Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mjdgreg on November 19, 2012, 12:00:55 am
-
OK, here's what you've all been waiting for. You'll be pleased to know that I am going to outline why you need to prepare for the consequences of deflation. I'm going to start the ball rolling today and will continue to flesh out my argument over the next few weeks.
I'm sure by the time I'm finished you will all be convinced that deflation is going to be a reality for all of us in the not too distant future and will be with us for many years.
Right, what seems to be going unnoticed by mainstream economists is that we have more pensioners than ever before. As things stand we now have more people aged over 65 than under 16. The consequences of this are massive as these pensioners will require more spending, for a longer period than ever before due to rising life expectancy. The bad news is that this will have to be paid for by fewer people than ever before.
GDP per head will also decrease as a consequence of having less people working supporting a growing number of pensioners. The only way this can be stopped is if those in work become more productive to be able to pay the increased bills. Unfortunately our economy is going the other way. There are more jobs than ever before and productivity is getting lower.
This is going to hugely increase the tax burden on those in work. At the moment each pensioner is paid for by four people in work. It is predicted that by 2049, each pensioner will be paid for by only two people in work. As time goes on this situation will get worse as people continue to live longer.
Currently for every £5 the Government has in revenue or borrowings, £1 is spent on pensions. This amount is roughly the same as what is spent on the NHS whose biggest customer base is, you've guessed it - pensioners. It doesn't take a genius to work out that government spending on pensioners is only going to carry on increasing over time.
Deflation will mean stagnant growth and living standards will fall. This is because negative equity will increase and the unemployment figures will go higher.
Also we need to consider how spending patterns change as we get older. Harry Dent outlines his thoughts for the American economy in the following link. The UK follows a very similar profile to what he says about America.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/outsidethebox/a-decade-of-volatility-demographics-debt-and-deflation
What he's basically saying is that as a population gets older, they spend less. This lack of spending of such a large part of the population is a key ingredient of deflation.
We need look no further than Japan for an excellent example. They have the highest average age of any country which currently stands at 45. By 2049 this will have risen to 52. Their stock exchange has fallen as the population has aged. It is still nowhere near its peak in the 1980s.
That's enough enlightenment for one evening. Luckily for all of you, I will be fleshing out the case for deflation even more over the coming weeks.
-
Mick.
Just a quick thought. Female involvement in the workforce in Japan. Your thoughts?
After you've explained what that "astonishing evidence" was, of course.
-
Just a quick thought. Female involvement in the workforce in Japan. Your thoughts?
It needs to be increased as much as possible to lessen the effects of their demographic time-bomb.
-
No shit Sherlock? I bet the Japanese Govt are preparing a special award for you in recognition of your nation-saving insight.
Let me phrase the question more specifically, since the subtleties appear to have by-passed you once again.
You say that demigraphics is the over-riding reason why Japan has had 2 decades of economic stagnation. That argument means that there are too few people in the potential workforce pool compared to thise too young or too old to work.
So, in that case, how come Japan has the lowest female workforce participation in the developed world?
If Japanese women were as involved in the workforce as British women, there would be an extra 10-15 million productive members of the workforce able to contribute to the economy.
The demographic argument is predicated in the idea that there are too few people to do the jobs that the economy could provide if it were operating at its potential. But that is patently false. The extra workers are there. What is lacking, what has been lacking for two decades, is the demand for those jobs. Because a spiral of nervous expectation and deflation set in 20 years ago after the disastrous response to the 1990 recession.
Demographics in Japan exacerbates the problem, but no one (barring a few cranks on the right who are desperate to find any reason possible to blame the economic stagnation on anything bar the failure to apply a fiscal stimulus) serious thinks it is the key underlying cause of 20 years of stagnation.
And in any case, WE have nothing like the same demographic problem. So to claim that we are going to experience a deflationary collapse because if demigraphics is puerile nonsense.
If we have a deflationary, stagnationary collapse, it will be because of appalling economic policy. Full stop.
Now. That "astonishing evidence" Mick?
-
What a load of leftie nonsense. Get the women into the workforce and everything will be OK. pmsl. You are so simplistic with your solutions I'm really struggling to take you seriously. Whatever I say and however much I back it up, your response is always the same. They should spend more money.
