When your tax revenues are less than your intended spending on public services - simple really

That isn't "not showing your hand", that's blatant lying

Maybe they could get Dave Hartnett to chase up some of the rl£25bn tax owed by big businessrl?

Quote: cod'ead "Maybe they could get Dave Hartnett to chase up some of the rl£25bn tax owed by big businessrl?'" or maybe the Labour Party would be able to repay the nation at least some of the £12 billion wasted here ? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apped.html

Quote: cod'ead "Maybe they could get Dave Hartnett to chase up some of the rl£25bn tax owed by big businessrl?'" or maybe the Labour Party would be able to repay the nation at least some of the £12 billion wasted here ? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apped.html

Ooh David !! You naughty man, that is the definition of what a deficit is, I was already aware of that.

What I was asking was when would you run a deficit if not during a boom period?

It's called Keynesian economics.
It's also called stimulus.


So they lied.
Right ... got it now, thanks.

It's called getting into more debt.

If things were that easy all governments would spend willy-nilly and we'd all be better off!

Er, I'm not an economist, but I don't think the Keynesian approach is synonymous with 'spending willy nilly'. My understanding is that the spending is targeted towards projects that are of long term benefit and that will bring money into the economy by keeping people in work. If you don't agree with adopting this approach, fine, but to dismiss it as 'spending willy nilly' seems a little simplistic.

Those things are being done - there are some major capital projects on the go - eg the Olympics site - but that's hardly bailed us out.

In case it escapes you we are in the midst of a soveriegn debt crisis and so a traditional Keynesian solution is probably not an option (although I'm not an economist either. Having said that, I read have articles by many economists and most talk drivel and their predictions are invariably wrong!).

In case it escapes you, I wasn't advocating any particular solution, merely taking issue with your description of Keynesian economics as 'spending willy nilly'.

and I was pointing out the current context. I firmly believe that if Mr K were still alive he would not be advocating the particular policy that everyone thinks he would. From what I gatherr he was a man of some intellect and vision and not a sheep who accepted conventional, broken wisdom.

Context is neither here nor there. I've not heard a single person, on here or anywhere else, say we should just 'spend willy nilly', or anything like it.



And what policy does 'everyone' think he would advocate?

No its not Keynesian economics - Keynes prescribed major infrastructure projects - roads/housing etc not frittering away borrowed money on inefficient quangos, public services and benefits.

The "traditional" Keynesian solution is specifically deficit spending as a way of keeping things moving, lifting confidence and priming the pump for recovery.
Add to that the fact that with bond yields at such a historic low, it's cheaper to spend now than any other time.

Osborne would argue that this spending would "crowd-out" spending by private industry in the same areas of spend.
Hence his limp call for private industry to embark on infrastructure projects... i.e. Trying to get the Keynesian result without the Keynesian method.
Won't work, they'll be wanting short-term paybacks.