h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In plain speak.
"The interest paid out on government debt was nearly £4bn pounds in August, a near trebling on the figure in the same month a year ago."
A frightening growing debt that in some way has to be paid off. It will never be cleared unless more people add value to their lives and the lives of others and return a fair days work for a fair days pay.
Put simply.
There are too many feet in the trough.
Q.E.D

>>"The interest paid out on government debt was nearly £4bn pounds in August, a near trebling on the figure in the same month a year ago."<<

Even if I accepted that figure without question, which I don't, I'd have to point out there are a lot of strange things going on and so the interest rates on sovereign debt is abnormally high.

For a start interest rates always go up in recessions and we're in the worst one in a generation;
Second Britain's credit rating has been under some pressure because one of our main economic sectors was hit hardest;
Third the EU has just witnessed a sovereign debt crisis in its "core" countries which made everyone nervous;
Finally we're carrying a lot more debt than usual because of the nationalised banks which (Northern Rock excepted) are returning to profitability as we speak. Their sale will make a good sum of money for the public purse.

None of these are long-term issues and public finances will look a lot healthier once they've been resolved. Those claiming these are permanent problems are flat-out lying.

>>return a fair days work for a fair days pay<<

So what do you consider to be a fair wage for the 99% of public servants not on 100k+ salaries? How did you come to this figure?

Incidentally, you've not answered TRiG's question about whether you're prepared to pay back all you've had from the state.

I'm sorry for leaving this thread for so long.

My final paragraph about women etc was addressing why people go on strike and whether that should be a last resort right for everybody who realistically works, PARTICULARLY in front line support roles.

Women, those who have families etc. are groups who tend to be ignored unless some force is brought to bear on helping them to achieve worthwhile income and working situations.

Family friendly working refers to people like a good friend of mine who works for the Ambulance service as a paramedic. His wife gave birth, had her maternity leave and was due to restart work. She is a Dr. in forensics and works as a lecturer at a large university so on their wages alone, hers is the better paid, so it makes sense that HE be the one to go part time and she continues full time.

It came within a week of him having to hand in his notice, and a lot of wrangling, for them to finally agree to give him part time hours. Now tell me, Is it better for the ambulance service to LOSE a paramedic, along with the costs of all his training and the costs of a full time employee? Or should arranging hours that he could work in good time and easing into it gently with foreplanning be sensible and less costly?

Women are not treated equally (and until fairly recently were told that they would get a full pension if they paid a reduced tax once they married and stopped working. Which was a lie), someone has to give birth to the next generation. Is it right that *theoretically* half the population be penalised for procreating?

Parents are not treated equally.

These people are not considered fully when businesses want to change. Sometimes it's not about wages alone. Sometimes it's about a main carer being forced to leave a job or work hours that dont allow them to see and bring up their family.

That's a lot to do with what's wrong with society and when businesses try to make it worse for the sake of the bottom line (i.e. so shareholders can earn more and the directors can dodge more taxes) it's absolutely correct that the ultimate protest should be temporary removal of labour.

Is that clear enough or do families, the long term ill and women not count?

>>"I feel that the line the thread has taken constitutes an attack, is provocative and offensive. My understanding is that any attempt to try and explain things must surely break the house rules."

So now you can't even explain what you mean when you claim to have been 'putting things simply' without risking being offensive, having previously limited yourself to evasion and (attempted) patronisation?

I guess we can just thank our lucky stars that you weren't attempting to explain anything /complicated/.

To the wise one, the one with his head in the clouds, the one with his head underground, the one with is head under water and anyone else who is puzzled by my posts.

Averting a debt crisis in Britain - Extract from :- http://www.debtbombshell.com that is worth a click around.

< As complex as the national debt problem may be, the solutions call for nothing more than basic common sense. These are just some of the simple steps Britain can take to maintain economic and social stability:

1. The Government needs to stop borrowing and spend less. If debt is the problem, repayment is the solution. That might sound obvious, but our politicians haven't grasped it yet.

2. Get the public finances under control and balance the budget. Start being honest about what services the state can no longer afford to deliver.

3. Stop demonising anyone who speaks out against our addiction to spending and waste. Public spending cannot be sustained at current levels, so cutting it is the only sensible course of action.

4. Take back the moral high ground. The consequences of excess debt are misery and dishonour. What is noble about our addiction to debt and ignorance of its consequences?

5. Talk to your friends and family. Stop politicians bribing the electorate with borrowed and printed money. Embed the debt counter on your site and spread the message.

6. Contact your MP. Ask difficult questions and demand answers. >

"Ask difficult questions and demand answers"

Sure, why not?

Why is the bulk of the cost-cutting falling on those who are less well off, while the fruits of the good times go disproportionately to the wealthy, thus increasing inequality which (as shown in 'The Spirit Level' is at the root of a huge amount of social ills?

