Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: Your Comment on was-the-financial-crisis-avoidable

Expand Messages
  • John
    Jock, I for one do not treat Brown as a hero. He was no failure either. I did outline the major point if his achievements. He did not stop the money running
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 3, 2011
      Jock, I for one do not treat Brown as a hero. He was no failure either. I did outline the major point if his achievements.  He did not stop the money running from the poor to the rich.  But, a Tory saying, all boats float on the same rising tide. 

      Home ownership keeps the same money floating around not doing much at all. and transfers wealth mainly from young to old.  

      Jock, the system is wrong. Over 120 years has proven that.  It will fail.  No one has not experienced failures of some sort - unless a chancellor is lucky to be in for a short period when we are on the up curve.  Geoist policies will prevent the crashes and even out the peaks and troughs. Largely self regulating. Then we are not in the arms of a few men who touch control the economy to attempt to keep it stable. 

      Did they just hit lucky when they were in charge in the longest period of economic growth in UK history?  Jock, you can't bluff and economy for the 13 years Brown/Darling were in charge. They were far from perfect, but they were no out and out failures keeping relative stability.  OK they may have failed and a world-wide crash hit them masking this but the trends did not indicate so.

      The UK deficit is about the same as Germany and France and better than the
      USA.  Look at the photos - click photos in the menu, the chart below is there under John Burns:

      An external link:

      The chart states that the deficit of 2007-2008 was £34.4 billion including £25 billion to bail out Northern Rock. That would have meant the deficit would have been only a lowish £9.9 billion if the CC was not starting bite. It was dropping after the social schemes and infrastructure projects were being finalized.  Thatcher and Major neglected the country to the point it was falling apart. Brown/Blair had to spend on infrastructure.  They had no option once they stabilized.

      I dug up some figures..

      Below: The first two columns are the important ones. 1993 was horrendous under John Major.  Brown/Blair inherited a mess. Look at the the 2008 and 2009 figures after the Credit Crunch. Brown had the deficit well down until the Credit Crunch. To 2008 the deficit was to build hospitals and schools and tram systems in some cities, etc. Rail infrastructure was being improved as well. Brown inherited a mess in 1997.

      YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Net borrowing, £m : Party in power 

      1991 -8,142 -17,976 Con
      1992 -29,259 -40,155 Con
      1993 -40,576 -50,869 Con
      1994 -36,268 -45,945 Con
      1995 -28,232 -38,603 Con
      1996 -22,749 -29,240 Con
      1997 -11,246 -15,555 Lab
      1998 6,903 703 Lab
      1999 17,474 11,976 Lab
      2000 21,489 16,697 Lab
      2001 19,646 8,426 Lab
      2002 -6,979 -19,046 Lab
      2003 -18,943 -34,004 Lab
      2004 -19,818 -36,797 Lab
      2005 -17,405 -41,355 Lab
      2006 -6,878 -30,736 Lab
      2007 -7,558 -33,901 Lab
      2008 -28,686 -61,450 Lab (includes £25 billion to bail out Northern Rock)
      2009 -97,764 -142,640 Lab

      Above, under the Tories it was appalling.  A true basket case. The figures speak for themselves.  1993 was -40,576, when there was no major infrastructure being built in the country - NOTHING!!!  Just shear incompetence - and the rich got richer big time.

      Labour got hold of the economy after inheriting a basket case in 1997. The above figures show they were not reckless in spending at all, and what they spent was on essential infrastructure to a large degree.

      Once again the system is just plain wrong. Geoist policies is the way forward. 

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.