The economic end of Britain?

[pmaitra]

Can our Chinese members add some insight into the Chinese plans for a gold backed currency?

@t_co, @CCP, @satish007

 

[sunny_10]

...................

This is the same as me borrowing $500 on my credit card, then applying for a new card to make minimum payments on the old card until I max it out, then getting yet another card to make minimum payments on the combined debt of the previous two cards and so on. How can this possibly be sustainable?

debt/GDP ratio for the world

Total debt is important to look at, but private debt is also owned by commercial banks which are usually backed with assets, ie housing and corporate holdings. It does measure how truly indebted the average UK citizen and corporation is.

and what sunny wrote about are the EFFECTS of the depleting prosperity in the EU. :ranger:

I surely welcome more posts from sunny and others too, on the graphical info in the lead post, whether

Roma, we are here to discuss this topic, and we have many sources of UK's media itself to go in details to the things happening on the ground level in Britain......

and here it must be understood that UK has become a country where half of them are Middle Class and rest are not, struggling to earn enough to have daily expanses only...........

for example of the news as below states about those workers, who aren't among those 40% Working Age People of UK who don't even have any source of income
=> Employment to population ratio - 15+ - total (%) in the United Kingdom


(and for the people based in India, a coffee on the streets of Sydney/London cost no less than $3.0, and no food you may buy for less than $10, even in the production line restaurants like McDonalds........ its so simple that when you earn dollar/pounds, you pay the same for the products/services you buy there.....)

and its worth stating that this Unemployment Ratio excludes House Wives, Students, Early Retired people etc too .....

Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired.

What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?

Five million paid less than living wage
29 October 2012

One in five workers in the UK is paid less than required for a basic standard of living, a report has said.

The proportion is much higher among waiters and bar staff, at up to 90% of workers, the research for accountants KPMG suggested.

It said that nearly five million people failed to command the living wage - a pay packet that enabled a basic standard of living.

The rate stands at £8.30 an hour in London and £7.20 in the rest of the UK.

This rate is voluntary, unlike the National Minimum Wage - the amount that employers must pay by law, which is set at £6.19 an hour for those aged 21 and over.

"Times are difficult for many people, but of course those on the lowest pay are suffering the most," said Marianne Fallon, head of corporate affairs at KPMG, which has itself signed up to pay the living wage.

"Paying a living wage makes a huge difference to the individuals and their families and yet does not actually cost an employer much more.

"Tackling in-work poverty is also vital if we are to enable more people to improve their life prospects and increase social mobility in this country."

BBC News - Five million paid less than living wage, says KPMG

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country

Top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985, thinktank's study reveals

Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD. :ranger:

The thinktank says the gap has come about due to the rise of a financial services elite who, through education and marriage, have concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny minority.

Economists from the group, which is funded by developed-world taxpayers, say the annual average income in the UK of the top 10% in 2008 was just under £55,000, about 12 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of £4,700. :ranger:

This is up from a ratio of eight to one in 1985 and significantly higher than the average income gap in developed nations of nine to one.

However, the report makes clear that even in countries viewed as "fairer" – such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden – this pay gap between rich and poor is expanding: from five to one in the 1980s to six to one today. In the rising powers of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the ratio is an alarming 50 to one.

The OECD warned about the rise of the top 1% in rich societies and the falling share of income going to poorer people.

This trend is especially pronounced in Britain, where the dramatic rise in inequality has been fuelled by the creation of a super-rich class. The share of the top 1% of income earners increased from 7.1% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2005.

Just prior to the global recession, the OECD says the very top of British society – the 0.1% of highest earners – accounted for a remarkable 5% of total pre-tax income, a level of wealth hoarding not seen since the second world war.

At the same time as accumulating great wealth, the rich have seen tax rates fall. The top marginal income tax rate dropped from 60% in the 1980s to 40% in the 2000s, before its recent increase to 50%.

The buildup of riches was partly economic: the higher-paid worked longer. Since the mid-1980s, annual hours of low-wage workers remained stable at around 1,050, while those of high-wage workers rose almost 10% to 2,450 hours.

But the concentration of resources in the highest rungs of Britain's society was also a social phenomenon. Unlike in many other nations, the earnings gap between the wives of rich and poor husbands in Britain has grown from £3,900 in 1987 to £10,200 in 2004.

Although the OECD figures stop just before the recession, experts say the trend continued into the downturn.

Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that in the UK "2009-10 incomes went up incredibly fast (at the top end) possibly because the new top rate of tax was coming in".

He pointed out that the growth in the City and bankers' bonuses had played a large part in creating this divide. "If you look at who is racing away, then half the top 1% of high earners work in financial services," he said.

He cited the research of Mark Stewart, a professor of economics at Warwick University, who has shown that "almost all the increase in inequality has come from financial services" in the past 12 years.

Such disparities, the thinktank said, could not be blamed on globalisation but a trend in labour and social policies in rich nations that had helped the wealthy.

Although spending on public services in Britain had gone up in the past decade, at the same time benefits to the poor were worth less and taxes were less redistributive.

The effect has been a dramatic weakening in the state's ability to spread wealth throughout society. From the mid-70s to mid-80s, the tax-benefit system offset more than 50% of the rise in income inequality. It now manages just 20%.

The OECD warned of sweeping consequences for rich societies – and pointed to the rash of occupations and protests, especially by young people, around the world. "Youths who see no future for themselves feel increasingly disenfranchised. They have now been joined by protesters who believe they are bearing the brunt of a crisis for which they have no responsibility, while people on higher incomes appeared to be spared," the OECD said.

