Fallacy of Composition

ChasH said:
What's the problem? You make a big deal about being downgraded, but you won't even name the company that's given us this rating?

Why don't you just make your ****ing point rather than continue with these pathetic riddles??

The main rating agencies are S&P, Moodys and Fitch. All currently have the UK as AAA/Aaa.

Moody's have recently downgraded a number of countries but gave affirmed the UK rating.

Are you happy now??
:facepalm:
Sidicks
 
Surely it would be better to pay people to work than pay them benefits, no? Hell we are spending the money anyway... just not seeing any benefit in return.

That would live or die on who was employing them. If it is a private company then yes, employing someone is cheaper than keeping them on benefit. If they are being employed by the state then it isn't- you are paying them more money from the same place as the benefit came from. The return is measurable (hopefully) in a departmental state but not in a fiscal one. There is also the additional issue that the pool of unemployment doesn't match the requirements of state. More nurses are never a bad thing but how many qualified ones are actually claiming JSA at present?

The US fiscal stimuli have cost an inconceivable sum of money and haven't really delivered growth in keeping with the "investment" (a word I'm always unhappy using in Government spending terms) whilst unemployment remains higher than here or much of Europe. I can't help but think that private companies now view stimulus as a temporary situation which has to end and once it does, the economy will always fall to the level that real world conditions demand. Recovery will only happen when it is ready to happen. Spunking a load of borrowed or (worse) printed money won't magically change this.
 
That would live or die on who was employing them. If it is a private company then yes, employing someone is cheaper than keeping them on benefit. If they are being employed by the state then it isn't- you are paying them more money from the same place as the benefit came from. The return is measurable (hopefully) in a departmental state but not in a fiscal one. There is also the additional issue that the pool of unemployment doesn't match the requirements of state. More nurses are never a bad thing but how many qualified ones are actually claiming JSA at present?

The US fiscal stimuli have cost an inconceivable sum of money and haven't really delivered growth in keeping with the "investment" (a word I'm always unhappy using in Government spending terms) whilst unemployment remains higher than here or much of Europe. I can't help but think that private companies now view stimulus as a temporary situation which has to end and once it does, the economy will always fall to the level that real world conditions demand. Recovery will only happen when it is ready to happen. Spunking a load of borrowed or (worse) printed money won't magically change this.

I don't agree... but thanks for taking the time to put down an alternative view. I feel there is more to it than that. Imposing an ideology behind the smokescreen of debt....shrinking the state. Would you advocate a deviation if we were to double dip?

Also was it not Osbourne/cameron who said that private enterprise would flourish and take up the numbers of unemployed ps workers?

What do you think about SB's article then?... it must strike quite a blow with Osbourne considering his standing and previous affiliations with the Tory party.
 
Last edited:
sharger said:
I don't agree... but thanks for taking the time to put down an alternative view. I feel there is more to it than that. Imposing an ideology behind the smokescreen of debt....shrinking the state. Would you advocate a deviation if we were to double dip?

What do you think about SB's article then?... it must strike quite a blow with Osbourne considering his standing and previous affiliations with the Tory party.

I personally think we should now hold off on further stimulus regardless of the next few months but that's me. It is worth remembering that there is a whacking great one underway at present anyway with the Olympics and Crossrail. The answer to a sluggish economy is not a larger state and stimulating the private sector is extremely haphazard. Am I ideologically opposed to a larger state? Not really. Do we need the state to exist within the means of the economy? Always.

I don't think Osbourne will be that worried by the article. Tories are a looser political affiliation than Labour (at least they were) and dissent is more common. Equally, the FT has made some astonishingly poor calls over the Euro crisis recently and if this guy is one of the people making them, we'd be best off leaving him alone.
 
I don't agree... but thanks for taking the time to put down an alternative view. I feel there is more to it than that. Imposing an ideology behind the smokescreen of debt....shrinking the state. Would you advocate a deviation if we were to double dip?

Also was it not Osbourne/cameron who said that private enterprise would flourish and take up the numbers of unemployed ps workers?

