|
|
Post by Totheleft on Jan 2, 2024 6:43:00 GMT
Tory austerity ‘has cost UK half a trillion pounds of public spending since 2010’
2010-2019 spending would have been £540bn higher had previous plans been stuck to
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Fri 3 Mar 2023 10.37 GMT
A decade of austerity by the Conservative-led governments after 2010 resulted in more than half a trillion pounds of lost public spending and a weaker economy, a left-of-centre thinktank has calculated.
The Progressive Economy Forum said that had state spending continued at the pace before David Cameron became prime minister, it would have been £91bn higher by 2019 – enough to cover the entire education budget in that year.
A report by the thinktank says over the 2010-2019 period as a whole public spending would have been £540bn higher had previous plans been stuck to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 2, 2024 7:59:08 GMT
So the current record amounts of Public Spending are not enough - all our problems would have been solved if only we had spent more...  Perhaps we should spend more on the NHS?. NHS spending is now more than that for education, transport, the Home Office and defence put together....and yet.... while NHS funding has risen 20% since 2019 there has been a 5% fall in the number of treatments and operations undertaken. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Jan 2, 2024 9:18:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Jan 2, 2024 9:57:46 GMT
So the current record amounts of Public Spending are not enough - all our problems would have been solved if only we had spent more... Perhaps we should spend more on the NHS?. NHS spending is now more than that for education, transport, the Home Office and defence put together....and yet.... while NHS funding has risen 20% since 2019 there has been a 5% fall in the number of treatments and operations undertaken. And yet many health experts are still saying the Government not spending enough To meet the needs of the NHS. And what has what you said got to do with the country being Trillions of pounds worse if Due to Government Aurtristy measures. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 2, 2024 11:27:18 GMT
So the current record amounts of Public Spending are not enough - all our problems would have been solved if only we had spent more... Perhaps we should spend more on the NHS?. NHS spending is now more than that for education, transport, the Home Office and defence put together....and yet.... while NHS funding has risen 20% since 2019 there has been a 5% fall in the number of treatments and operations undertaken. And yet many health experts are still saying the Government not spending enough To meet the needs of the NHS.
The NHS is here to serve us - we are not here to serve the NHS. If record levels of Public Spending have led to use being 'trillions of pounds worse off' - how would spending even more reverse that situation? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 2, 2024 14:50:03 GMT
Tory austerity ‘has cost UK half a trillion pounds of public spending since 2010’ 2010-2019 spending would have been £540bn higher had previous plans been stuck to Larry Elliott Economics editor Fri 3 Mar 2023 10.37 GMT A decade of austerity by the Conservative-led governments after 2010 resulted in more than half a trillion pounds of lost public spending and a weaker economy, a left-of-centre thinktank has calculated. The Progressive Economy Forum said that had state spending continued at the pace before David Cameron became prime minister, it would have been £91bn higher by 2019 – enough to cover the entire education budget in that year. A report by the thinktank says over the 2010-2019 period as a whole public spending would have been £540bn higher had previous plans been stuck to. These people talk a load of shit. The situation is more complicated. You have to look at production. The more you produce the more you can spend, and you have to consider the difference between the government controlling the product of your labour and you spending it on what you need and what you want. If you spend less than you produce then you end up with a surplus which you reinvest in production so you can spend more in the future (delayed gratification). If you spend more than you produce then you manifest debt, and with debt the reverse happens and the repayments make you poorer in the future.
Two important factors here are firstly the investment efficiency. You want the greatest increase in production capacity for the least investment, i.e. you require intelligent investment, and then you have to ask who is more intelligent. Is it the person earning the money or the government they use as agents for their investment. The trouble with using the government is the incentive to work factor. You are more incentivised to work if you see the fruits of your labour, where the tax system does not give you back benefits in proportion to the tax you pay. Then there is the argument that the state benefits from economy of scale, where if a private firm tried to benefit from the economy of scale it would cease to be competitive and then become protectionist and inefficient and unaccountable. Likewise though a state firm suffers from inefficiency by not having a competitive environment to work in and can start acting politically too.
I've just given you some rough parameters here but there is much more refinement to consider. Quite frankly, anyone who tries to sum it up in one number is deceiving the reader. It's gutter economics.
|
|
