My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To wonder where all the money is going?

62 replies

malificent7 · 23/11/2016 23:16

So welfare and public services are being cut?
So why do we need to borrow 122 billion ?
Brexit administration?
So cuts are not freeing up much cash. I'm confused.... Can someone elaborate.

If it is Brexit them pissed off that my tax is paying for it.

OP posts:
Report
ChanglingNight · 24/11/2016 14:15

I didn't say we should change to that way, I said that other countries have other ways of managing health care so it isn't NHS or us system. And I said as we have an NHS currently it isn't simple to change that system.

How much other countries spend isn't a sign of success or failure, it could be they have different priorities and values.

Report
Twogoats · 20/12/2016 05:25

Is it true that we owe China billions? How?

Report
lovelearning · 20/12/2016 06:07

Is it true that we owe China billions?

Trillions.

How?

We borrow money from them.

The UK also relies heavily on China for investment in national infrastructure, e.g. HS2 and Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-chinese-firm-to-submit-essex-nuclear-plant-plans

Report
Itisnoteasybeingdifferent · 20/12/2016 06:16

Gordon Brown bankrupted the country.... as always happens under a Labour government..
He spend money he didn't have leaving us and the next generation to pay off the debt. It would have been OK if we got something worthwhile... but we got supporting people workers and community development workers and limps of "art"..
He used off balance sheet finance by way of PPI leaving most schools and hospitals in impossible debt...
He saved a Scottish bank because he is a Scot and plunged the country into debt to do it..
He sold off our gold at the bottom of the market..

Report
ChestnutsRoastingOnAnOpenFire · 20/12/2016 06:56

The NHS is the most cost efficient model in the world. Big lols at thinking the US system will be more so- quite the opposite!

Report
Itisnoteasybeingdifferent · 20/12/2016 07:04

HS2 is a very bad spend that will cost a great amount and deliver little. In reality it will become a commuter line for the mega rich to live in the midlands and work in the city. The same goes for Crossrail... Whilst one of the most impressive civils projects ever built, it does nothing more than connect Docklands to the Surry stockbroker to enable them to get to work a bit quicker.

A better rail project would be to connect Norwich to Cambridge to Oxford to Southampton crewting new towns wherever the new tailway crossed the existing intcity lines... generating a whole new area of growth ans spreading opoorunity across more of the country than London and Birminghame.

Report
BarbaraofSeville · 20/12/2016 07:26

Doesn't the US Government spend more per head than the UK on healthcare despite the US system also requiring it's users (usually via their insurance companies) to pay huge amounts to use it?

Agree that the main benefit of HS2 will be to expand the commuter range for big jobs in the city. Yet more investment skewed to benefit the south east in favour of the north.

Government debt isn't always bad if it is used for investment, especially as interest rates can be very low, but it can't keep growing especially if tax receipts are falling or flat.

Report
BarbaraofSeville · 20/12/2016 07:28

Yet more investment skewed to benefit the south east instead of the north.

Sigh. Yet again. Currently in the news that a huge amount of anti flooding investment is going to be in the south east despite the north and far south west having more rain and suffering much more from flooding over recent times.

Report
DeepanKrispanEven · 20/12/2016 07:35

Brexit does have its place, given that we spent £27 billion on bailing out the banks post referendum alone. And it will continue to do so. It's obviously only a part of the whole, but it will grow in significance.

Report
TomHaverford · 20/12/2016 07:38

Sorry just to point out - it is absolutely true what several PPs have said: government debt is not the same as household debt (someone described it as the difference between micro & macro economics), but that does not mean that when private spending is reduced it's necessarily worthwhile increasing public spending.

Public spending is heavily influenced by politics and therefore often wastes a great deal of money. In the aftermath of the GFC and the collapse of financial institutions in the US, Kevin Rudd instituted a MASSIVE spending programme in australia called 'building the education revolution' which in short gave every school the opportunity to select one of 4 different buildings (a school hall, a library, and I can't remember the others now). The school could then have that built funded by the federal government.

The result was: every school (obviously!) took up the opportunity to have a new piece of educational infrastructure (gvt spending on education! good! good!) - but unfortunately they were paying MASSIVELY over the odds for the works to be done. Public schools were only allowed to use the gvt. approved construction companies and were paying upwards of $1,000,000 for a school hall.

Private schools and religious schools who were allowed to source labour locally and plan with a local architect etc. were getting them in for around $250,000. That means that government spending to stimulate economic activity in a time of private contraction ended up pouring more than 3/4 of a million dollars, per school hall, into large construction company coffers. With more than 4,000 public schools across aus that's more than $4,000,000,000 spent on padding company coffers.

Trusting in the Keynesian formula is, ESPECIALLY in times of highly politicised crisis, begging for money to get pissed away. This is often expressed by the four maxims of Hayek:

  1. when i spend my money on myself i maximise value and quality
  2. when i spend someone else's money on myself i maximise quality and minimise value
  3. when i spend my money on someone else i maximise value and minimise quality
  4. when i spend someone else's money on someone else i minimise value and minimise quality.


Number 4 is what government spending is. I'm not saying government's shouldn't spend on anything because, as others have rightly pointed out, there are some things that it is most efficient for governments to build (railways etc.) as the benefit is accrued over more than the life of any one generation. But that needs to be carefully monitored and carefully evaluated because when you spend someone else's money on someone else you tend not to care what you're spending it on, especially if there is HUGE political pressure and potentially huge political gain to make sweeping promises to get elected.
Report
lovelearning · 20/12/2016 08:28

more than $4,000,000,000 spent on padding company coffers

Just imagine the scope for corruption.

Report
Whiskeywithwater · 20/12/2016 15:08

And this my friends is why I think Economics should be a compulsory subject at school! I did it from 13 onwards yet during my tour round secondary schools recently I've discovered it's not even an option until 6th form now. I have worked on the City for 30 years, but with no basic Economic education I'm not surprised that the majority of the population do not have a rudimentary grasp of how the economy actually works.

NHS is a money pit by the way that we can't afford ... But no politician ever going to be brave enough to say that ....

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.