very few people to predict the banking crisis, credit crunch and the need to reduce interest rates.

So in short, your comments on the structural deficit having nothing at all to do with the bank bailouts and assorted fallout, is nonsense.
Secondly there may be aspects of getting into debt in order to get out of a recession which are justifiable.

Now I realise that this might be difficult to grasp for someone who appears to live in the black and white world that you do, but there you go.

I'm off down the pub. Sweet dreams my little potty-mouthed pseudo-economist.