Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: MrFrost on October 26, 2010, 11:28:59 am
-
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
-
MrFrost wrote:
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
Wait until the cuts bite! they were only announced a week ago!
The growth you are seeing now is the effect of the previous governments policies!
-
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
Wait until the cuts bite! they were only announced a week ago!
The growth you are seeing now is the effect of the previous governments policies![/quote]
That old chesnut.
-
This is just one figure, don't read too much into it.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
Wait until the cuts bite! they were only announced a week ago!
The growth you are seeing now is the effect of the previous governments policies![/quote]
That old chesnut.
Do your tags correctly, it`s not a good advertisement for an IT expert is it? ;) :P :)
-
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
Wait until the cuts bite! they were only announced a week ago!
The growth you are seeing now is the effect of the previous governments policies![/quote]
That old chesnut.
No truthful
-
Dagenham.Rover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I see the economy is growing alot faster than expected. Where is this double dip recession you were all on about?
Wait until the cuts bite! they were only announced a week ago!
The growth you are seeing now is the effect of the previous governments policies![/quote]
That old chesnut.
No truthful
Of course it's the truth. These figures are for the period Jul-Sept this year. There is nothing that the current Govt could possibly have done to affect these numbers greatly. The last two quarters of exceptional growth are entirely down to the policies put in place by Brown and Darling with the aim of getting us out of the depth of the recession quickly.
The figures today are BACKWARD indicators, as is current unemployment. They tell you about the effects of economic policy decisions taken 1-2 years ago.
What is now very worrying is the state of the FORWARD indicators; the ones that take current policy decisions into account and predict what will happen over the next couple of years. In particular, business confidence in their own immediate prospects, which has begun to fall over the last 6 months. Historically, the business confidence figures predict the state of the economy over the next year or so. Not perfectly, but pretty well. Confidence started to collapse in mid-2007 and we went into recession in late 2008. Confidence started to rise in early 2009 and we came out of recession in late 2009. Now business confidence has started falling again. Conclusion? At the very least, the growth that we are seeing now will not continue as strongly. At worst, the private sector loses confidence more rapidly, stops investing and taking on new recruits and the public sector cuts push us off a cliff. Either way, it's hard to see us having a vibrant economy over the next 2-3 years without a determined Govt effort to bolster confidence and encourage growth. And that simply will not happen with this lot, because their ideology does not let them accept that Government action can result in economic growth.
-
I tell you what though, when I was back at uni one of my lecturers had a big rant about the effect of the media on recession and we're seeing it right now. Scaremongering from unions and the like. Now their points may well come to fruition but their points are also going to have an effect on the lesser educated who will believe what they say even though it's set in stone. The scaremongering at the moment is not a good thing and may see us going the way of France with their protests and that does nobody any good.
-
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
I tell you what though, when I was back at uni one of my lecturers had a big rant about the effect of the media on recession and we're seeing it right now. Scaremongering from unions and the like. Now their points may well come to fruition but their points are also going to have an effect on the lesser educated who will believe what they say even though it's set in stone. The scaremongering at the moment is not a good thing and may see us going the way of France with their protests and that does nobody any good.
Scaremongering? I'll give you scaremongering.
Scaremongering was what Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg did when they said that we could go the same way as Greece if we didn't pitch in to the biggest public sector cuts in 80 years. THAT was scaremongering, as well as being plain and simple LIES. Anyone who knows anything about the situation knew that they were talking utter bullshit. 1) Our basic debt level was half that of Greece. 2) Our economy was already growing again, unlike theirs, so our ability to finance our debt was far higher thatn theirs. 3) Most importantly, our debt is mainly financed by long-term bonds, unlike Greece's, which has to be re-financed regularly because their debt is mainly in short-term bonds. Put the 3 togther, and we were not remotely in the same situation as Greece. But terrifying people into thinking that we were bankrupt did a political job.
I'll give you a second example of scaremongering. In April 2009, Alastair Darling predicted in the Budget that the reflationary measures that the Labour Govt had put in place would mean that we would emerge strongly from the recession in 2010. He predicted that we would see 1.25% growth in 2010. He was savaged by Cameron and Osbourne, the monetarist tyrants in the IMF and the gobshites in the Tory press.
Osbourne accused him using the Treasury to invent \"fantasy\" growth predictions for political purposes. Vince Cable said the predictions were \"utter fantasy - no one believes that we will get growth like that next year.\" The IMF said that the growth prediction was \"unreliable\" and said that they believed the economy would SHRINK by 0.4% in 2010. The right-wing Centre for Economic Business Research said \"This is a work of fiction. The economy will probably stagnate in 2010 and grow very slowly after that.\"
As it happens, the economy has grown by more than 2% in the first nine months of 2010 (because of the stimulus package put in place by Labour and bitterly denounced by the Tories).
So, who was right?
And who was scaremongering for political aims?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
I tell you what though, when I was back at uni one of my lecturers had a big rant about the effect of the media on recession and we're seeing it right now. Scaremongering from unions and the like. Now their points may well come to fruition but their points are also going to have an effect on the lesser educated who will believe what they say even though it's set in stone. The scaremongering at the moment is not a good thing and may see us going the way of France with their protests and that does nobody any good.
Scaremongering? I'll give you scaremongering.
Scaremongering was what Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg did when they said that we could go the same way as Greece if we didn't pitch in to the biggest public sector cuts in 80 years. THAT was scaremongering, as well as being plain and simple LIES. Anyone who knows anything about the situation knew that they were talking utter bullshit. 1) Our basic debt level was half that of Greece. 2) Our economy was already growing again, unlike theirs, so our ability to finance our debt was far higher thatn theirs. 3) Most importantly, our debt is mainly financed by long-term bonds, unlike Greece's, which has to be re-financed regularly because their debt is mainly in short-term bonds. Put the 3 togther, and we were not remotely in the same situation as Greece. But terrifying people into thinking that we were bankrupt did a political job.
I'll give you a second example of scaremongering. In April 2009, Alastair Darling predicted in the Budget that the reflationary measures that the Labour Govt had put in place would mean that we would emerge strongly from the recession in 2010. He predicted that we would see 1.25% growth in 2010. He was savaged by Cameron and Osbourne, the monetarist tyrants in the IMF and the gobshites in the Tory press.
Osbourne accused him using the Treasury to invent \"fantasy\" growth predictions for political purposes. Vince Cable said the predictions were \"utter fantasy - no one believes that we will get growth like that next year.\" The IMF said that the growth prediction was \"unreliable\" and said that they believed the economy would SHRINK by 0.4% in 2010. The right-wing Centre for Economic Business Research said \"This is a work of fiction. The economy will probably stagnate in 2010 and grow very slowly after that.\"
As it happens, the economy has grown by more than 2% in the first nine months of 2010 (because of the stimulus package put in place by Labour and bitterly denounced by the Tories).
So, who was right?
And who was scaremongering for political aims?
As I stated in another thread, lets have a public inquiry into how this situation has arisen, if it can be proved to be a result of the last government, then the key members of it should be debarred from public office, if on the other hand it's found to be mere puff/spin at least it will show \"Call me Dave\" and crew for what they are!
-
But it's not as simple as that Savvy. There is no \"right\" and \"wrong\" answer. There's no single person or group that you can point to and say \"they caused the recession\". Recessions happen in capitalist market economies. They are inevitable. When they do happen, what you do then comes down to your political outlook. No approach is inherently right or wrong. The approaches will simply help some people more than others and cost some people more than others.
Brown and Darling allowed our fiscal deficit to reach very high levels in response to a very deep recession. In doing so, they helped smooth out the very worst of the recession, gave us a springboard for growth and ensured that unemployment, house re-possessions and bankruptcies were all much lower than in the 80-82 and 90-92 recessions, even though the severity of the recession was much worse. But that comes with a cost, which is the level of fiscal deficit that we have, that we must now address. The result of that is that we now must all tighten our belts.
The Tories would not have implemented the fiscal stimulus that Brown and Darling used. They opposed every single measure. In doing so, they would have left us with a far lower deficit, but the cost would have been an extra one and a half million on the dole, massive house re-possessions and firms and whole industries going to the wall - the sort of thing that we saw in the 80-82 recession. We'd have had lower debt as a country, but economic devastation.
This is an age-old Left-Right debate. The Tories, histroically, have stood for the Market, low debt and sound money. Typically, that helps those who are already economically strong, and when recessions come along, it is the weakest who get it up the arse.
Labour historically has been for Government intervention, protection of the weakest and, if necessary, borrowing to do it. The result is often higher taxes and some inflation which eats away at the savings of the rich.
There's no right and wrong. There's just political preferences.
I know where my preferences lie.
-
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
I do agree that no one single person or group of persons can be held responsible, thats why I can't understand why \"Call me Dave\" et al have been allowed to get away with this \"J'accuse\" regarding the state of the economy, and people are buying into it!
Now it appears we are to follow this glorious plan that is going to lead us away from the bogey man who is going to come knocking on the door of 10 downing street asking for his/their money back, and my question to the chancellor would be what is the specific plan, what economy doctrine/text is it following, and what measure/ set of measures can we use to evaluate the effectiveness of your plan?
[img/]
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
I tell you what though, when I was back at uni one of my lecturers had a big rant about the effect of the media on recession and we're seeing it right now. Scaremongering from unions and the like. Now their points may well come to fruition but their points are also going to have an effect on the lesser educated who will believe what they say even though it's set in stone. The scaremongering at the moment is not a good thing and may see us going the way of France with their protests and that does nobody any good.
Scaremongering? I'll give you scaremongering.
Scaremongering was what Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg did when they said that we could go the same way as Greece if we didn't pitch in to the biggest public sector cuts in 80 years. THAT was scaremongering, as well as being plain and simple LIES. Anyone who knows anything about the situation knew that they were talking utter bullshit. 1) Our basic debt level was half that of Greece. 2) Our economy was already growing again, unlike theirs, so our ability to finance our debt was far higher thatn theirs. 3) Most importantly, our debt is mainly financed by long-term bonds, unlike Greece's, which has to be re-financed regularly because their debt is mainly in short-term bonds. Put the 3 togther, and we were not remotely in the same situation as Greece. But terrifying people into thinking that we were bankrupt did a political job.
I'll give you a second example of scaremongering. In April 2009, Alastair Darling predicted in the Budget that the reflationary measures that the Labour Govt had put in place would mean that we would emerge strongly from the recession in 2010. He predicted that we would see 1.25% growth in 2010. He was savaged by Cameron and Osbourne, the monetarist tyrants in the IMF and the gobshites in the Tory press.
Osbourne accused him using the Treasury to invent \"fantasy\" growth predictions for political purposes. Vince Cable said the predictions were \"utter fantasy - no one believes that we will get growth like that next year.\" The IMF said that the growth prediction was \"unreliable\" and said that they believed the economy would SHRINK by 0.4% in 2010. The right-wing Centre for Economic Business Research said \"This is a work of fiction. The economy will probably stagnate in 2010 and grow very slowly after that.\"
As it happens, the economy has grown by more than 2% in the first nine months of 2010 (because of the stimulus package put in place by Labour and bitterly denounced by the Tories).