What do you think about SB's article then?... it must strike quite a blow with Osbourne considering his standing and previous affiliations with the Tory party.
The problem with the whole 'cuts make sense' theory is that Private sector jobs have been lost at the same time as 'worthless' Public Sector ones.

The Public sector uses (sorry, used to) private firms for numerous tasks that once were carried out in house. IT is now provided largely by outside firms and all equipment for the public sector is of course bought in from - the private sector. Once all those public sector posts went, so did the need for the support, equipment, office space etc.

So, forget the dole issue, the one Cameron and the other idiot didn't want to get into was the impact cuts would have on the 'important' part of the economy.

I agree that cuts to the deficit had to be made, but repeating past mistakes is inexcusable. The Tories knew full well what happen after the 80's cuts, yet did the same thing again.......

As for fantasy that the last govt was 'spend mental', can anyone explain then, how from 2004 onwards, year on year cuts across the Public sector equated to 'crass spending'?

I'm tired of the Tories blaming every one but themselves for making another fine mess.........
 
I agree that cuts to the deficit had to be made, but repeating past mistakes is inexcusable. The Tories knew full well what happen after the 80's cuts, yet did the same thing again.......

Which makes me beg the question again.... is the smokescreen of debt and cuts being used to enforce an ideology of a smaller state.

At what point will this government change tact, if at all as losing face is worse than a failed economy? One thing is for sure, if they don't realise there is a balance between the economy, social harmony they will be out in the wilderness at the next election and for many years to come..... again.
 
sharger said:
Which makes me beg the question again.... is the smokescreen of debt and cuts being used to enforce an ideology of a smaller state.
1) The debt is huge and growing - no smokescreen required!

2) The cuts are minimal - only cuts in real terms not nominal terms!

sharger said:
At what point will this government change tact, if at all as losing face is worse than a failed economy? One thing is for sure, if they don't realise there is a balance between the economy, social harmony they will be out in the wilderness at the next election and for many years to come..... again.
When will people realise that money doesn't grow on trees and that it is not a necessity to have a 42" Plasma TV, full Sky subscription and a new iPhone.

:confused:
Sidicks
 
Last edited:
1) The debt is huge and growing - no smokescreen required!

2) The cuts are minimal - only cuts in real terms not nominal terms!


When will people realise that money doesn't grow on trees and that it is not a necessity to have a 42" Plasma TV, full Sky subscription and a new iPhone.

:confused:
Sidicks

Shatter?

If people have disposable income is it not good for the economy to spend on whatever they want? Or should we create a depression by hoarding the money just in case?

The cuts are not minimal.... the economy has flatlined, wouldn't be a suprise to anyone if we double dip... including osbourne.
 
sharger said:
iPhone autocorrect - mow amended, apologies!

Sharger said:
If people have disposable income is it not good for the economy to spend on whatever they want? Or should we create a depression by hoarding the money just in case?

The cuts are not minimal.... the economy has flatlined, wouldn't be a suprise to anyone if we double dip... including osbourne.

Public spending is increasing in nominal terms.

Of course there is a risk of a double dip - you act like the alternative to the current Coalition approach was without significant risks...?

1997-2008 was effectively the biggest party ever. It is impossible for there not to be some firm of hangover....

:)
Sidicks
 
iPhone autocorrect - mow amended, apologies!



Public spending is increasing in nominal terms.

Of course there is a risk of a double dip - you act like the alternative to the current Coalition approach was without significant risks...?

1997-2008 was effectively the biggest party ever. It is impossible for there not to be some firm of hangover....

:)
Sidicks

The cuts are adding to that spending... an extra 46 billion not to mention the added bonus of social disharmony. At what point do you say enough is enough? As overkill mentions did they not learn from last time?
 
sharger said:
The cuts are adding to that spending... an extra 46 billion not to mention the added bonus of social disharmony. At what point do you say enough is enough? As overkill mentions did they not learn from last time?

1) the £46 billion increase in the March 2011 Budget is not over Alistair Darling's March 2010 Budget but over Osborne's June 2010 Budget.

