The UK Triple Dip Recession

[Coito ergo sum]

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-dark-mood-rece ... nance.html

The Trussell Trust, a food bank network, said it fed more than 350,000 people in the year ending in March — more than double the 128,000 served in the previous 12-month period. Tim Boyce, a retired investment banker who runs a south London branch, said he's seeing the people behind those numbers. Inside a frosty church that's opened its doors to the desperate, he watches as they come for emergency handouts of rice, pasta and beans.

"Most people don't realize the extent of poverty," he said as he sipped coffee to keep the edge off the chill. "It's hiding in plain view."

[Rum]

It's a pretty shit outlook right now for sure.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When you have a government that insists on continuing with harsh austerity measures, despite the data upon which their analysis is based having been shown to be flawed, what do you expect?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have you tried sacrificing a goat to it?

[cronus]

It's a pretty shit outlook right now for sure.

Same wherever there's been a explosive growth in the elderly. Soaking up resources required for growth...in non-productive snooze culture.

[Coito ergo sum]

When you have a government that insists on continuing with harsh austerity measures, despite the data upon which their analysis is based having been shown to be flawed, what do you expect?

Just out of curiosity, what are some the harsh austerity measures?

Here in the US, a "cut" in something is not normally a cut, but rather is generally a slower rise in growth or spending.

[Rum]

When you have a government that insists on continuing with harsh austerity measures, despite the data upon which their analysis is based having been shown to be flawed, what do you expect?

Just out of curiosity, what are some the harsh austerity measures?

Here in the US, a "cut" in something is not normally a cut, but rather is generally a slower rise in growth or spending.

Government spending is only marginally down, however what is sometimes not recognised is that this government have cut in a political fashion. Local government and services for the more vulnerable have been slashed. The council I used to work for has had its budget cut by almost a third over four three years (one reason my job went). There is a view that the recession has been used as a smokescreen for a right wing agenda to be delivered.

Edit: I must correct myself. Overall spending appears to continue to go up slightly, though not the bits mentioned above which do continue to be slashed. This link takes you to a really excellent site if you are interested ion such things: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_brief.php

[Clinton Huxley]

Central govt grants to local govt have been cut since 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cut, or a cut in projected increase? Here in the US we get the government projecting to increase spending $1 billion, and then they decide to only increase spending $500 million and then they call that a "cut."

Any available data on these cuts? Like what percentage? Something from the horse's mouth?

[MrJonno]

All these austerity measures have shown is the public sector is the economy, or more specifically private companies selling to the government.

When the government stops spending the private sector goes tits up as faster than the cuts, those who end up on the dole stop spending and it gets even worse

[Coito ergo sum]

That, to me, is a dangerous situation, and demonstrates the need for a vibrant, competitive private sector economy. The private sector reacts "on the ground" to economic conditions. They move quicker than government. Government waits until the next law or regulation is passed after months of debate and public comment -- a private sector makes a decision.

Having just a few very large entities means that there is no market incentive to be better, faster, more efficient, and there is the false subsidy of a "bailout" when the large entities are deemed "too big to fail." That phrase is exactly two words too long. The reality is that they are "too big." Period. They should not be allowed to be that big, because it operates as a distortion on the market.

Unfortunately, when countries "nationalize" industries, those countries that want to have free markets in those industries are incentivized to allow their private businesses to grow to tremendous size to compete on the global level...

[cronus]

That, to me, is a dangerous situation, and demonstrates the need for a vibrant, competitive private sector economy. The private sector reacts "on the ground" to economic conditions. They move quicker than government. Government waits until the next law or regulation is passed after months of debate and public comment -- a private sector makes a decision.

Having just a few very large entities means that there is no market incentive to be better, faster, more efficient, and there is the false subsidy of a "bailout" when the large entities are deemed "too big to fail." That phrase is exactly two words too long. The reality is that they are "too big." Period. They should not be allowed to be that big, because it operates as a distortion on the market.

Unfortunately, when countries "nationalize" industries, those countries that want to have free markets in those industries are incentivized to allow their private businesses to grow to tremendous size to compete on the global level...

90% of all human activity is pointless regardless of public or private management.

[Coito ergo sum]

The point of human activity is purely a matter of opinion.

100% of human activity is pointless to some people. 100% of human activity has a point to others. Others figure some percentage in between.

It's meaningless to say that something is merely pointless. It only has meaning when referenced "to" someone. It's pointless to you. It's pointless to me. It's pointless to him. But, in any objective sense, there is no such thing as a point and there is no such thing as pointlessness.

[klr]

Central govt grants to local govt have been cut since 2010.

Welcome to The Big Society ...

[MrJonno]

That, to me, is a dangerous situation, and demonstrates the need for a vibrant, competitive private sector economy. The private sector reacts "on the ground" to economic conditions. They move quicker than government. Government waits until the next law or regulation is passed after months of debate and public comment -- a private sector makes a decision.

Having just a few very large entities means that there is no market incentive to be better, faster, more efficient, and there is the false subsidy of a "bailout" when the large entities are deemed "too big to fail." That phrase is exactly two words too long. The reality is that they are "too big." Period. They should not be allowed to be that big, because it operates as a distortion on the market.

Unfortunately, when countries "nationalize" industries, those countries that want to have free markets in those industries are incentivized to allow their private businesses to grow to tremendous size to compete on the global level...

Dangerous or not , its reality and almost certainly has been for a long time. Private business selling to government is as important if not more important than selling to the consumer or other businesses. Government is or at least was a reliable customer. The difference between public and private sector isnt as clear as some people would like