It was a paradox, said the OECD, that such moves had not been grounded in popular support. Michael Förster, author of the OECD's Divided We Stand report, said: "In almost all countries apart from the US and Japan, more than 50% of people say that inequality is too high. In the UK, it is 65% so I think everyone agrees it is a problem."

To rebalance society "for the 99%", the authors call for a series of measures focusing on job creation, "increased redistributive effects" and "freely accessible and high-quality public services in education, health and family care".

When it was pointed out that British government plans would instead lead to public sector job cuts of 710,000, more child poverty and a hike in university fees, the OECD's authors said debt was an issue for governments but urged them "not to cut social investments".

Monika Queisser, the head of OECD's social policy division, said: "The OECD agreed that fiscal consolidation was important. We want to governments to see social expenditures as investment so we would want to see, say, early years [funding] rising."

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country, says OECD | Society | The Guardian

 

[roma]

I find it hard to understand this part. If old debt is continually paid back by adding new debt, the compounding effect of the interest rate will result in the total debt swelling to unmanageable levels. Since the GDP growth in comparison will always be at 2% or less, the net result will be the debt-GDP ratio growing higher and higher and breaching the 100% mark at some point or another unless the government takes steps to devalue the currency, which could lead to a rise in inflation and further constricting the GDP growth.

This is the same as me borrowing $500 on my credit card, then applying for a new card to make minimum payments on the old card until I max it out, then getting yet another card to make minimum payments on the combined debt of the previous two cards and so on. How can this possibly be sustainable?

My perception is that it is the classic political "strategy" or more appropriately-(called)
gimmick of seeming to "solve " the problem ( with more borrowing ) on a temporary basis
and then passing the buck to someone else and leaving them to pay the price and face the music.

The UK economy is coming close to the time when it cant easily be passed down any further and that's
why these articles as in the lead post in this thread are beginning to circulate more frequently. The theme
being that payment time is due soon and so advice to folks to get their money out of the UK. That is what i understand to be the main advice of their article .

 

[sunny_10]

My perception is that it is the classic political "strategy" or more appropriately-(called)
gimmick of seeming to "solve " the problem ( with more borrowing ) on a temporary basis
and then passing the buck to someone else and leaving them to pay the price and face the music.

The UK economy is coming close to the time when it cant easily be passed down any further and that's
why these articles as in the lead post in this thread are beginning to circulate more frequently. The theme
being that payment time is due soon and so advice to folks to get their money out of the UK. That is what i understand to be the main advice of their article .

look, few things we know as our own experience. that is, whoever i found coming from UK to Sydney, he/she just doesn't want to back, struggling for even $10 pre hour job but aren't getting, in fact. my memories have 100s of young age people coming from UK, and just try for a mining certificate to go to mine site of Australia. most of them aren't qualified enough to have a professional job neither the environment of US/UK/Australia really promote their youth to study hard etc......

simply British are running from UK, and mainly they target Australia, as far as what i saw, just go to backpackers of Sydney, half of their 6-8 bed rooms are filled with Brits only...... in fact, i saw the similar attitude in many other Europeans coming to Sydney too, mainly since 2009. just go to a cafe and you will find an Italian waitress in every second cafe, on average :ranger:

 

[sunny_10]

.
Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects

Nearly nine in 10 Britons would consider leaving the UK for a better - and wealthier - life abroad within the next five years

The current recession combined with the perception that property is cheaper overseas and job prospects better collectively accounted for nearly a third of all reasons for emigrating, according to a survey by Skyscanner.

Sam Baldwin, Skyscanner's travel editor, said: "For many people the idea of 'living the dream' abroad is very alluring. The survey revealed that our perception of life abroad is very positive – perhaps overly so – and many people come back from a holiday enamoured with their destination. Interestingly, Spain and USA were two of the most popular places even though both countries are currently suffering from their own economic problems, which suggests that the dream of moving abroad to improve financial prospects may be just that - a dream.

The dream may be more realistic if, rather than moving abroad to look for new work, you are sent abroad as part of an existing job. Around 750,000 British workers are being posted abroad on assignments with their existing employer, and a massive 84 per cent believe this is helping them to climb the corporate ladder, according to the NatWest International Personal Banking (IPB) Quality of Life Index.

They also feel they benefit from an improved lifestyle, backing up the Skyscanner research results, and the increasing use of temporary global workers means that the traditional definition of 'expat' is now being blurred, said Dave Isley, head of NatWest International Personal Banking.

He added: "The growth of the global worker has brought with it an opportunity to share knowledge and experience around the world. The great brain exchange is a fantastic concept of other economies temporarily sharing the strengths of British workers.

Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects - Telegraph

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I find it hard to understand this part. If old debt is continually paid back by adding new debt, the compounding effect of the interest rate will result in the total debt swelling to unmanageable levels. Since the GDP growth in comparison will always be at 2% or less, the net result will be the debt-GDP ratio growing higher and higher and breaching the 100% mark at some point or another unless the government takes steps to devalue the currency, which could lead to a rise in inflation and further constricting the GDP growth.

This is the same as me borrowing $500 on my credit card, then applying for a new card to make minimum payments on the old card until I max it out, then getting yet another card to make minimum payments on the combined debt of the previous two cards and so on. How can this possibly be sustainable?

Do some maths and you will know.

Say growth rate of economy is 4% and debt grows at 3%(it can be due to interest payments or addition of more debt).

(Debt/GDP) at t+1 = (1.03Debt/1.04GDP) at time t < Debt/GDP at time t(because 1.03/1.04 is less than 1)

There are many ways to keep a stable ratio. 1) Cut spending, 2) increase tax etc. etc. It is not something unimaginable. So, just relax.

 

[roma]

Do some maths and you will know.
Say growth rate of economy is 4% and debt grows at 3%(it can be due to interest payments or addition of more debt).
(Debt/GDP) at t+1 = (1.03Debt/1.04GDP) at time t < Debt/GDP at time t(because 1.03/1.04 is less than 1)
There are many ways to keep a stable ratio. 1) Cut spending, 2) increase tax etc. etc. It is not something unimaginable. So, just relax.

Ustaz ( :cool2: sorry sick joke !), sounds good in theory ... remember were talking about the UK economy !
Growth rate 4% - sir you know better as an econs Masters Research Fellow or perhaps it was PhD ?

So if you were explaining the principle and using ad hoc figures , then i get you
Then again your explanation is a good one to give us an idea of the dire state of affairs of the said economy.
Appreciated your post !

 

[sunny_10]

Do some maths and you will know.

Say growth rate of economy is 4% and debt grows at 3%(it can be due to interest payments or addition of more debt).

(Debt/GDP) at t+1 = (1.03Debt/1.04GDP) at time t < Debt/GDP at time t(because 1.03/1.04 is less than 1)

There are many ways to keep a stable ratio. 1) Cut spending, 2) increase tax etc. etc. It is not something unimaginable. So, just relax.

Ustaz ( :cool2: sorry sick joke !), sounds good in theory ... remember were talking about the UK economy !
Growth rate 4% - sir you know better as an econs Masters Research Fellow or perhaps it was PhD ?

So if you were explaining the principle and using ad hoc figures , then i get you
Then again your explanation is a good one to give us an idea of the dire state of affairs of the said economy.
Appreciated your post !

there is a difference between Debt on a developing country as compare to a developed country......... a developing country will grow by at least 5%+ on long run so even if it has a debt at 200%, it will obviously come down long run. while a developed country can't grow for more than 2% on long run, and considering heavily indebted economies crossing the crucial "90% National Debt to GDP level", already, hence having hefty cuts in spending they have right now which has made serious impact on EU's/US's growth potential due to less money being put in market now. so even 1.0% growth (or maintaining 0% growth for the next 10 years) looks itself a good achievement for these struggling economies.....

this issue is also discussed in the article as below :ranger:

Current Policy Path Dooms the Euro-Zone

The Euro-zone is at a breaking point and, given its current economic policy path, it is unlikely to survive intact for long. Several economies including Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain are mired in a deep recession and it is not at all clear when or how they will return to growth. As one can see from the table below the statistics make for grim reading. These economies are shrinking dramatically, demand is spiraling down, unemployment rates are shooting up and debt levels are in the red zone where alarm bells are ringing the loudest. Greece in particular is stuck in a severe economic depression. Since 2008, domestic demand has fallen by 25.8% and the jobless rate has tripled to 25.4%. By way of comparison, during the Great Depression domestic demand in the United States fell by 24% between 1929 and 1933 and the unemployment rate peaked at 24.8% in 1933.

The economic and social cost of the 2008/09 global recession and the subsequent imposition of austerity measures to rein in budget deficits have been profound. Buried in debt and unable to borrow to meet their financing needs from international credit markets, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have each been bailed out by the Troika (European Union/European Central Bank/International Monetary Fund). But, in return for the bailouts, the Troika has demanded a host of structural changes ranging from labour market reforms to deep cuts in government spending. These austerity measures have included across-the-board cuts to public sector wages and pensions, a reduction in welfare benefits and higher taxes.

The problem is that these measures have not only failed to shore-up confidence in financial markets but they have ended up destroying any potential for growth. As households have been forced to drastically cut back their spending, businesses have followed suit and slashed employment and investment. This, of course, is driving up the unemployment rate which further shrinks the tax base, pushes up the deficit and further adds to the level of debt. It's little wonder then that the bailout recipients have been unable to meet their debt repayment targets.

Despite all the efforts to stabilize the financial markets and revive the economy, what the austerity measures have achieved so far is that they have succeeded in pushing these countries into an economic depression. Moreover, the situation is getting worse. As the level of debt continues to climb, the imposition of further austerity measures will only compound the problem and deepen the pace of the contraction.

These economies are caught in a vicious circle with no escape route from the strait-jacket that they find themselves in. The fundamental problem is that they are basically uncompetitive and cannot grow their way out of the debt crisis. Moreover, being members of the currency union, they can't devalue the currency in order to restore competitiveness and boost export demand.

These countries are unraveling, not just economically but politically and socially as well. Confidence among the electorate has been shattered and they face a stark choice: either they stay in the euro, accept the bailout conditions and cede their economic sovereignty to Brussels or they abandon the euro, re-establish their own currency, take control of their own economic destiny and face the consequences of being shut out from international markets for years. Either way it is going to be very painful.

But, there is another option. However, it would necessitate a complete policy rethink.

The top priority for the governments should be to stabilize the economy and provide a more predictable economic environment so that growth can resume. But this requires a new approach to tackling the crisis. This can be achieved by a combination of measures including, for example, imposing a moratorium on any additional austerity measures for a minimum of, say, three to five years and instigating a multi-year freeze on public sector wages and pensions. To avoid outright defaults a large scale restructuring of debt is called for. This could include a lengthening of the term structures, delaying interest rate payments and some level of debt forgiveness. On the trade front the imposition of a special tax on imports would achieve two goals. It would help boost domestic demand by redirecting spending towards the domestic economy and at the same time help to correct the balance of payments deficits that these countries are running. :thumb:

By sticking to the current austerity measures, it is difficult to see how Greece, Portugal and Spain can escape from the current Euro straightjacket. The combination of tight fiscal policy, volatility on the interest rate front, and an overvalued euro from the perspective of the southern euro-zone members has resulted in pushing Greece et al into an economic depression. Saddled with huge debt loads that continue to climb and with GDP shrinking, these economies are unable to generate enough tax revenues to service their debt. To all intents and purposes they are well past the point of debt saturation and are in effect bankrupt. :ranger:

Given these facts, it is difficult to understand why Europe's policy makers are persisting with such a doctrinaire-based policy that has clearly failed to put Europe back onto a path of steady growth. As Winston Churchill once famously noted: 'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results'. With a devastating economic depression that currently is spreading across the Euro-zone it is high time for Europe's policy makers to change course. The very future of the Euro-zone hangs in the balance.

Current Policy Path Dooms the Euro-Zone / Ranga Chand - International Economist and Financial Author

 

[sunny_10]

Roma, we are here to discuss this topic, and we have many sources of UK's media itself to go in details to the things happening on the ground level in Britain......

and here it must be understood that UK has become a country where half of them are Middle Class and rest are not, struggling to earn enough to have daily expanses only...........

for example of the news as below states about those workers, who aren't among those 40% Working Age People of UK who don't even have any source of income
=> Employment to population ratio - 15+ - total (%) in the United Kingdom


(and for the people based in India, a coffee on the streets of Sydney/London cost no less than $3.0, and no food you may buy for less than $10, even in the production line restaurants like McDonalds........ its so simple that when you earn dollar/pounds, you pay the same for the products/services you buy there.....)

and its worth stating that this Unemployment Ratio excludes House Wives, Students, Early Retired people etc too .....

till now we have found few key points on UK's economic state, as below:

1st: National Debt 90%+ to GDP

2nd; Household Debt over 100% to GDP (among top 3 of EU's economies.)

3rd; 40% Working age people dont have any source of income, which excludes Houswives, Students, Early retired people too

4th; and among the employed 60% working age people, 1 in 5 aren't getting the wage to maintain basic living standard.......


from here, we have few news in market like this as below too.......

Prostitution and Poverty in the UK
AUGUST 20, 2013

Gregory Pichorowycz is a philosophy undergraduate at the University of Sheffield and Editor-at-Large of Canvas

In Britain, the recession has left many people struggling to make ends meet, but reports have shown that young people – young single mothers in particular, are feeling the worst of austerity, and many are turning to prostitution in pursuit of financial security.

Things are likely to get worse. In 2013-2014, a lone parent would receive on average £46.80 a year less in benefits due to governmental changes, while a couple with children would miss out on £52 a year. In 2014-2015, the projected figures are £260 less for single parents and £156 less for couples with children. In short, single parents – often the most financially vulnerable – are facing the harshest cuts in benefits.

This has led to an increase in prostitution, which has affected the industry's economy; many sex workers are reducing their charges (sometimes as much as 50 per cent) in order to beat competition from other sex workers. This contributes to a viscous circle; more single parents – usually women, enter prostitution out of financial desperation. Due to the increase in sex workers, they need to engage in the industry more to acquire the money they need. This in turn leads to a further increase in active sex workers and a further devaluation of prostitution ad infinitum.

One thing is clear – tough policing and stricter legislation is not the solution. Ukraine's capital – Kyiv has struggled with high prostitution levels since it gained independence in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2005, it introduced more rigorous legislation to try to combat the problem, to little effect. The country co-hosted the Euro 2012 football tournament with Poland and prepared itself for the explosion in sex tourism. Kyiv alone has an estimated 50,000 sex workers, twice that of the whole of Holland, despite prostitution being illegal in Ukraine and legal in Holland. And some suspect that this figure is even higher, with many young Ukrainian sex workers not wanting to come forward due to fear of shaming and imprisonment.

The only way to tackle the exploitation of young women is to tackle its root cause – poverty. To do otherwise would be like treating a disease with tissues instead of medicine. This can be achieved without reversing the entire austerity program (which no UK government is realistically likely to do).

Firstly, the government could take up Ed Miliband's living wage proposals. The introduction of this policy – providing tax incentives to companies who pay a living wage instead of a minimum wage to their employees ([£7.45 per hour outside London and £8.55 in London, compared to the £6.19 minimum wage) would save the taxpayer £2.2bn, according to the thinktank Resolution Foundation. It would also help to minimise in-work poverty, which would help single parents make ends meet without turning to prostitution.

Another step would be to reintroduce the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), as many of the hardest hit are young people – this includes students. The Women's National Commission (a UK women's issues pressure group) claim the shocking statistic that "50-75% of women in prostitution entered before they were 18" and that many of these had been absent from education throughout this time. Reconsidering the £9,000 tuition fee would also help to reduce the number of students turning to the sex industry out of fear of mountainous debts.

Of course, this article does not intend to argue for or against sex work as a career choice. There is a persuasive case made by libertarians and some sex-positive feminists that willing engagement in prostitution is a matter of personal liberty for those involved and not the concern of third parties. Without divulging into a philosophical discussion about such liberties, it is worth mentioning the statistic that in a study on feminism and psychology, 92 per cent of sex workers said that they wanted to leave prostitution "immediately". In a different study, 74 per cent of women cited "poverty", paying "household expenses" and supporting children as a "primary motivator" for involvement in the industry. It should be clear by now that the vast majority of European sex workers are exploited out of economic desperation and are not pursuing a career that they necessarily consider legitimate, empowering or advisable – whatever one's position on such political theory.

"She was too ignorant as yet to know that the chances of her finding work unaided were practically nil; but the next four days gradually enlightened her", read the pages of A Clergyman's Daughter – George Orwell's understated and second novel. The book is an exploration of poverty in the 1930s, in which the protagonist, Dorothy, is swept away by the cruel realities of homeless men and women, some of whom become sex workers for mild reprieve.

She is bailed out by a rich relative while being "on the very verge of becoming one" – a prostitute. Unfortunately – even in the 21st century, not everybody is that lucky.

This entry was posted in Social Justice and tagged austerity, EMA, Living Wage, poverty, Prostitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Prostitution and Poverty in the UK | Left Foot-9 Forward

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Ustaz ( :cool2: sorry sick joke !), sounds good in theory ... remember were talking about the UK economy !
Growth rate 4% - sir you know better as an econs Masters Research Fellow or perhaps it was PhD ?

So if you were explaining the principle and using ad hoc figures , then i get you
Then again your explanation is a good one to give us an idea of the dire state of affairs of the said economy.
Appreciated your post !

haha. ustad and ustaz has same meaning if I am not wrong!
@sunny_10

I just took ad-hoc figures to explain how maintaining any ratio is possible(for those with no background in economics). I did not vouch for UK policies in any way. If they can maintain the ratio- good for them, if not then they would face problems soon.

 

[sunny_10]

haha. ustad and ustaz has same meaning if I am not wrong!
@sunny_10

Ustaz ( :cool2: sorry sick joke !), sounds good in theory ... remember were talking about the UK economy !
Growth rate 4% - sir you know better as an econs Masters Research Fellow or perhaps it was PhD ?

Can our Chinese members add some insight into the Chinese plans for a gold backed currency?

I find it hard to understand this part. If old debt is continually paid back by adding new debt, the compounding effect of the interest rate will result in the total debt swelling to unmanageable levels. Since the GDP growth in comparison will always be at 2% or less, the net result will be the debt-GDP ratio growing higher and higher and breaching the 100% mark at some point or another unless the government takes steps to devalue the currency, which could lead to a rise in inflation and further constricting the GDP growth.

Total debt is important to look at, but private debt is also owned by commercial banks which are usually backed with assets, ie housing and corporate holdings. It does measure how truly indebted the average UK citizen and corporation is.

sink or swim....... there is a certain sign of an organization/ person/ nation etc, when its fall is near. we then find that certain form of organization/ person/ countries adopt all the right and wrong techniques to get something done, before an expected fall. and as per my 6-7 years of experience of geo-politics, when they never hesitated to use all the wrong techniques like lies/bluffs/wrong information to common public etc. hence its very easy for me to say, this gentleman and his commonwealth followers are very right with their worries:ranger:

Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline
11 October, 2012, 05:42

In an overtly patriotic speech filled with big conservative ideals, David Cameron called for Britain to sink or swim in a tough global world – but failed to say in any detail how it should be done. :ranger:

**Cameron urged Britain to "sink or swim," telling delegates that the UK faced an "hour of reckoning." He insisted that only "effort and aspiration" can stop the UK from becoming a second-tier economy, which, like many countries in Europe, would be tied down by "fat welfare systems" and "unreformed public services."

He hammered home his message that only the coalition policy of economic prudence could pull Britain out of recession, while Labour's increased borrowing would be nothing short of economic suicide.

The welfare system formed a key part of his speech. The UK spent £90 billion a year on welfare, and a key policy of Cameron's coalition government has been to reduce this bill come what may.

And he was blunt at first glance with the facts, telling the country that more British children live in households where no one works than almost any other nation in Europe.

But Cameron didn't mention that over one million people in Britain are unable to find work, the highest figure in almost a generation.

On the economy, the prime minster was adamant that the austerity program his party has prescribed the UK is the right medicine. He insisted that Britain is "on the right track," but didn't mention that the UK is in a double-dip recession and has among the lowest growth rates of any developed country. Instead, he blamed the last Labour government, saying, "It's worse than we thought but we are making progress."

Cameron reiterated that the deficit had come down under his leadership, but he didn't explain why borrowing had gone up instead of down.

Nor did he mention the banks, which stood out against Ed Miliband's promise last week in his speech to the Labour Party, that if the banks don't regulate themselves, the government will step in and do it for them.

On taxes he went into attack mode. Rather than defend his government's policy of cutting taxes for 8,000 millionaires by 40,000 a year by next April – while forcing pensioners to pay more – he hit back at Labour's plans to spend more to create jobs, and in a quip at Miliband's rallying call that Labour is a party of "one nation," called them the party of "one notion – borrowing."

Cameron was clear about what he believes will get Britain out of the mess it's in: aspiration, entrepreneurial spirit and private enterprise. Here the PM had some cause for celebration, as last year more businesses were created than in any other year in Britain's history.

But he also skated over some of the more unpleasant facts about employment in the UK. His claim to have created up to one million jobs in the private sector is only true because of a change in how new jobs are classified.

He also claimed that the UK is first in the world in offshore wind power. Yet about 90% of the £1.5 billion spent building the massive London Array wind farm off the Kent coast went to foreign corporations.

Unsurprisingly, Cameron was big on the NHS. But a recent Tory-inspired shake-up of the health service has left critics arguing that GP's (family doctors in the UK) will be "suffocated, not liberated" by the changes.

Cameron praised the armed forces for their role in Afghanistan, asking everyone in the hall to stand to show their gratitude. But it is the armed forces that will bear the brunt of the government's spending cuts, while many senior figures in the military are warning that Britain will no longer be able to carry out such missions in the future.

On the police, in stark contrast to Miliband, Cameron didn't say a word. Twenty-four thousand police jobs have been written off because of austerity, including 6,800 front line officers. A poster outside the conference hall read "say hello to Dave, wave goodbye to your police service." :no:

The Libdems, a vital part of his coalition government, were left out altogether. Instead, the PM decided to pan Labour while talking up his aspirational version of conservatism.

Subjects causing any deep divisions in the Conservative Party were also omitted. There was no mention of an EU referendum, something that many in the party are calling for, and none either of the thorny issue of marriage equality.

Cameron, backed by the Libdems, has tried to push for gay marriage as consistent with his conservative values of fairness, commitment and the importance of the family. But it hasn't gone down well with the traditional grassroots Tory activists.

On Scotland, Cameron was also reticent. He talked a lot about the Olympics and the enormous pride he felt in our athletes, and that they draped themselves in the union flag, regardless of whether they were from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, saying that as one nation, Britain would rise together. His speech provoked outrage from the SNP (Scottish National Party), which labeled his backing to keep the union a "campaign that is all about what is best for Westminster."

On education, the PM was passionate. He cited plans for up to 79 new free schools – independent but funded by the state – and the 2,000 academies (schools responsible for their own management and budget) that have already been created while the collation government has been in power. Cameron himself went to Eton, one of the country's most expensive and prodigious fee-based boarding schools.

But his plans drew criticism from Christine Blower, the NUT (National Union of Teachers) general secretary. She commented in The Guardian that the academy program is developing a fragmented and unaccountable education system, and that secondary school places are being set up where primary places are needed most.

The PM was firmly businesslike, appealing to the "aspiration nation," and unlike Miliband – who last week memorized his speech to the Labour party – Cameron read from an autocue, saying that as prime minister he was too busy to memorize a speech.

He was defensive about comments that he was from the party of privilege and that he went to a 'posh school,' and fought back with: "I went to a great school and I want every child to have a great education. I'm not here to defend privilege; I'm here to spread it."

Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline (Op-Ed) — RT

 

[roma]

haha. ustad and ustaz has same meaning if I am not wrong!
@sunny_10
I just took ad-hoc figures to explain how maintaining any ratio is possible(for those with no background in economics). I did not vouch for UK policies in any way. If they can maintain the ratio- good for them, if not then they would face problems soon.

Thanks for the clarifications in this post ive quoted and your other post-reply to mine just a a couple of posts above

My gut-feeling is that they wont be able to maintain the ration = the trouble which money-week is warning its readers about .
Just one reason :- if Scotland stays in the UK then London will have to reward them and live up to promises of better facilities = more public spending for Scotland.
If Scotland leaves, the loss of oil revenues will mean the equation is similarly unbalanced .by less revenue .

 

[sunny_10]

.
Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects

Nearly nine in 10 Britons would consider leaving the UK for a better - and wealthier - life abroad within the next five years

The current recession combined with the perception that property is cheaper overseas and job prospects better collectively accounted for nearly a third of all reasons for emigrating, according to a survey by Skyscanner.

Sam Baldwin, Skyscanner's travel editor, said: "For many people the idea of 'living the dream' abroad is very alluring. The survey revealed that our perception of life abroad is very positive – perhaps overly so – and many people come back from a holiday enamoured with their destination. Interestingly, Spain and USA were two of the most popular places even though both countries are currently suffering from their own economic problems, which suggests that the dream of moving abroad to improve financial prospects may be just that - a dream.

The dream may be more realistic if, rather than moving abroad to look for new work, you are sent abroad as part of an existing job. Around 750,000 British workers are being posted abroad on assignments with their existing employer, and a massive 84 per cent believe this is helping them to climb the corporate ladder, according to the NatWest International Personal Banking (IPB) Quality of Life Index.

They also feel they benefit from an improved lifestyle, backing up the Skyscanner research results, and the increasing use of temporary global workers means that the traditional definition of 'expat' is now being blurred, said Dave Isley, head of NatWest International Personal Banking.

He added: "The growth of the global worker has brought with it an opportunity to share knowledge and experience around the world. The great brain exchange is a fantastic concept of other economies temporarily sharing the strengths of British workers.

Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects - Telegraph

World Bank data suggest that the UK is a net remittance-receiver

The UK is a receiver as well as a sender of remittances. As shown in Figure 1, the World Bank estimates suggest that since the mid-1990s the UK has been a net-remittance receiver. The main countries from which remittances are sent to the UK include Australia, the United States and Canada (World Bank 2010). Real remittance inflows (inflation adjusted) for the UK have increased by an annual average of 6% since 1989, reaching close to GBP 4,647 million in 2009. :ranger:. The UK occupies the fourteenth place in the world in value of remittances received and the sixth place in Europe.

From 1989 to 2009, remittance outflows from the UK increased by an annual average of about 4% in real terms, reaching close to GBP 2,352 million in 2009.

The UK accounted for around 7% of annual remittances to Bangladesh in 2010 (about GBP 533 million) and about 10% of annual remittances to Pakistan during that year (about GBP 627 million) :ranger:

Bangladesh and Pakistan occupy the seventh and eleventh positions respectively in terms of the global inflow of remittances

Migrant Remittances to and from the UK | The Migration Observatory

 

[sunny_10]

Thanks for the clarifications in this post ive quoted and your other post-reply to mine just a a couple of posts above

......

India Buys 200 Tons of IMF's Gold Allotment - WSJ.com

..............

Can our Chinese members add some insight into the Chinese plans for a gold backed currency?

@t_co, @CCP, @satish007

as in the above post, its interesting to see that out of total GBP 2,352 million remittance outflows from Britain, around GBP 1.16bil goes to just two countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or to one country only, the Pakistan before 1972 . while Britain itself is the 14th largest receiver of remittances from the world right now and Pakistan and Bangladesh on 7th and 11th place?

 

[Ray]

The economic survivability of Britain ended the day she lost the Crown Jewel and Kamadhenu or Surabhi of the British Empire i.e. India.

 

[sunny_10]

Thanks for the clarifications in this post ive quoted and your other post-reply to mine just a a couple of posts above

......

ent - WSJ.com[/url].

..............

The economic survivability of Britain ended the day she lost the Crown Jewel and Kamadhenu or Surabhi of the British Empire i.e. India.

this issue was once discussed too. we have GDP ranking of world till the 8th century as below:

GDP on PPP by 18th century
GDP of India: $90,750mil :ranger:
GDP of China: $82,800mil
GDP of Western Europe: $81,213mil
GDP of USA: $527mil

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(here the prices are based on the year 1800.)


and then we saw change in the world economies as below :thumb:

Marath Empire

The Maratha Empire (Marathi: मराठा साम्राज्य Marāṭhā Sāmrājya; also transliterated Mahratta) or the Maratha Confederacy was an Indian imperial power that existed from 1674 to 1818. At its peak, the empire covered much of what would become India, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km².[2] the Marathas are credited for ending the Mughal rule in India.[2]

Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars (1805–1818), which left Britain in control of most of India.

Maratha Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sunny_10]

as in the above post, its interesting to see that out of total GBP 2,352 million remittance outflows from Britain, around GBP 1.16bil goes to just two countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or to one country only, the Pakistan before 1972 .
while Britain itself is the 14th largest receiver of remittances from the world right now and Pakistan and Bangladesh on 7th and 11th place?

How Immigration Has Impoverished Britain?

75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Children "Live in Poverty"

Claims that immigration is economically beneficial for Britain have been destroyed by news that three-quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in the UK are being brought up in families that are living on poverty-level income. :ranger:

The report, issued by Millennium Cohort Study, which is tracking children born between 2000 and 2002, has found that 73 per cent of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi seven-year olds were in families estimated to be living on less than 60 per cent of the average national household income.

Just over half of the black children (51 percent) in the Millennium cohort were in such low-income families, compared with one in four white (26 percent) and Indian (25percent) children, said an official press release.

"Predictably, low income was strongly linked to joblessness among parents, say researchers at the Institute of Education, University of London, who collected information from almost 14,000 families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2008/9."

According to the report, among fathers, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the highest unemployment rate (15 percent) – well above the UK average of 6 per cent. Unemployment among black fathers was also high (11 percent) but Indians were less likely to be unemployed (4 percent) than whites (5.5 percent).

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of white and Indian mothers had jobs :tup:, compared with half (52 percent) of black mothers and only 17 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers.

A much higher proportion of children in lone-parent families (63 percent) were living below the study's poverty line than those with married (16percent) or cohabiting (30 percent) parents.

"The incidence of income poverty for the Millennium cohort families has not changed appreciably over the first seven years of the children's lives," says Professor Heather Joshi, the study's director.

"Despite government efforts to eradicate child poverty almost three in 10 children are still in poor families at age 7. It's particularly disappointing that around one in five seven-year-olds is in severe poverty – on incomes below half the national average."

The findings appear in a report published today by the Institute of Education's Centre for Longitudinal Studies: Millennium Cohort Study, Fourth Survey: A User's Guide to Initial Findings. Copies of the report can be downloaded here.

British National Party

 

[roma]

How Immigration Has Impoverished Britain?

75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Children "Live in Poverty"

Claims that immigration is economically beneficial for Britain have been destroyed by news that three-quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in the UK are being brought up in families that are living on poverty-level income. :ranger:

The report, issued by Millennium Cohort Study, which is tracking children born between 2000 and 2002, has found that 73 per cent of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi seven-year olds were in families estimated to be living on less than 60 per cent of the average national household income.

Just over half of the black children (51 percent) in the Millennium cohort were in such low-income families, compared with one in four white (26 percent) and Indian (25percent) children, said an official press release.

"Predictably, low income was strongly linked to joblessness among parents, say researchers at the Institute of Education, University of London, who collected information from almost 14,000 families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2008/9."

According to the report, among fathers, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the highest unemployment rate (15 percent) – well above the UK average of 6 per cent. Unemployment among black fathers was also high (11 percent) but Indians were less likely to be unemployed (4 percent) than whites (5.5 percent).

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of white and Indian mothers had jobs :tup:, compared with half (52 percent) of black mothers and only 17 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers.

A much higher proportion of children in lone-parent families (63 percent) were living below the study's poverty line than those with married (16percent) or cohabiting (30 percent) parents.

"The incidence of income poverty for the Millennium cohort families has not changed appreciably over the first seven years of the children's lives," says Professor Heather Joshi, the study's director.

"Despite government efforts to eradicate child poverty almost three in 10 children are still in poor families at age 7. It's particularly disappointing that around one in five seven-year-olds is in severe poverty – on incomes below half the national average."

The findings appear in a report published today by the Institute of Education's Centre for Longitudinal Studies: Millennium Cohort Study, Fourth Survey: A User's Guide to Initial Findings. Copies of the report can be downloaded here.

British National Party

I'm glad to see that Indian families are doing as well as whites in both the usa and now by info of Mr Sunny's quoted article, the UK as well. ( It is particularly interesting that the quote is from the BNP !! )
Perhaps the same statistics would be true in Canada and who knows, Australia and New Zealand as well ?

Could this be partly due to the positive "KARMIC" effect of the seeds sown by the philosophies of the
Mahatma Gandhi ?

 

[sunny_10]

I'm glad to see that Indian families are doing as well as whites in both the usa and now by info of Mr Sunny's quoted article, the UK as well. ( It is particularly interesting that the quote is from the BNP !! )

The economic survivability of Britain ended the day she lost the Crown Jewel and Kamadhenu or Surabhi of the British Empire i.e. India.

I find it hard to understand this part. If old debt is c

It doo just fine.

ratio. 1) Cut spending, 2) increase tax etc. etc. It is not something unimaginable. So, just relax.

Total d

'No UK aid even if India comes begging'

`No UK aid even if India comes begging`

`No UK aid even if India comes begging`

@ FARHAAN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR MOON MISSION

nahiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Always being in a "Condition" of continuing Pig Talks with UK

the above news is welcomed and its good if the British government live in the above belief. as it would at least avoid "Pig Talks" before any big deal/ tender like MRCA

Indian side is facing real tough time because of Economic Crisis of European Nations. and only one statement i like in the news as below, that is, India's wish to " 'voluntarily' give up the Aid" but they couldn't, as British side made them accept the Aid . and then all the Pigs Talks start.....

If India doesn't want our aid, stop it now, Cameron told after country labels £280m-a-year donations as 'peanuts'
6 February 2012

David Cameron was under intense pressure last night to slash the £1billion in aid Britain gives to India after the country said it no longer wanted the money.

India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee said the booming country should 'voluntarily' give up the £280million a year it receives from Britain. He told the Indian parliament: 'We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development spending.'

It also emerged that in a leaked memo dating from 2010 India's then foreign minister Nirupama Rao suggested India should not accept any further aid from Britain's Department for International Development because of the 'negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID'.

Sources in Delhi suggested British officials begged India to accept the aid. One commented: 'They said British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate.

'They said it would be highly embarrassing if [India] pulled the plug.'

The revelations raised fresh questions last night for ministers who have been struggling to defend the Indian aid programme in the face of criticism from the public and Conservative MPs.

They also risk raising fresh questions about the Coalition's controversial decision to pour billions more into foreign aid at a time of deep spending cuts at home. Tory MP Philip Davies called for the Indian aid programme to be cancelled immediately.

Mr Davies said: 'India spends tens of billions on defence and hundreds of millions a year on a space programme – in those circumstances it would be unacceptable to give them aid even if they were begging us for it.

'Given that they don't even want it, it would be even more extraordinary if it were to be allowed to continue.

'There will be millions of hard-pressed families wondering why on earth the Government is wasting money in this way.'

Fellow Tory Douglas Carswell said: 'This is concrete proof that Britain's aid programme is run in the interests of Whitehall officials and the DFID machine.

'The fact is that India's economy is growing much faster than our own. We should be encouraging free trade with them and trying to learn from them rather than handing out patronising lectures.'

Tory MP Peter Bone urged ministers to abandon the 'vanity project' of pursuing a target to hand out 0.7 per cent of the UK's entire national income in aid.

He said: 'India has its own foreign aid programme so it is absurd for us to be still giving them aid. They are more than capable of looking after their own issues.

'As for the 0.7 per cent target, it is a vanity project that is being pursued for no good reason at all. I do not understand the Government's position on this and I don't think the British public do either.'

Some critics in India have also questioned the value of the aid, warning that much of it is lost to corruption and bureaucracy.

As recently as 2010 the country was the biggest net recipient of British aid, receiving £421million.

Despite India's rapid economic development the International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell decided last year to approve a further £1.1billion in aid over the next four years.

The timing of the latest revelations is particularly embarrassing for ministers, coming in the wake of India's decision last week to reject the British-built Typhoon fighter jet as preferred candidate for a £13billion defence deal.

Mr Mitchell said last year that the continuing aid programme was partly 'about seeking to sell Typhoon'.

British foreign aid: India tells Britain 'we don't need the peanuts you offer us' | Mail Online

 

[sunny_10]

double post