So, who was right?
And who was scaremongering for political aims?
I do not disagree with you that they were scaremongering aswell, do two wrongs make a right? No, they're equally as bad and were back then. I don't unlike others fall for the party I voted for being perfect and the other lot not, I see both points of view.
But my point still stands, all I keep hearing is the unions and so called 'working class' element talking of civil unrest etc at these cuts and quite frankly that helps nobody. It may bring about political change but at what cost? Surely after an election where the Tories did receive the most votes we should accept that within our political system they get on with it and we make the best of it whatever your political thoughts? But then I'll get called young and naive for saying that despite it ultimately being what we probably should do.
If more people in this country had my attitude when it comes to job seeking of taking a job that may not be ideal in order to progress and do something worthwhile then unemployment may be a bit lower, not a lot but a little. Too many have a negative attitude and a sense of being above a level of jobs as I've seen at the job centre and in agencies. Perfectly good jobs that don't pay great and aren't exciting but they're a job, these people just say no. Nothing in life comes for free and I'm sick to death of people in this country thinking things will just come their way because it's too easy. Look at job seeking, nobody really questions my effort to find a job, I just tell them some bullshit and they go, oh ok, keep going then. I could be making it all up and I know plenty who do - that seriously needs looking at. Nobody helps you find a job it's all about ticking a box, a big farce that is.
-
At the risk of sounding patronising, I'm afraid your comments on our political system are indeed rather naive. Opponents of a Government don't just say, \"Fair enough - you get on with it.\" They question, they oppose where they see error, bad judgement or unfairness. They dig away at the Government's credibility. That is how democracy works. If the Government is strong enough in its arguments to survive this then they deserve to. Personally, I do not think that this is the case here and now.
The Tories won the most votes and seats. No argument. But they did NOT win a majority. Fewer than 36% of voters actually voted for the scale of cutbacks that we are now faced with. So the Tories rely on the support of others to push through their agenda. And remember that the Lib-Dems categorically did NOT campaign on this platform.
So, within an entirely peaceful and democratic system, there is a huge Achilles Heel waiting to be attacked.
People who desperately do not want us to be pitched out of recovery and headlong into another Thatcherite nightmare (and forgive me, but you ARE too young to appreciate this) have every right to prod away at the Lib-Dems' raw nerves in an effort to get them to bring Osbourne to heel. It's part of the democratic process.
And comments on the fragility of the recovery are categorically NOT scaremongering. The last two occasions when Governments have drastically cut back public expenditure after a recession as bad as the one we've just had resulted in the two most devastating economic scenarios of the 20th century in the early 30s and early 80s. The risks that we still face today are blindingly obvious and that is why business confidence is starting to erode. That's not scaremongering - it's understanding economic history. If Osbourne and his Lib-Dem supporters get this wrong with their manic experiment in fiscal tightening (which is what it is) then we will live with the consequences for 20 years. Pointing that out is not scaremongering - it's a democratic right. Equally, it was a democratic right for Osbourne to question the predictions of Darling and Brown. It's just that, as on so many issues, he was proved by events to be utterly wrong.
-
Savvy wrote:
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
I do agree that no one single person or group of persons can be held responsible, thats why I can't understand why \"Call me Dave\" et al have been allowed to get away with this \"J'accuse\" regarding the state of the economy, and people are buying into it!
Now it appears we are to follow this glorious plan that is going to lead us away from the bogey man who is going to come knocking on the door of 10 downing street asking for his/their money back, and my question to the chancellor would be what is the specific plan, what economy doctrine/text is it following, and what measure/ set of measures can we use to evaluate the effectiveness of your plan?
[img/]
Aye. Brown said that and the hubris of it will haunt him forever.
Brown did a damn good job of sailing the economy away from boom and bust cycles for a decade and we STILL fell off a cliff that no-one saw coming. That's the nature of the system.
I'll accept that it's not provable that capitalist economies must always have perioidic recessions. But there's 300 years of evidence to support the argument.
Fair point about how you evaluate the plan. There's the rub of democratic politics. You can only evaluate it by immersing yourself in the subject, analysing facts, drawing your own conclusions. Most people have neither the intellect nor the desire to do so. So they want their politics simplified. Then you get grinning simplifying politicians like Blair and Clegg.
When you simplify, every politician can always say they were right by a particular, simple measure. But there are always other measurements to judge them by.
Brown and Darling appear to have steered us away from the worst of what the recession could have done. But by doing so, they have left us with a huge deficit. Was their approach effective or not?
If Osbourne reduces the deficit, but puts unemployment up by a million in doing so, will his approach have been effective?
It comes down to what you think is more important.
-
That’s why I rated Gordon Brown, because his proclamation appeared to fly in the face of all the economic doctrine that has been peddled since time immoral, certainly in the copy of Lipsey that I was bought whilst at University. Coupled with the global economic crisis I thought he took prudent and decisive action to prevent a run on our currency and to ensure that our economy suffered minimal impact.
Now according to “Dave and George” we are now sitting on an economic crisis of Bernie Madoff size proportions, yet it would appear if their rhetoric is true, no fecker is to be held accountable. Mr Madoff got 150 years for orchestrating a similar set of circumstances, but in England we don’t even hold an investigation, if indeed an investigation is needed!
Smoke and mirrors, whatever happened to the “Their now follows a party political broadcast on behalf of “Neil and bob” (or is that what they do for a living?). They don’t want to set out a plan in lay mans terms as you say Billy because that would mean they couldn’t blind people with science in 4 years time, not that I think that this meeting of minds will last that long, I give it another 18 months tops!
