Thread: British National Debt reaches a trillion pounds.

CB100, think about the situation?

What situation?

Originally Posted by lorraine

CB100, think about the situation?

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

CB:100: May I give you the United Kingdom's national debt as a percentage of GDP. for the years 2000 until 2010.

2000. 35.37%
2001. 30.57%
2002. 29.32%
2003. 30. 45%
2004. 31.82%
2005. 33.92%
2006. 34.92%
2007. 36.25%
2008. 36.26%
2009. 44.19%
2010. 52.25%.

A national debt of 312 billion was more than manageable. It was, as I have said previously, the problems after about 2007. which have caused the difficulties. I have plenty of criticisms of Mr Brown, but to chide his for even having a national debt, when every government in history has had one, is a little harsh. As I have said on a few occassions, assessing the extent to which that debt has collateral is more relevent to the problem. Until that financial problem which affected Britain, and much of the Western World developed, our national debt was low by historical standards. I see panic among the tabloid readers, as an unfortunate impediment to the resolution of national problems.

CB100: In 2006, the final payment was made to the United States, thereby liquidating that debt in its entirety. That, by any objective standard that was reducing the national debt. In 2008, as you see above, the national debt, as a percentage of GDP was 36.26%. You would be required to return to the years of John Major to see the N.D. as a lower percentage of GDP. Let us look at the facts.

Ten years prior to 2008, the situation was worse.

1998, N.D. as percentage of GDP. 40.14%
1997, GDP. 41.92%
1996, GDP. 41.20%
1995, GDP. 39.55%
1994, GDP. 36.05%

Having sold off most of the public utilities and nationalised industries, the public deficit only abated for a short time in the late 1990s'. Once the revenue from the 'asset sales' had ceased, and George Soros had decimated our reserves, debts again started to rise, only on this occasion collateral was greatly diminished. The war in Iraq was Britain's first problem in the early 2000s' (in terms of cost) What did cause a special problem was the global banking crisis. Fortunately Alan Greenspan had disappeared in favour of Ben Bernanke. The employment of QE by the United States and Britain was the best response given the total situation. My claim that Britain was managing to pay off debts, keep unemployment relatively low, and keeping Britain out of the Single Currency was fortunate. The national debt and (all public debt, incidentally.) until 2009 was going in the right direction.

Posting 15 earlier:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Whatever sins Gordon Brown committed,the national debt was reducing satisfactorily until 2008.

Let me give you a further chance to admit your mistake.... Do you admit that the UK national debt was increasing up to 2008 not reducing as you said above?

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

In 2008, as you see above, the national debt, as a percentage of GDP was 36.26%.

Your statement above doesn't refer to as a share of GDP. It says, "the national debt was reducing satisfactorily until 2008".

And from 2002 onwards, it was increasing both in absolute terms and as a share of GDP.

Ten years prior to 2008, the situation was worse.

Irrelevant to your posting number 15. The national debt was increasing from 2002 onwards both in absolute terms and as % of GDP.

The national debt and (all public debt, incidentally.) until 2009 was going in the right direction.

Are you saying that the increase in the national debt from 2002 up to 2009 was going in the right direction?

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

CB100: You will find the the measure of the national debt, at least since the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 has been its percentage of GDP.

You will find that the measure of GDP has always been expressed both as a % of GDP and as its' absolute level. Thus it is of fundamental importance to define if you mean the relative level or the absolute level.

However, neither definition helps you in this case because even in relative terms the national debt was rising from 2002 onwards. So you are wrong with either definition.

Here are the relevant percentages of GDP

Year % of GDP

2002 29.33
2003 30.45
2004 31.82
2005 33.81
2006 34.92
2007 35.74
2008 36.25
2009 44.19

Any time you want to admit your error, please feel free to do so.......

I am saying that the trend from 1997-2007, were in the right direction.

National debt rising from 2002 onwards as a share of GDP was going in the right direction? Are you serious?

CB100: Against the totality of the situation, a couple of wars, plus a global financial/banking crises, I doubt if the national debt has ever risen more modestly. You will find that the present economic situation will be less sustainable than that pursued by Brown. That gentleman is no hero of mine, but you will find that we are in a worse mess now than under Brown, and it will need sustaining with QE for some years to come.

Whatever your justifications, do you now concede your error in making the statement that the national debt was coming down up to 2008? Reference your posting number 15.

Go on.... You can do it.....It won't hurt admitting you make mistakes.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

CB100: Against the totality of the situation, a couple of wars, plus a global financial/banking crises, I doubt if the national debt has ever risen more modestly. You will find that the present economic situation will be less sustainable than that pursued by Brown. That gentleman is no hero of mine, but you will find that we are in a worse mess now than under Brown, and it will need sustaining with QE for some years to come.

CB100: Paying off the American loan was reducing the N.D. My economy of explanation may have misled a few, but the content and spirit of the tuition was helpful and beneficial to the multitude. I'm not claiming infallibility; but I do admit to illustrating the dangers of brevity.

Tuition? You are fooling yourself if you think anyone would take you seriously after responding with these weak excuses.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

My economy of explanation may have misled a few, but the content and spirit of the tuition was helpful and beneficial to the multitude. I'm not claiming infallibility; but I do admit to illustrating the dangers of brevity.