What is fairness in terms of government spending cuts?

Post Reply New Topic

The concept is that the government will not support them and therefore they must somehow support themselves by begging or charity or crime. This is the conservative viewpoint.

It is proven. The Pettifor-Chick study. When states borrow they build up GDP at a bigger rate than they build the debt. This causes the relative debt to decrease. It's very simple.

I posted about this several months ago.

To repeat my summary here...


Debt to GDP ratio is the measurement of debt manageability. It measures the debt against the ability to pay...

The study is here. Britain's debt to GDP ratio as it has developed over the past century can be seen on a table listed there. The 2009 debt to GDP ratio is similar to that of 1971 when Edward Heath was prime minister. That's when he started his "dash towards growth". This is a slightly different reaction to that of David Cameron, is it?

In 1909, it was 33%
In 1919, it was 136%
In 1929, it was 162%
In 1939, it was 141%
In 1949, it was 201%
In 1959, it was 116%
In 1969, it was 74%
In 1979, it was 46%
In 1989, it was 39%
In 1999, it was 47%
In 2009, it was 61%

By the way, it was 44% in 2007 just before the crisis struck. Funnelling all that money to banks is not very efficient. Those Conservative partisans should know also that the figure was 53% when Blair took over from Major, so this talk of structural deficit hell caused by Labour is not supported by the numbers.

By the way, look at Debt to GDP when the welfare state was founded, when the NHS was founded... 201% it was. "Unsustainable", they'd say now.

These latest cuts just strengthen the case for monetary reform. Governments should create money and spend it into society debt-free instead of borrowing it from banks at interest.

I could hardly put it any better than this:

In the United States, many school districts have laid off teachers due to budget cuts.

98% of public transportation systems had to either increase fare, reduce service, or even both. In my hometown, Colorado Springs, base fare went up from $1.25 in 2007 to $1.50 in 2008 and up to $1.75 in 2009. Several routes were eliminated, including the free downtown shuttle. Service hours were slashed in half from where they were in 2007 as of January 2010. All evening and weekend bus service was stopped in January 2010. The bus fleet dropped from about 110 buses down to 55 in three years.

These cuts make it harder to get workers to the workplace and people would become less inclined to take work because it makes no sense spending half the day commuting or spend crazy amounts of money on transportation. Employers may be forced to increase the amount they pay to get workers. Increases the cost of doing business. This shows the insanity of the Teabagger crowd.

People should know that when income taxes rise wages are adjusted upward and when income taxes fall wages are adjusted downward. The Bush tax cut is one reason why wages went down during his time in office - bosses saw it as a rise for all their workers and concluded that therefore they didn't need increases and they pocketed it themselves.

The fairest cut of all would be to eliminate salaries for elected officials and completely eliminate their budgets to hire staff. Now that would be fair (to the Taxpayer).

ruveyn

Ah yes, and sell these government functions to the private sector as US towns sell tax collection to Wall Street, that then demands $1,500 on top of a $200 tax bill and 18% interest and faster than you think, they seize the house. Or how about the contractors who contract to other contractors who contract to other contractors who have the work done by near slaves whilst a bunch of executives get fat cheques out of it for doing what exactly? Small Governmentism is really Vampirism.

That's really interesting, actually. I'll read up on it.

I decided to offer some more with the stats - there you have the beginning of premierships with the name of the Prime Minister and the government (Labour, Conservative, Liberal or national) as well as notable events.

One clear thing you see is the difference between what happened after World War I and World War II. After World War II they went with the welfare state and debt to GDP plunged. After World War I they went with fiscal retrenchment and austerity and debt to GDP shot upwards - you'd think that not having to pay for a war anymore that the debt situation would improve but it did not! It got far worse.

Notice the debt to GDP ratios of the interwar period. The deficit fetishists would be running around like mad if this kind of number were to exist now, they'd say the world is about to end.


1909 - Asquith 1 33% LIBERAL
1914 - WORLD WAR I 26%
1915 - Asquith 2 36% LIBERAL
1916 - Lloyd George 61% NATIONAL
1918 - WORLD WAR I ENDS 114%
1922 - Bonar-Law 170% CONSERVATIVE
1923 - Baldwin 1 180% CONSERVATIVE
1924 - MacDonald 1 176% LABOUR
1924 - Baldwin 2 176% CONSERVATIVE
1929 - MacDonald 2 162% LABOUR
1931 - MacDonald 3 173% NATIONAL
1935 - Baldwin 3 168% CONSERVATIVE
1937 - Chamberlain 150% CONSERVATIVE
1939 - WORLD WAR II 141%
1940 - Churchill 1 121% NATIONAL
1945 - WORLD WAR II ENDS - WELFARE STATE STARTS
1945 - Attlee 1 232% LABOUR
1950 - Attlee 2 197% LABOUR
1951 - Churchill 2 178% CONSERVATIVE
1955 - Eden 141% CONSERVATIVE
1957 - MacMillan 1 125% CONSERVATIVE
1959 - MacMillan 2 116% CONSERVATIVE
1963 - Douglas-Home 101% CONSERVATIVE
1964 - Wilson 1 93% LABOUR
1966 - Wilson 2 84% LABOUR
1970 - Heath 66% CONSERVATIVE
1974 - Wilson 3,4 50% LABOUR
1976 - Callaghan 47% LABOUR
IMF NEOLIBERALISM STARTS IN '76, THATCHERISM IN '79
1979 - Thatcher 1 46% CONSERVATIVE
1983 - Thatcher 2 43% CONSERVATIVE
1987 - Thatcher 3 46% CONSERVATIVE
1990 - Major 1 35% CONSERVATIVE
1992 - Major 2 35% CONSERVATIVE
1997 - Blair 1 53% LABOUR
2001 - Blair 2 43% LABOUR
2005 - Blair 3 42% LABOUR
2007 - Brown 44% LABOUR