Why is the culpability of the banks and bankers for crashing the economy being airbrushed from history, and why aren't they expected to pay their share?

Why isn't anything being done about tax avoidance and evasion? Bringing in tax owed is increasing income, and that's just a good a way of eliminating debt as cutting expenditure.

To the one with his head up his arse:

You've been asked questions by a number of people and you've refused to answer them. Whether that's because you're unwilling or unable, it still doesn't give you much right to demand that others answer questions.

>>Take back the moral high ground. The consequences of excess debt are misery and dishonour<<

I like people who think that they, and they alone, know what is moral and what constitutes honour. I find they're so rational, so easy to debate with.

Because this is life. The grass is always greener on the other side of the street and nobody thinks in the same way that you do.
The largest amount of social ills are self inflicted.
You just can not bracket all the less well off together just as you can not class all public services as equal.
Unfortunately we have created a world in which everything has to have an economic value and justification. Because everyone simply wants more the pot will just run dry and the milk of human kindness will turn sour.

>>Because this is life.<<

I'm sure that's an answer to some question, alas it wasn't a question anyone here has asked. They remain unanswered.

>>The largest amount of social ills are self inflicted<<

If you say so. It's absolutely a kids fault if they're born into poverty, in deprived inner city areas where the schools are falling down around them, where access to healthcare and a healthy lifestyle is difficult and incidences of abuse are sky high compared to more affluent areas.

It's a teenagers fault that the education system has failed to provide them with the skills they need, that they are written off as only good enough for the dole or a McJob, that there are fewer jobs than potential employees and that the biggest determinant on what job you will do is what job your father did.

Our attitudes to life develop in childhood and continue to determine the way we behave for the rest of our lives. This can be changed but it is *incredibly* hard. I know for a fact that you've never had to and so prognosticate on issues you have no understanding of.

Simple fact is, if you have a childhood, chances are you'll have a life. These cuts are hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest and surely, surely, societies most fundamental convenant must be to give the next generation better than the current generation has.

The view from your ivory tower must be spectacular.

Sorry for the intrusion Otto.

>>"As complex as the national debt problem may be, the solutions call for nothing more than basic common sense."

When a person writes "common sense", (or when someone else parrots them), it's frequently a sign that someone is trying to dress up their own opinions as the only credible ones, avoid explaining *why* they think they're right, possibly gloss over one or more important issues, and at least implicitly claim anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.

I guess that approach probably does appeal to the more arrogant and smug, or to those scared they either never had, or at some point lost, the ability to put forward a credible or persuasive argument on its own merits.

If something is *obviously* right, why is there actually any need to trumpet it as being common sense?

There is usually a way to explain or perhaps 'prove' why something is or should be common sense, I agree. It's common sense

Of course if something is common sense 'because I said so' then it posibly isn't. Unless it can be backed up.

So long as backing up one's theory isn't offensive of course

That's common sense well and truly dealt with. The debt remains.

The reason why your assertion is not "common sense" is this...

The deficit does in deed remain. However because the state is not analogous to a household budget paradoxically by trying to cut the deficit to quickly in a recession the states efforts could hinder the recovery.

THe ability to pay the deficit back relies on tax recipts and if as a result of drastic spending cuts the tax recipts go down we could be in a position where by we cut spending and the deficit actually increases.

This is the paradox that Keynes noticed and basically it means that even though it is counter intuitive( and therefore mayvbe does not seem common sense) it is the wrong thing for the state to drastically cut back spending in a recession.

FB

The article says that debt is the problem and that it is basic common sense to bring it under control.
Of course cuts are one way that this can be done, and will no doubt form part of the solution.

<<"The interest paid out on government debt was nearly £4bn pounds in August>> AB

The interest rate the govt pays is around 4% (RF, where are you..?). That would mean that the debt the govt is paying debt on is £100 *billion* pounds per month, giving a yearly total of £1.2 trillion.

Eh, beaullocks? Total liabilities (mainly for the banks' debts) come to something like that, but most of those liabilities are likely to be paid, so that figure's just rubbish basically. Figures I've heard for govt *borrowing*, as opposed to guarantees, are something like £180bn a year, which is sizable enough obviously, but is not expected to remain nearly as high as that for more than a couple of years at most.

Yes Pedro annual interest of over £40bn, apparently our debt will hit £1,043 billion by April 2011 and £1.2 trillion just one year later.
That really is £1,216,000,000,000.
Rather frightening isn't it :- http://www.debtbombshell.com

Please correctt me if I'm wrong, you smart and studious ones, but if we hadn't continued borrowing, would we not have collapsed in an Icelandic style?

You may also correct my typos

You are so right.
Fortunately we rank among the wealthiest of nations that are in debt.
However our credibility is falling fast.
From time to time the debt is called in.
It would look better if the 'system' decides to balance the books and right off a few debts to make the world solvent.
Of course we could always just carry on an get a third world rating.
It's your world young lady.