One final thing on this subject, has anyone actually examined the proposition that there maybe an alternative to cuts? What about increase in supply or demand for the particular good or service? What about reducing the costs of production of said good or service? I suggest non of this will have been looked at because that involves the application of knowledge, whereas cuts are simple, easy twelve people of average intelligence of this forum could get together and make cuts. CEO’s in the private sector have been doing it for years, taking over, reducing budgets in research and development, training, new equipment using it to increase dividends and earnings per share, then as soon as a major competitor captures the market with a major new product that wipes the floor with theirs, they are off to “pursue other interests” with a nice bonus and share package as severance.
To give you an indication of what I mean, I was taken to Sunderland Public works department as part of a module. The idea being that we were show an example of just how the public sector could be made to operate in the private sector. The way it worked was that you could be a private home owner, but you could ring Sunderland public works department and they would come out and give you a quotation to provide and fit your new double glazed windows, without having to phone safe style UK and the like to get the work done.
I thought that Doncaster Council had followed through with this when all of a sudden, you could get your car MOT’d at their depot on the north bridge, so the concept appeared to be spreading. So why can’t it be followed up now to include jobs like the man who follows the dustbin man around cleaning your bins for quid each week? Increase community tax by £52 explain what its for, get some of these 800 people who are set to lose their job trained up by the origin team of lads and create a win-win situation?
That’s just one of the top of my napper, but I feel sure that council employees across the borough could quite easily come up with far more suggestions than this. The problem is that no fecker will have asked them because, cuts are simple, and cuts are easy! Of course the counter argument is that cuts will be made in departments in such a way so that current service levels won’t be affected, my counter argument to this would be if you can do with 8 people what you could do with 10 why aren’t you doing it already.
Rant over!!!! (http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/chrisk.gif)
-
Savvy wrote:
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
Economic cycles and 'boom and bust' are not the same thing.
Economic cycles happen, 'boom and bust' was the way of politically dealing with them.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Savvy wrote:
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
Economic cycles and 'boom and bust' are not the same thing.
Economic cycles happen, 'boom and bust' was the way of politically dealing with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoZ7JXkv6_o
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Brown did a damn good job of sailing the economy away from boom and bust cycles for a decade and we STILL fell off a cliff that no-one saw coming.
Peter Schiff
Gerald Celente
Bob Chapman
Jim Rogers
Max Keiser
Marc Faber
Jim Sinclair
James Dines
and...
Vince Cable
-
River Don wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Brown did a damn good job of sailing the economy away from boom and bust cycles for a decade and we STILL fell off a cliff that no-one saw coming.
Peter Schiff
Gerald Celente
Bob Chapman
Jim Rogers
Max Keiser
Marc Faber
Jim Sinclair
James Dines
and...
Vince Cable
All former left wingers? (http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/monkey.gif)
-
River Don wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Brown did a damn good job of sailing the economy away from boom and bust cycles for a decade and we STILL fell off a cliff that no-one saw coming.
Peter Schiff
Gerald Celente
Bob Chapman
Jim Rogers
Max Keiser
Marc Faber
Jim Sinclair
James Dines
and...
Vince Cable
Poor choice of phrase from me. Of course, there are ALWAYS prophets predicting every possible outcome and some of them are bound to turn out to be correct. Some of the ones you name are professional Cassandras who have been predicting doom and disaster from the day they left their mother's tit. They were generally wrong in those predictions for most of their careers. But if they stuck to them long enough, they were bound to be proved right eventually by events. That's from the monkeys and typewriters school of prediciton though.
What I should have said was that there was no obvious prediction of the recession among mainstream economic forecasters.
The fascinating thing is how often the Labour Govt's predictions actually WERE shown to be correct over the 13 years they were in power. Time and again, the \"experts\" said that it was all going to go tits up. We were going to get hammered by the Russian crisis, the Argentine default, the East Asian crisis, the dot.com bubble bursting, the post-9/11 recession, the Eurozone slowdown etc, etc, etc. Forecasters on the far Left were gleefully predicting capitalist metldown. Forecasters on the Right couldn't conceive of a left-of-centre govt actually managing the economy well. On both sides, they regularly poured scorn on Govt forecasts of economic performance, and time and again, the Govt was proved correct. What we actually got was the longest period of stable economic growth for over 100 years, while the rest of the world's performance was going up and down like a brides knickers.
If Brown didn't foresee the eventual recession, he was in good company - you'd struggle to find a mainstream economist, finance minister or central banker who did.
Vince Cable made a name for himself by being seen to be some sort of genius who saw the problem. But his failure to see how Labour's policies would bring us out of recession (see earlier post) show that he hasn't got a 100% average either.
-
I would never claim to know alot about politics, but I know one thing every day I am growing to despise Dave a little more.
Watching C4 news tonight, seeing his smug face and his almost mirroring of the thoughts and sentiments of the Daily mail made me want to vomit.
To demonise poor people living in the city is disgraceful, My grandmother and her siblings were raised in a workhouse in Sleaford, personally I think Dave and his acolytes won't rest until the poor in this country are segrigated once again.
What of the people who have lived in these areas all their lives and have seen a reversal in housing costs and popularity of those areas?
Surely this drive to oust the unworthy from prime areas will hit his voters just as hard? Call me dim but isn't one of the reasons property is so high in London and other major cities because second home owners who have bought to rent are recouping their mortgages and expenses? So what happens when the rent dries up? Will we see a new form of mortgage relief hastily put into place to protect these votes..I mean house owners?
