Search results

this is what pisses me off though, the misguided false information. our manufacturing industry is worth at least £140bn, and about 30% larger than the lamented finance sector. we make more cars than anyone in Europe except the Germans. but the manufacturing is "gone" because we dont make TVs...

well thats a figure to shoot for and i have no problem increased manufacturing, just not for the sake of increase itself. but is this "balanced"? if manufacturing is 30% shirley its something the economy becomes too reliant on? i can think of a country with a large manufacturing base that...

ok, i was a bit ranty. im not saying fire fighters arent being cut but thats local funding and issues around fire fighter pensions. there are lots of worthy services, but many didnt exist 10 or 15 years ago and people got on. i dont hate the public sector. what im against, and i believe you...

thats horse crap, a nice deflection of the issue to "oh protect the firefighters". has nothing to do with them. theres a government department that increased its head count 20k since 2001 (i cant recal whcih, home office?), the Cabinet office was virtually non existant in 1997 now has a £2.1bn...

something concreate on this "rebalanceing" mantra. im all for more manufacturing, but there is already quite alot. though a smaller proportion, there is more manufacturing output than any time before even accounting for inflation. its just other sectors have increase more. what im interested...

thats two ways. you dont have to do both and raising taxes is unhelpful if you want growth. and if you want to borrow less, you have to spend less.

i didnt say Keynsian policies dont work, im saying they dont always. its one of many tools and theories that might be used. it also comes with a bunch of assumptions and political idealogy, its not an automatic fix. Clinton did very well in the US, and Brown started promisingly, but he just...

should have made a poll. i am. i think just about everyone i know is. limited sample and i know there are many who have suffered and are worse off, but its not a given like many will like to portray.

problem is we borrow just keep the status quo going, not stimulate anything. and if the cost of borrowing goes up, so does the deficit and debt. its all very well citing Keynes, but his prescription has often not worked (look at Japan) and is unsustainable long term if you dont retract...

yep, and had Balls been in charge with his policies (cut less, slower) we'd have run up more debt.

no, theres some of pandering to this view, usualy from angle that more of anything is good, without any insight to what "balance" should be. which i note you evade again. obviously growth in non-service sector is good, as any growth, why is it a means in itself? Osborne doesnt care where...

i see virtually no economic commentators making this point, unless they are on the left and think that some how manufacturuing is a panecea to everything. again, what proportion of the economy should service sector be to be "balanced"?

no. what should the "balance" be? 70% service sector maybe?

because it lacks context. there were two newcomers to the list that added 12bn instantly, and much of the wealth at the top is caluculations of asset values. property and shares often not even in this country. the wealth of the Hinduja's and Usmanov doesnt make any difference to the "regular...

that is a fine example of meaningless statistics.