
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

the government needs to spend to stimulate the economy. It seems counter-intuitive until you remember that running a country is completely different to personal finances.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:17, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Never fails. It's why I'm so rich.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:18, Reply)

"never mind, I'll just post what I was going to anyway regardless of the fact that it makes me look a complete spastic, oh wait, I am, so I guess it's par for the course."
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:21, Reply)

Monty should know what kind of cunt he's replying to here
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

that greasy neckless twat would be better off under a bus
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:49, Reply)

his occasional funny lines were far outweighed by random turgid crap
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:53, Reply)

Sorry if this is dull, but I'm interested in alternatives.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:18, Reply)

however...if that spending doesn't create growth due to international issues out of a governments control, then they will have increased their debt, thus fucking the country further.
it's a gamble basically.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:20, Reply)

A council in Norfolk has a couple of acres of unused land. At the moment to make money they sell it to a developer. They get x ammount of money one off.
If they had the budget they could hire a housing contractor/architect build 100 houses, sell them or make them social housing. They'd get much more money this way.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:30, Reply)

Also elected officials don't trust public sector staff to do anything, except the army who are arguably the worst performing group of people on the government payroll.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:31, Reply)

They are repositioning themselves to appear different from their predecessors.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:33, Reply)

they have let it become known that they left the economy in a mess, but they didn't, it was growing when they lost power.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:34, Reply)

They pay tax on their income and then pay money to other people in shops, who then pay tax and it all goes round and round. Turn off the tap and there's less money going round.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:22, Reply)

( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:25, Reply)

( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

The government can indeed prop up the economy for a short period of time until the economy grows enough to sustain itself.
But it takes the guts to actually invest with borrowed money, and also to stop that money being syphoned off by parasticic companies who don't pay taxes and banks who jsut sit on it. It actually has to go into peoples pockets, not into company balance sheets.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:33, Reply)

Surely they employ too many people to just Fuck them off?
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:36, Reply)

All companies will adjust to whatever regulatory regime you forece them into, they won't leave, they won't move, they will stay and make a profit. It might not be as much profit as before, but it's still a profit.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:45, Reply)

( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:57, Reply)

So, the thing to do would be to shuffle spending around to maximise it's potential for returns?
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:26, Reply)

( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

and the fact that we have a soverign currency and therefore we can pretty much do whatever the fuck we like (in the short term at least) in terms of internal spending, to invest in capital projects now, not in five or ten years time, but now.
This puts money in peoples pockets which they then go out and spend, this in turn allows manufacturers to make money and pay taxes and after a while you get a self supporting economy and you can make cuts and raise taxes to pay off the debts you built up doing this.
( , Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:29, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread