RYL Forums - View Single Post

talaiporia · 23-03-2014, 02:15 AM

Far from balancing the books, the current government have put us more in debt (at the last general election the figure was around £1 trillion), as well has having significant impacts for the economy, spending much of the last five years teetering dangerously close to a triple dip recessions. For all the flaws of increased government spending, it is good in times of crisis, in times of recession; and it is the reason we didn't experience the same issues America did.

Indeed, we came out of the recession second only to Canada in terms of developed nations. Yes, the previous government raked up a lot of debt, but it wasn't done purposelessly or carelessly; it was done to keep the country financially stable and avoid losing our AAA rating, which would have had terrible implications for the country. Countries have debts; all the developed countries do, and increasing the spending isn't always a bad thing in the same way it would be for families or individuals as it stimulates the economy.

Hospitals and schools don't make money; they're not designed to, they're not businesses. The investment is aimed at the wider economy; providing bright, young, educated individuals who are fit to work, and can contribute to our economy. Investment in schools and healthcare leads to a stronger economy; we need only compare ourselves to the Scandinavian countries on one hand, and America on the other to see the difference it makes.

Living an hour or more away from an A&E costs lives. You mention the figures; so how much is a human life worth? What sort of figure would we place on right to live? Should we deny free healthcare to over 50s, or to those whose illness is self inflicted (such as self harm, obesity or smoking)? Where do we draw the line?

The arguments in this thread are incredibly simplistic, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of economics, and of management of recessions; both governments have, in my opinion, broadly made the right choices. A recession needs a period of high government spending, followed by a period of austerity (once the risk is over). Yes, I feel the current government have made cuts a little too early, but both governments have fundamentally made the right choices at the right time; and would have made almost identical choices had their roles been reversed. We have one of the strongest economies in the world, and it isn't politically driven.

23-03-2014, 02:15 AM	#18
talaiporia Chat Mod Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: W. London I am currently:	Far from balancing the books, the current government have put us more in debt (at the last general election the figure was around £1 trillion), as well has having significant impacts for the economy, spending much of the last five years teetering dangerously close to a triple dip recessions. For all the flaws of increased government spending, it is good in times of crisis, in times of recession; and it is the reason we didn't experience the same issues America did. Indeed, we came out of the recession second only to Canada in terms of developed nations. Yes, the previous government raked up a lot of debt, but it wasn't done purposelessly or carelessly; it was done to keep the country financially stable and avoid losing our AAA rating, which would have had terrible implications for the country. Countries have debts; all the developed countries do, and increasing the spending isn't always a bad thing in the same way it would be for families or individuals as it stimulates the economy. Hospitals and schools don't make money; they're not designed to, they're not businesses. The investment is aimed at the wider economy; providing bright, young, educated individuals who are fit to work, and can contribute to our economy. Investment in schools and healthcare leads to a stronger economy; we need only compare ourselves to the Scandinavian countries on one hand, and America on the other to see the difference it makes. Living an hour or more away from an A&E costs lives. You mention the figures; so how much is a human life worth? What sort of figure would we place on right to live? Should we deny free healthcare to over 50s, or to those whose illness is self inflicted (such as self harm, obesity or smoking)? Where do we draw the line? The arguments in this thread are incredibly simplistic, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of economics, and of management of recessions; both governments have, in my opinion, broadly made the right choices. A recession needs a period of high government spending, followed by a period of austerity (once the risk is over). Yes, I feel the current government have made cuts a little too early, but both governments have fundamentally made the right choices at the right time; and would have made almost identical choices had their roles been reversed. We have one of the strongest economies in the world, and it isn't politically driven.
	It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go. No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do. We won't all be here this time next year, so while you can take a picture of us. We're definitely going to hell, but we'll have all the best stories to tell.