-
Savvy wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Savvy wrote:
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
Economic cycles and 'boom and bust' are not the same thing.
Economic cycles happen, 'boom and bust' was the way of politically dealing with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoZ7JXkv6_o
We got 'boom and bust' through years of politically imposed interest rates as a measure of trying to control inflation (and therefore the money supply). Boom and Bust happened over decades of crap Chancellors trying to heat up and cool down the economy either by too much, too little or at the wrong time, which is why we got 'booms' overheating the economy followed by 'busts' whent hey tried to cool them down again. Cycles happen as part of natural economics, imposing interests rates on a political basis aren't. That's why Brown immediately handing control of the Bank Rate over to the Bank Of England and out of the hands of politicians was one of the greatest economic decisions any Chancellor has made, and why the economy was going reasonably smoothly until the bankers cocked it up for everybody.
Got a glib Youtube clip for this, or are you going to contribute something worthwhile?
-
As a PS that others might find interesting, Private Eye has a feature called 'Number Crunching', and the following are in the currect issue:
£7bn = Further cuts to UK welfare budget announced last week.
£7bn = Predicted bonuses to be paid by UK banks this year.
£81bn = Amount government is cutting from public spending over next four years.
£185bn = Amount government lent to banks for three years in Special Liquidity Scheme.
And one away from politics/economics...
33 = Miners rescued in Chile this month who received worldwide coverage.
37 = Miners killed in gas explosion in China this month who didn't.
34 = Average number of accidental deaths in Chilean mining industry each year in last decade.
57 = Miners killed in accidents in USA so far this year.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Savvy wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Savvy wrote:
Not sure I agree with the recession is an enivitable consequence of a capitalist economy, even Gordon Brown promised an end to boom and bust cyclical economy that had plagued the country year on year.
Economic cycles and 'boom and bust' are not the same thing.
Economic cycles happen, 'boom and bust' was the way of politically dealing with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoZ7JXkv6_o
We got 'boom and bust' through years of politically imposed interest rates as a measure of trying to control inflation (and therefore the money supply). Boom and Bust happened over decades of crap Chancellors trying to heat up and cool down the economy either by too much, too little or at the wrong time, which is why we got 'booms' overheating the economy followed by 'busts' whent hey tried to cool them down again. Cycles happen as part of natural economics, imposing interests rates on a political basis aren't. That's why Brown immediately handing control of the Bank Rate over to the Bank Of England and out of the hands of politicians was one of the greatest economic decisions any Chancellor has made, and why the economy was going reasonably smoothly until the bankers cocked it up for everybody.
Got a glib Youtube clip for this, or are you going to contribute something worthwhile?
The context that boom and bust was referred to in this thread was put in the context of general economic activity and not the monetarist view which you appear to have read from somewhere which has widely been dispelled as myth anyway! We got boom and bust from years of politically imposed interest rates...what aload of shite! (http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/sidjames-20101027.gif)
-
Well what else causes boom and bust then Savvy?
BobG
-
Fluctuations in production or economic activity over a period of months or years!
Whats your take on it Bob?
-
So whatever decisions the politicians take has no effect? Interesting.
-
What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless. As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?
This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.
* £250 for a one-bedroom property
* £290 for a two-bedroom property
* £340 for a three-bedroom property
* £400 for a four-bedroom property
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323022/George-Osbornes-cuts-UK-1931-says-Nobel-Prize-winning-economist.html
-
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless. As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?
This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.
* £250 for a one-bedroom property
* £290 for a two-bedroom property
* £340 for a three-bedroom property
* £400 for a four-bedroom property
Who are you trying to convince? No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.
Look on the Vebra website. There are only a handful of 3 bed properties available for rent at below £340/week within 10 miles of central London. So that's anyone on a low wage with a family priced out of living there.
The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.
Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?
We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.
There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?
Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless. As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?
This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.
* £250 for a one-bedroom property
* £290 for a two-bedroom property
* £340 for a three-bedroom property
* £400 for a four-bedroom property
Who are you trying to convince. No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.
The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.
Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?
We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.
There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?
Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.
You kind of contradict yourself though saying you agree with it then saying 'hang on I don't'. What is the answer then, keep shelling out large amounts of money to people willy nilly? I do see your point on London it is a different animal that's for sure, though you could also argue that I have to travel a fair distance to work as does my Dad (neither of us work in Doncaster), so why shouldn't people have to travel?
-
The solution has to begin with more control over the ammount landlords are able to charge. The are the cause of the problem, not the tennants....
I do not blame the tennants for wanting to live in better areas, Live on a sink hole estate and run the risk of your kid being the next gang statistic, or stay in a better part of London and hopefully keep them safe..What would most chose?
The thing that really irritates me is the belief that the housing benefit is handed to the claiment. Generally speaking it is paid directly to the landlord for obvious reasons. Yet the masses are working themselves into a frenzy thinking this is money that the claiment is physically given. They believe all the negative spin and propaganda fed through the likes of the mail and its ilk.
-
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless. As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?
This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.
* £250 for a one-bedroom property
* £290 for a two-bedroom property
* £340 for a three-bedroom property
* £400 for a four-bedroom property
Who are you trying to convince. No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.
The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.
Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?
We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.
There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?
Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.
You kind of contradict yourself though saying you agree with it then saying 'hang on I don't'. What is the answer then, keep shelling out large amounts of money to people willy nilly? I do see your point on London it is a different animal that's for sure, though you could also argue that I have to travel a fair distance to work as does my Dad (neither of us work in Doncaster), so why shouldn't people have to travel?
What I agree with is that £340 per week SHOULD be enough to pay for a three bedroomed house anywhere in the country. But it ISN'T. Because Free Market Forces (read: Greedy scrubbing middle-class barrow boy rentier landlords that were the darlings of the Thatcherites) decree that that isn't enough in Central London. So, anyone on poverty wages will be driven out of Central London.
And then...
You're an accountant. You do the sums.
A cleaner in Central London is paid little more than minimum wage levels. Many cleaners jobs are advertised at ~£10k per year. An annual Zone 1-5 Travel card is the thick end of £2k. So, by driving the menial workers out into the suburbs, you are simply producing another problem - you're driving people's take-home pay to sub-poverty levels. And that's before you take into account the racial tensions that I alluded to in the earlier post. You reckon the citizens of Barking and Dagenham are going to have street parties to welcome the thousands of immigrant families that will be displaced there from central London?
-
Perhaps the answer is that there should be a difference between the central London value and the rest of the country (something that is being considered apparently). There's no doubt that it will reduce rents a little bit and I do agree 100 percent that these landlords are taking the piss. Though you would also argue if people will pay that it makes sense, that's what an accountant would argue. At the moment it is too easy to do that, now reducing this benefit may have an effect, it may not, theoretically it should if it really makes that much difference landlordw would have no choice.
-
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
Perhaps the answer is that there should be a difference between the central London value and the rest of the country (something that is being considered apparently). There's no doubt that it will reduce rents a little bit and I do agree 100 percent that these landlords are taking the piss. Though you would also argue if people will pay that it makes sense, that's what an accountant would argue. At the moment it is too easy to do that, now reducing this benefit may have an effect, it may not, theoretically it should if it really makes that much difference landlordw would have no choice.
What's that old quote about accountants knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?
Nothing personal like, but that is the spirit that has got us into this mess. It's the Free Market let off the leash. Thatcher's Govt did this by de-regulating the housing rental market. And you end up with this sort of shambolic situation where essential menial workers have to be subsidised to live near their jobs, and then are villified for being subsidised.
Same old Tories eh? If you let the Market rule, it is ALWAYS the ones at the very bottom who get shit on. And ALWAYS the ones being shit on who are held up as the devious villains who take the rest of us for a ride. The Tories are simply doing what they always do. Blowing up a nothing scare story to pander to the comfortable middle-class Mail-reading tut-tutters who form the bulk of their voters.
As for an alternative system being considered for London - why now? Did they not think about this before announcing the policy on a blaze of rabble-rousing media hype?
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
As a PS that others might find interesting, Private Eye has a feature called 'Number Crunching', and the following are in the currect issue:
£7bn = Further cuts to UK welfare budget announced last week.
£7bn = Predicted bonuses to be paid by UK banks this year.
£81bn = Amount government is cutting from public spending over next four years.
£185bn = Amount government lent to banks for three years in Special Liquidity Scheme.
And one away from politics/economics...
33 = Miners rescued in Chile this month who received worldwide coverage.
37 = Miners killed in gas explosion in China this month who didn't.
34 = Average number of accidental deaths in Chilean mining industry each year in last decade.
57 = Miners killed in accidents in USA so far this year.
I read some interesting stuff about this so called recession. I too noted it was all down to the banks and posted it back then. Whilst we keep arguing over which party is to blame, it's worth noting that it's all of them for allowing the banks to run this country and f**k it over for the sake of fat cat profits for the few. Sombody needs to get hold of these mofo's.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
As a PS that others might find interesting, Private Eye has a feature called 'Number Crunching', and the following are in the currect issue:
£7bn = Further cuts to UK welfare budget announced last week.
£7bn = Predicted bonuses to be paid by UK banks this year.
£81bn = Amount government is cutting from public spending over next four years.
£185bn = Amount government lent to banks for three years in Special Liquidity Scheme.
And one away from politics/economics...
33 = Miners rescued in Chile this month who received worldwide coverage.
37 = Miners killed in gas explosion in China this month who didn't.
34 = Average number of accidental deaths in Chilean mining industry each year in last decade.
57 = Miners killed in accidents in USA so far this year.
I read some interesting stuff about this so called recession. I too noted it was all down to the banks and posted it back then. Whilst we keep arguing over which party is to blame, it's worth noting that it's all of them for allowing the banks to run this country and fcuk it over for the sake of fat cat profits for the few. Sombody needs to get hold of these mofo's.
Couldn't agree more Cussy.
Very little is being done to reform the system, they're doing everything possible to breath life back into it but I don't think it's possible, certainly not without a lot of pain. Meanwhile the bankers have won.
I'm no expert but it seems to me fractional reserve banking is at the root of our ills. While ever the banks are allowed to conjure money out of thin air, we're doomed to see bubbles grow and suffer the resultant busts.
The best we can hope for is some regulation to at least try and keep some control of it but it seems these are being resisted very successfully.
-
Is there a better example than Northern Rock?
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is there a better example than Northern Rock?
Better example in what way cussie?
-
There is a big problem with reforming the banks. They are such a huge part of our economy and they have been so for decades.
Easy to say that we should reform them, but if by doing so we drive them elsewhere then we have a huge hole in our economy. Prior to 2007, they were responsible for paying something like 20% of the total tax income in the UK. The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.
If Brown had unilaterally tried to reform OUR banking system in, say, 2000, we the banks would have moved business to America, Switzerland or other places, and we would have had that financial trouble even earlier.
What is needed is GLOBAL banking restrictions. We can influence that but only to the extent that other countries come along with us.
In the meantime, we need to spend 20 years encouraging and supporting other areas of economic activity to broaden our economy and lessen our reliance on the banks. Trouble is, that goes against everything we have done in thus country for half a century and more. Labour were certainly at fault for not doing more on this score. The Tories are talking a good game in this topic, but their actions are not backing this up. The Business and Innovation Dept had taken the biggest cuts of any Dept, and the very first thong the coalition did was to cancel the loan to Forgemasters, which was both economically stupid and designed to send a message. The priority is all about cutting back and to hell with the consequences.
In the meantime, to balance the books over 5 years, the temptation wi be to let the banks grow all powerful again, and take the tax income from them. I suspect that in 5 years time, we'll have even less high tech manufacturing as a proportion of our economy and we'll be as reliant as ever on the banks.
-
Interesting read Billy, just a couple of points,
The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.
Have you evidence to back that up or is it just a conclusion you'll arrived at?
If the banks are responsible for 20% of the tax income of the country, de facto 80% is coming from other areas, so we arent really that reliant on the banks are we?
-
Savvy wrote:
Interesting read Billy, just a couple of points,
The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.
Have you evidence to back that up or is it just a conclusion you'll arrived at?
If the banks are responsible for 20% of the tax income of the country, de facto 80% is coming from other areas, so we arent really that reliant on the banks are we?
I have plenty of evidence that Labour was not massively overspending. Before the recession struck, Govt spending was about 38% of GDP. That was a lower proportion than Major's Govt was spending in 1996. Only hardline Thatcherites think that that is an excessive amount.
As for tax receipts from the financial sector, those figures I gave were from memory. According to Price Waterhouse Cooper, in 2007, tax receipts from the banking sector were about 15% of all Govt income. I heard on the radio last week that this came down to about 10% last year. Of course that doesn't explain the whole if the deficit. Every country ran a deficit in response to the recession, but it goes a long way to explaining why our deficit was one of the worst.
You're right of course that we are not totally reliant on banking tax income. But the point is that it forms one of the largest areas of tax income, and we would struggle badly without it. If, say, banking tax income halved for a decade, the resulting loss of Govt income would be over £300bn. That's a lot of schools, hospitals, railway lines and roads that wouldn't get built. THAT is why no Govt had dared to regulate our banking sector isolation. They could not afford the loss of income if the banks were driven elsewhere. Look at the furore (led by the Tories) in 2007 when Brown suggested taxing non-doms in the financial sector.
-
Thanks for that explaination Bill, what I can't get my napper round is how they are being allowed to get away with these outlandish claims! Surely someone on the opposition has got to say look....put up or shut up. Show us the empherical evidence that we've be profligate with the nations finances or knock the scaremonging on the head!!
They insist that the private sector will be the catalyst for bailing us out of the shite, but can you honestly see any CEO or Company Chairman addressing the shareholders next year and saying \"You know what, now is the time to build that new factory/warehouse or set on that extra 500 employees\" They'd get voted out tout suite!
Just as an aside, how do you see this Banking Levy/tax panning out? I agree they have to play this one cagey because the ham shanks could quite easily bail out if they feel that they are being unjustly treated!
-
Being a moderate lefty misen Savvy, I spent the whole Election campaign tearing out my non-existent hair shouting at the telly every time I saw a Labour politician, \"TELL THEM THE NUMBERS. Find a simple way of showing folk what caused the recession and what you have done to reduce the effect of it.\"
Only one conclusion for me. Labour's election campaign was rank-bad. They had spent 15 years playing it softly-softly in election campaigns and winning easily against a shit opponent and they had no idea how to come out and take part in a dog-fight.
To be fair to Miliband, I think he's playing a smart game in response to that. In Opposition, you don't have to win the arguments in a slugging match. You bob and weave. Make the odd sharp soundbite comment to stick in folks' minds, then step down and let the Govt flounder. Land a jab then vanish. Cameron was a master of that. He scarcely put up a single policy in Opposition, but he was a master of landing jab after jab on Brown, even when Brown was saving the world. He might get some back over the next 4 years.
It's not what I would like. I'd prefer to see some upfront full-on arguments and may the better side win. I'd prefer to see an up-front pub-brawl with every weapon each side possesses used than a little bloke sticking pins in the big lad then running way. But we as a people are a bunch of soft cnuts these days, and it'd only scare the children if we saw our politics a bit redder in tooth and claw.
As for the banking levy, it's a pin prick. The banks know that they have to be seen to have their arses caned. Headline figures showing that the levy will bring in £3bn a year look good, but this is only 1/20th of what the banks already pay in taxes. It's enough for Govt and the banks to say the slate has been wiped clean, but nowehere near what would really be required to bring them to heel. Not that we COULD really bring them to heel without f**king up our own tax receipts anyway.
Shit int it?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
What is needed is GLOBAL banking restrictions. We can influence that but only to the extent that other countries come along with us.
I agree but it's simply not on the agenda.
Half the worlds Off-shore Tax havens come under British jurisdiction, the worlds biggest is the City of London! Most of the rest belong to the Americans or the French. If they really wanted to they could shut the lot down in a week. Thing is, the banks won't allow that to happen.
-
Savvy wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is there a better example than Northern Rock?
Better example in what way cussie?
From what I have read about this fiasco, is that Northern Rock Building Society was a very good one, going about it's investments to protect the savings of all it's members, after all they are the most important.
It transpires that NR wanted some of the action that all the big banks were cashing in on and earning huge profits for the few (in short they became greedy and were entering a brutal big boys market, that in many opinions, they were out of their depth). That aside NR turned itself into a bank and duly failed, it tried to be floated on FTSE but failed, it tried to be bought out twice, but failed.