Importantly it is £128 billion less than what Alistair Darling proposed over the same period.

2) For some 'unknown' reason the previous government did not publish 5-year forecasts for debt interest in the Pre Budget Report 2009 and the Budget 2010.

However, the Insitute for Fiscal Studies' estimated that debt interest would rise from around £30 billion to almost £75billion in 2014-15.

:)
Sidicks
 
Interesting thoughts in the FT... discuss.....

The splintered opposition to fiscal austerity - FT.com

The splintered opposition to fiscal austerity
By Samuel Brittan
Despite economic stagnation and rising unemployment, most industrial countries, with the honourable exception of the US under the Obama administration, are engaged in fiscal austerity. These programmes are likely to fail in their own budget-balancing terms because of their kickback effects on growth; but that is not the main argument against them.

George Osborne, the chancellor, likes to boast he is at the head of the pack; and so he is, almost, in terms of dire results.

The best one can say about the UK economy is that it is what Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, calls “flat lining.” In other words output is stagnating. This contrasts with 2-3 per cent annual growth required to prevent unemployment and excess capacity from increasing.

The article itself is the usual socialist claptrap IMHO.

Why does everything that does not agree with the government have to be socialist claptrap, especially from an credited economist and supporter of the Thatcher government?

Does it not set any alarm bells ringing?

What difference does it make if he is a credited economist?


Just to restate why I thought this article was socialist claptrap.

- It is urging stimulus without proper thought of the impact of that on the interest we pay on our borrowings
- It is urging stimulus when the only example it gives of an economy that is still undertaking stimulus is not doing greatly better than us, and has worse unemployment than us (and after much bigger stimulus we could possibly afford)

i.e. it is just another voice saying we should be spending more money we don't have to get results that are not guaranteed and which have just as much likelihood of making our debt crisis worse. Ed Balls could have written this article himself.

Ok.... so are you saying the economy is going in the right direction and has not 'flatlined'? Is consumer spending stimulated enough to start the economy again? Are the effects of a non stimulated economy leading to higher unemployment?

Our economy hasn’t grown since this time last year. Families and pensioners are being squeezed by soaring inflation and there are now more people out of work than for 17 years.

More people out of work and the dole means it's going to be harder to get the deficit down. In fact, there’s going to be £46 billion more borrowing than the government planned.

Would it not of been better to invest in capital projects killing 2 birds with 1 stone so to speak.... manufacture of goods for projects ensuring employment for the producers and employment for the trades carrying out the work, apprenticeships for the young maybe? Just a thought.

And from where on the magic money tree does the money to invest in these capital projects come from?

What happens when funding these capital projects affects our credit rating?

Let me put it another way that you might understand. An extra 46 billion being spent on things like people becoming unemployed due to shrinking of the state and businesses going bust due to a stagnated economy. What money tree did that come from?

Surely it would be better to pay people to work than pay them benefits, no? Hell we are spending the money anyway... just not seeing any benefit in return.

The problem with the whole 'cuts make sense' theory is that Private sector jobs have been lost at the same time as 'worthless' Public Sector ones.

The Public sector uses (sorry, used to) private firms for numerous tasks that once were carried out in house. IT is now provided largely by outside firms and all equipment for the public sector is of course bought in from - the private sector. Once all those public sector posts went, so did the need for the support, equipment, office space etc.

So, forget the dole issue, the one Cameron and the other idiot didn't want to get into was the impact cuts would have on the 'important' part of the economy.

I agree that cuts to the deficit had to be made, but repeating past mistakes is inexcusable. The Tories knew full well what happen after the 80's cuts, yet did the same thing again.......



I'm tired of the Tories blaming every one but themselves for making another fine mess.........

Which makes me beg the question again.... is the smokescreen of debt and cuts being used to enforce an ideology of a smaller state.

At what point will this government change tact, if at all as losing face is worse than a failed economy? One thing is for sure, if they don't realise there is a balance between the economy, social harmony they will be out in the wilderness at the next election and for many years to come..... again.

And as if by magic:facepalm:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom