I was watching BBC breakfast recently and the business presenter set out the current UK debt in a way I could understand
They broke down the total UK debt by the number of households in the UK and it worked out to £40,000 per household
Thats some debt 
BTW - if the UK and most other countries are in debt then who is in a huge amount of credit ?
. Never mind, read it wrong.
It’s simple,just like the States,we’ve been importing fuel and goods from places like Russia and China that we would/should still be self sufficient in and that we therefore didn’t need and those countries expect payment for it all in return.In other words it’s a scam which we’ve allowed our government to get away with which they implemented for whatever reason.Which just leaves the question why and who gained/gains from this.
It was probably to avoid a mafia type offer we couldn’t refuse by the commies back in the 1980’s when Reagan and Thatcher brokered the ‘deal’ having been given the choice of either press the button or sell out in which case the rich get to survive and keep their money. 
However you can bet that the required choices between default and cutting all trading links with those countries ( in which case we can probably expect more examples of 911 if not war ) or allowing the Chinese and Russians etc to take what they’re ‘owed’ out of what remains of Britain’s social budget ( after exchanging it for Swiss Francs ) and British assets regardless of private ownership is going to get ( very ) messy and leave most Brits on the poverty line while the rich do a runner to wherever there offshore investments are. 
What 80’s deal between Thatcher and Reagan are you on about that involved Russia and China and imports?
Also what do we import from Russia in sufficient quantities to cause such financial problems?
Doesn’t the uk buy a lot of gas from Russia?
I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.
interfaxenergy.com/natural-gas-n … n-imports/
sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive … 09415.html
c-span.org/Events/President- … 737421159/
4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/S … citGDP.jpg
Reagan sounded more like an appeaser of the Chinese ( and by association Russian ) Communist Party ( possibly even a sympathiser ) to me,than a US leader,of a country who’d shortly before that lost 50,000 casualties fighting the zb’s,and the results since on the US and western economies since speak for themselves.While Thatcher wasn’t exactly known for her opposition to Reagan’s ideas and policies. 
raymundo:
Also what do we import from Russia in sufficient quantities to cause such financial problems?
People. We didn’t win the Cold War we lost it,which is why we’re now invaded by Soviet Bloc people with more to come next year.
Gorbachev wasn’t stupid, he knew he couldn’t get a swift military invasion to work so played the long game and the result is what we have now,
Europe reliant on soviet energy supplies, labour and money. They’ve got us by the danglies and all they have to do is squeeze and we pay up. 
Invasion by the back door, very clever and so simple I’m surprised they don’t teach the strategy at Sandhurst 
Pete the post:
raymundo:
Also what do we import from Russia in sufficient quantities to cause such financial problems?People. We didn’t win the Cold War we lost it,which is why we’re now invaded by Soviet Bloc people with more to come next year.
Gorbachev wasn’t stupid, he knew he couldn’t get a swift military invasion to work so played the long game and the result is what we have now,
Europe reliant on soviet energy supplies, labour and money. They’ve got us by the danglies and all they have to do is squeeze and we pay up.
Invasion by the back door, very clever and so simple I’m surprised they don’t teach the strategy at Sandhurst
^ This.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the west has been subjected to a form of economic warfare by the east which in this case means both Russia and China.
But there’s no way that they could have got away with it without having co operation from the western governments as in the case shown by Reagan’s visit to China in 1984.The question is what was it that changed the policy of the west,regarding Russia and China,from one of mutually assured destruction, ( which had been proved to work in the case of preventing those countries from being able to damage the west’s economic or strategic interests ),to one of co operation and the transfer of wealth from the west to east.
The obvious flaw,in the idea of mutually assured destruction,seems to be the difference between what the rich heads of society in the west gradually realised what they would have had to lose,by pressing the button,compared to their eastern commie counterparts.It’s that flaw which would explain everything that has happened,concerning the change in the western governments’ policies,both militarily and economically,regarding Russia and China,since at least Reagan’s administration in the 1980’s,compared to that of Kennedy’s during the early 1960’s.
Lack of bloodshed, win win for both sides :shock
Pete the post:
Lack of bloodshed, win win for both sides :shock
No more like appeasement and a sell out to save the rich heads of society in the west from losing everything if push had come to shove concerning the cold war and in which the demands of transfer of wealth from west to east ( backed by threats ) will become ever greater as the power of the west becomes ever weaker.To the point where US and West European citizens will become cycle riding peasants,living in Chinese Communist Party provided high rise tower blocks,doing whatever jobs their commie masters order them to do,paid for in worthless printed pounds,dollars,or euros with just a subsistence level of food supply left which the commies will leave after taking most of the rest being that they will also own and control the west’s farming industries and land.