Perhaps NR should have thought more about it's savers.
Anybody watch QT last night with that stroker who runs hedge funds. Now this seems to be the new buzz word 'hedge funds'......massive profit making machine for the very few wealthy, in times of debt/recession. These chuffs will never go without. About time somebody smashed these few, bring back Marx and Engels
-
And if you believe commentators like this it looks like worst is yet to come.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/gold-will-outlive-dollar-once-slaughter-comes-commentary-by-john-hathaway.html
Buy physical gold.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Savvy wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is there a better example than Northern Rock?
Better example in what way cussie?
From what I have read about this fiasco, is that Northern Rock Building Society was a very good one, going about it's investments to protect the savings of all it's members, after all they are the most important.
It transpires that NR wanted some of the action that all the big banks were cashing in on and earning huge profits for the few (in short they became greedy and were entering a brutal big boys market, that in many opinions, they were out of their depth). That aside NR turned itself into a bank and duly failed, it tried to be floated on FTSE but failed, it tried to be bought out twice, but failed.
Perhaps NR should have thought more about it's savers.
Anybody watch QT last night with that stroker who runs hedge funds. Now this seems to be the new buzz word 'hedge funds'......massive profit making machine for the very few wealthy, in times of debt/recession. These chuffs will never go without. About time somebody smashed these few, bring back Marx and Engels
See thats why I asked the original question Cussie!
From everything I've read, Northern Rock did everything by the book. The problem they had was a liquidity issue. The American banks that they used to borrow their funds from weren't prepared to lend them any additional funds and they announced to the financial authorities straight away that they were unable to meet their short term commitments as per the banking rules and regulations. They had sufficient assets to cover their obligations, but when their normally reliable source of funding said \"Nay!\" that left them exposed in the short term. The government then intervened to prevent a run on the banks, and anyone who wished to withdraw their funds was allowed so to do, although due to the queues it might have taken abit long than normal.
Its interesting that the other banks have cried off-side at the government intervention citing anti-competitive rules which due to the government guarantees have made Northern Rock one of the safest places to keep your wonga!
Referring back to Billy's comments regarding the ability to put into place punative measures against the banking fraternity, I wonder, given that Northern Rock is a state bank in all but name, wether or not there could be something that could be done to bring them into line!
-
It might be that we need to take hold of the controlling of the banks. As said NR is now Nationalised, but more by necessity from it's failings.
I thought from what I knew NR could manage the short term stuff ie the customer savings, but it was everything else that f**ked them over that led to them being bailed out.
No government is going to get hold of the root cause of the worlds situation, ie the greedy f**kers that run this planet. It's them that run the governments of the world. It needs a re-distribution of wealth
-
I told you all a week back. We need a bloody revolution. And I used the word 'bloody' advisedly. Of course, an awful lot of folk on here tonight, including me, will fall victim to the subsequent pogroms and purges, but bugger me. Them that are left might have a chance of avoiding the mistakes of both left and right.
Of curse, if I wewre to run said revolution, there'd be a f**k of a lot of jobs come available. Building walls.
BobG
-
Interesting stuff here, in a speech by Mervyn King.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2010/speech455.pdf
It's heavy going, but the gist of it is that those figures I quoted earlier about how much the banking sector adds to UK GDP are massive over-estimates. He reckons that the usually accepted figures are TWICE the true level.
Looks like he's preparing the ground for a proper fist-fight. He's looking to take on the banks and bring them to heel. Publishing these figures is the first shot - it shows that the banks aren't as important as we (and they) thought they were.
This is proper ground-breaking stuff. The first time in 50 years that anyone in authority has openly challenged the almighty power of the banks. Who knows? We might be about to reclaim power over them after all.
And if the BoE is questioning the importance of the banks, the game is open for more radical solutions to keep them at heel. Like keeping the ones that WE now own as effectively nationalised banks with a remit to foster our economy rather than to line their shareholders' pockets.
Bob G - hasta la revolucion compadre.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Interesting stuff here, in a speech by Mervyn King.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2010/speech455.pdf
It's heavy going, but the gist of it is that those figures I quoted earlier about how much the banking sector adds to UK GDP are massive over-estimates. He reckons that the usually accepted figures are TWICE the true level.
Looks like he's preparing the ground for a proper fist-fight. He's looking to take on the banks and bring them to heel. Publishing these figures is the first shot - it shows that the banks aren't as important as we (and they) thought they were.
This is proper ground-breaking stuff. The first time in 50 years that anyone in authority has openly challenged the almighty power of the banks. Who knows? We might be about to reclaim power over them after all.
And if the BoE is questioning the importance of the banks, the game is open for more radical solutions to keep them at heel. Like keeping the ones that WE now own as effectively nationalised banks with a remit to foster our economy rather than to line their shareholders' pockets.
Bob G - hasta la revolucion compadre.
Hem, Hem, Can I draw the Right Honourable Gentleman to the final paragraph of my last post? (http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/diego.gif)
-
This is a very interesting article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8102785/Bank-of-England-must-use-QE-to-buy-bad-mortgages-warns-Fathom-Consulting.html
Turns out the banks assets are worth far less than they would have us believe, that is why they dare not 'mark to market' and use their computer models to invent figures instead.
Now they're suggesting we bail them out some more. Another £20billion, £180billion, who knows the true scale of the problem? More QE. Inflate the problem away, devalue the pound, currency wars, protectionism. Etc, etc.
Or instead we could try and find a way to allow our massively inflated housing market to correct it's self and start dealing with the problem of the debt.