Only this time, when confronted with the demographics time-bomb, you solve this by saying they should get more women into the workforce. You obviously know nothing about Japan's problems and what caused them. When I've got a bit of time I will further enlighten you and expose your last post for the absolute load of twaddle that it is.
-
Eeh Mick. It's like arguing with a random number generator. When you are shown to be spouting infantile bullshit, you have four responses - the only mild interest is in finding out which one you will use each time.
1) Accuse your interlocutor of being a Leftie (because that seals the argument doesn't it?)
2) Accuse your interlocutor of trying to get the thread shut down by changing the subject, allowinyou to graciously refuse to take part in any further discussion
3) Claim that you are going to stop posting in order to save your opponent any further embarrassment.
4) When you are REALLY backed into a corner and shown categorically to be lying through your teeth, simply refuse to answer at all.
Skilful Mick. Really skilful. Skilful at avoiding facing up to being proved wrong. Not much use in terms of establishing the rights and wrongs of a debate, but really skilful as a dissembling tactic. You must be well practiced.
Since you have clearly decided to stick to tactic 4 on the "astonishing evidence" issue, allow me to give you my interpretation of your lying and bullshit on that topic.
In July, you said that inflation was the biggest threat to the world. By October, you had performed a complete volte face and said that deflation was the biggest threat to the world.
You explained this by saying that you had uncovered "astonishing evidence" that had led you to re-appraise your views. This evidence appears to be that a) prolonged deflationary pressures always follow a credit crash and b) demographic pressure will lead to deflation.
But. You then went on to say tht you hd "always" know about demographics. So, there are only two logical outcomes here.
1) You previously hadn't come across the demographics argument. This makes you a bare-faced liar.
2) You previously WERE aware of demographics. This means that the demographic argument wasn't part of your astonishing evidence.
I'll be kind to you and assume that 2 is the case.
So Mick. There is only one logical conclusion that avoids us concluding that you are a bare faced liar. That is that you were previously unaware that deflation is always a threat after a credit crash.
Agreed?
Now we are getting somewhere. Now we have established the depths of your ignorance in your earlier rantings. Because this is PRECISELY what Keynes was talking about 80 years ago. Remember Mick? That's the Keynes that you called a leftie crank.
We have known about the danger of deflation from a permanently depressed economy since the Great Depression Mick. It might have been "astonishing evidence" for you, but the rest of us were well aware of it. That was the underpinning premise to the debate.
So, there we go. Back in July, you were vehemently arguing on a topic where you were deeply ignorant of the fundamentals.
Either that or you were lying through your teeth in October.
Remind me why anyone should ever listen to a word you say in future?
Off you go Mick. Go find some astonishing evidence on Google.
-
Destroyed! :thumbsup:
-
Billy, you're making yourself look very silly. Just a few points from your last ramble.
1) Are you saying you're not a leftie? I'm quite happy for you to call me right-wing.
2) The mods have made it plain that if a thread goes off topic they will close it down. Not a lot I can do about that.
3) I don't think I've ever claimed I am going to stop posting to save my opponent from further embarrassment. I did stop posting once to allow you time to calm down but it appears your blood pressure is once again on the rise.
4) I've not told any lies and have never been backed into a corner by you. I've taken you apart in every debate I've ever had with you. You've accused me of being a liar so many times that it is now just water off a duck's back.
You keep on asking me for the 'astonishing evidence' as though I've changed my mind and not backed up my point of view. You then (as usual) contradict yourself and say that I've already given the 'astonishing evidence' as, a) prolonged deflationary pressures always follow a credit crash and b) demographic pressure will lead to deflation.
There is obviously more to it than that (which you conveniently ignore) but I am at a loss as I suspect are the readers to understand why you keep on asking for this 'astonishing evidence' when you yourself have already decided what it is. What do you think this thread is about? I'm elucidating on my deflationary view in case you hadn't noticed.
It is correct that I have always known about demographics but your two logical outcomes are farcical to say the least. There are many more logical outcomes than the ones you have come up with.
How about this one. I was aware of demographics, and the more I investigated this subject, the more I became aware of the greater impact this had on economies than I previously thought. There, that wasn't too hard was it?
There are other factors that have led me to change my mind but the one I've just given you about demographics is more than a logical outcome. I really fear for any scientologists going through university at the moment if they are trained to think as you do. They may become good scientologists but they will have no grasp of the real world.
To then say that the only way I cannot be perceived as a bare faced liar is to admit that I didn't know that deflation is always a threat after a credit crash has made me piss my pants laughing. Do you seriously think that someone with the brilliant intellect that I possess would be unaware of that basic fact? Unbelievable.
So to conclude, your previous post is way off the mark (as usual). Take a chill pill and calm down and hopefully you will then have something rational to contribute to the debate.
-
Destroyed!
I agree. I've totally taken him apart again!
I must say I do prefer it when your posts are short. There is much less waffle to wade through. If only Billy could take a leaf out of your book.
-
As things stand we now have more people aged over 65 than under 16.
Mick - just to be clear, when you say "we", what geographic area are you referring to?
-
Right Mick.
Let me get this straight.
1) You ALWAYS knew that demographic pressure could lead to deflation
2) You ALWAYS knew that historically, credit crashes are followed by severe deflationary pressures?
Right?
-
To then say that the only way I cannot be perceived as a bare faced liar is to admit that I didn't know that deflation is always a threat after a credit crash has made me piss my pants laughing. Do you seriously think that someone with the brilliant intellect that I possess would be unaware of that basic fact? Unbelievable.
Interesting discussion as to how the changing demographic of an aging population will affect economic performance. I see that you have thoroughly researched the topic and looked at past examples, say when Atlee decided to create the Welfare State in 1945, at the same time facing a huge debt burden and a totally shattered industrial base - with everyone telling him that he woud deflate the economy. And what was the result of this economic madness, errr the economic boom of the 1950's. If only he had someone of your intellectual capabilities to stop him and thus maintain the divided society of rich capitalist bosses and an impoverished underclass of the 1930's - that Cameron is attempting to recreate.
As to the aging population and pension provision, surely the government wont be daft enough to raise the retirement age and make people work longer as a way out this - oh hang on....
-
Right mjdgreg.
Let me get this straight.
1) You ALWAYS knew that demographic pressure could lead to deflation
2) You ALWAYS knew that historically, credit crashes are followed by severe deflationary pressures?
Right?
Wrong.
-
Well then. Enlighten us.
-
Well then. Enlighten us
.
How many times do you need to be enlightened? Read my previous posts more carefully in future. Are scientologists taught to skim read and only take in what suits their own pre-conceived ideas? God help the country if future scientologists use the same thought processes as you.
-
mjdgreg - just to be clear, when you say "we", what geographic area are you referring to?
I'd have thought that was obvious. Why do you insistent on pedantry? No doubt you think you've found some data that contradicts what I've said. If so then why not publish it and be damned. Just bear in mind my data is bang up to date. I suspect your's is at least a year out of date.
If that is the only hole you think you have found in my argument then you need to try much harder and stop leaving it all to Billy to make a fool of himself.
-
Mick.
So, since you insist on being obfuscatory again, I'll ask again.
Were you aware of the deflationary effects of demographics and credit crash recessions back in July? When you were posting THIS.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233453.msg251475#msg251475
See, back then, just four months ago, you didn't raise the issue of deflation at all. Not once. Not even as a minor, hypothetical possibility. Even You were telling us that it was imperative that interest rates should be raised to combat inflation. What was it that you called inflation? Oh aye:
the biggest risk to all our futures
You also said
Raising interest rates is needed to get inflation under control. A sustained recovery will not happen until this happens. It is the first step that needs to be taken before other measures can be effective. It's that important.
Now. If you have since found some astonishing evidence that has led you to conclude that inflation is NOT the biggest threat to all our futures, but that deflation is coming instead, tell us where it is. You've made quite an intellectual leap since then, and that requires some justification over and above "I've read summat". The evidence is clearly so overwhelming that we all need to be aware of it. We all need to read it and take it in. Point us to where that evidence is that you didn't know in July, but that you have found since.
That's all I'm asking Mick. It's all I've been asking for about a month now. Can't be so hard to show us, can it?
And presumably, you now accept that any Government that in had done what you were suggesting in July was the pre-requisite for recovery would have been guilty of a monumental economic blunder, given that we're actually facing deflationary pressures, not inflationary pressures?
-
Interesting discussion as to how the changing demographic of an aging population will affect economic performance. I see that you have thoroughly researched the topic and looked at past examples, say when Atlee decided to create the Welfare State in 1945, at the same time facing a huge debt burden and a totally shattered industrial base - with everyone telling him that he woud deflate the economy. And what was the result of this economic madness, errr the economic boom of the 1950's. If only he had someone of your intellectual capabilities to stop him and thus maintain the divided society of rich capitalist bosses and an impoverished underclass of the 1930's - that Cameron is attempting to recreate.
As to the aging population and pension provision, surely the government wont be daft enough to raise the retirement age and make people work longer as a way out this - oh hang on....
Another one who spends his time with his head stuck in history books instead of in the real world. Another one that comes up with simplistic solutions off the top of his head to complex problems. Another class warrior that blames everything on the tories.
Do you really think that the majority of people over pension age will have the health to carry on working for long enough to solve the problem? Many jobs are only suitable for younger people and 66 is already too old for a lot of workers to be retiring.
What about construction workers for example (a large part of the economy). A life on building sites takes a heavy toll on the body and you won't find many workers even in their sixties never mind in their seventies and eighties.
-
Mick.
So, since you insist on being obfuscatory again, I'll ask again.
Were you aware of the deflationary effects of demographics and credit crash recessions back in July? When you were posting THIS.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233453.msg251475#msg251475
See, back then, just four months ago, you didn't raise the issue of deflation at all. Not once. Not even as a minor, hypothetical possibility. Even You were telling us that it was imperative that interest rates should be raised to combat inflation. What was it that you called inflation? Oh aye:
the biggest risk to all our futures
You also said
Raising interest rates is needed to get inflation under control. A sustained recovery will not happen until this happens. It is the first step that needs to be taken before other measures can be effective. It's that important.
Now. If you have since found some astonishing evidence that has led you to conclude that inflation is NOT the biggest threat to all our futures, but that deflation is coming instead, tell us where it is. You've made quite an intellectual leap since then, and that requires some justification over and above "I've read summat". The evidence is clearly so overwhelming that we all need to be aware of it. We all need to read it and take it in. Point us to where that evidence is that you didn't know in July, but that you have found since.
That's all I'm asking Mick. It's all I've been asking for about a month now. Can't be so hard to show us, can it?
So, as a read that link BST, my socialist leftie friend, on 8th July you told the economic genius Mick, that deflation was the biggest and scariest threat, while he was saying that inflation was the biggest threat, I`m right up to this point are n`t I?
Now 4 months later, Mick is now saying what you said in July, I`d say that`s a 180 degree u turn in any ones language, so Mick actually agree`s with your leftie opinion now!
-
That's kind of my reading of it Filo.
I'm chomping at the bit to fit this evidence that he has read about since then to change his mind. Must be devastating, and something that is known to very few people. Otherwise, Mick, being the intellect that he is, would surely have been aware of it back in July.
Of course, one of the reasons that Mick gives now is that credit collapse recessions are invariably followed by deflation. Which is actually, 100% bang on the money. And is something that I'm been prattling on about to anyone who will listen for the past 4 years.
But Mick knew all about this in July, when he was insisting that I was a leftie lunatic, and that Keynes, who had originally laid out the link between credit crunch recessions and deflation 80 years back was a crank.
Come to think of it, back then, Mick was insisting that lessons from history were pointless because everything is different now. But here we are, four months later and Mick's thesis is now built on.
a) The historical precedents that show that deflation is a major threat. Note that the most recent of those historical lessons in this country dates back to 1930-onwards.
b) The demographic timebomb, which he illustrates with a call to Japan's experience starting 20-odd years ago.
Once again, we find ourselves in Mick-land, where a fact or an argument can only be used if Mick decides it can be used.
Psychiatrists have a term for that sort of behaviour...
-
I'm really beginning to worry for Billy's sanity. To keep asking the same question over and over again when he feels he has already answered it is barmy.
Regarding interest rates. Let me enlighten you further. I still think they need to be raised as we are nowhere near the bottom of the burst housing bubble. We need to get house prices back to where they belong sooner rather than later.
Yes, some people that have overstretched themselves will lose their houses and some banks will go bust but this is the price you are supposed to pay if things go wrong when you have gambled on house prices rising continually.
Until the economy has this shake-out all people will continue to do for years to come is to pay off their debts and not spend. Better to get it over and done with quickly so the strongest can survive and prosper for the greater good of us all.
-
So, as a read that link BST, my socialist leftie friend, on 8th July you told the economic genius Mick, that deflation was the biggest and scariest threat, while he was saying that inflation was the biggest threat, I`m right up to this point are n`t I?
Now 4 months later, Mick is now saying what you said in July, I`d say that`s a 180 degree u turn in any ones language, so Mick actually agree`s with your leftie opinion now!
It is even more galling that when Billy thinks deflation is the biggest threat he is not pleased that I have changed my mind and now agree with him! What more does he want?
The only problem is that I now see deflation as inevitable but Billy still thinks you can spend your way out of the problem. A subtle but very important point. We may have reached similar conclusions on deflation but Billy's logic in arriving at that view and his solution to the problem is seriously flawed.
-
Mick.
But we HAVEN'T got the answer. Isn't that obvious.
We have got an assertion from you that you have found "astonishing evidence" But we haven't SEEN the evidence.
Where is it Mick? Point us to it. This is important Mick. Surely, you can't have found the evidence that is going to seal the world's thinking on this subject, then lost it down the back of the sofa? Where is it man?
-
mjdgreg.
But we HAVEN'T got the answer. Isn't that obvious.
We have got an assertion from you that you have found "astonishing evidence" But we haven't SEEN the evidence.
Where is it Mick? Point us to it. This is important Mick. Surely, you can't have found the evidence that is going to seal the world's thinking on this subject, then lost it down the back of the sofa? Where is it man?
Pmsl. I think it's time to call in the men in white coats. I apologise if I have in any way contributed to your mental break-down. I thought you were made of sterner stuff. On reflection you did take some serious punishment and I should not really be surprised that you have ended up as a bumbling fool.
-
So you HAVE lost it down the back of the sofa? f***ing Hell Mick! What is the world going to do?
PS: We are facing massive deflationary pressures. We have a very big debt problem. (All of which I agree with 100% by the way).
And you think that we should raise interest rates! And you fear for MY sanity...
Welcome to Mick's one-stop-shop recipe for how to tip the world's economy back into the 19th century.
-
mjdgreg - just to be clear, when you say "we", what geographic area are you referring to?
I'd have thought that was obvious.
So obvious you weren't able to tell me?
Who is "we"? England, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Europe....
-
I think we ought to compile a list of these unanswered questions.
-
Interesting discussion as to how the changing demographic of an aging population will affect economic performance. I see that you have thoroughly researched the topic and looked at past examples, say when Atlee decided to create the Welfare State in 1945, at the same time facing a huge debt burden and a totally shattered industrial base - with everyone telling him that he woud deflate the economy. And what was the result of this economic madness, errr the economic boom of the 1950's. If only he had someone of your intellectual capabilities to stop him and thus maintain the divided society of rich capitalist bosses and an impoverished underclass of the 1930's - that Cameron is attempting to recreate.
As to the aging population and pension provision, surely the government wont be daft enough to raise the retirement age and make people work longer as a way out this - oh hang on....
Another one who spends his time with his head stuck in history books instead of in the real world. Another one that comes up with simplistic solutions off the top of his head to complex problems. Another class warrior that blames everything on the tories.
Do you really think that the majority of people over pension age will have the health to carry on working for long enough to solve the problem? Many jobs are only suitable for younger people and 66 is already too old for a lot of workers to be retiring.
What about construction workers for example (a large part of the economy). A life on building sites takes a heavy toll on the body and you won't find many workers even in their sixties never mind in their seventies and eighties.
Yes and I get quite well paid for it thank you very much. And they are not my solutions at all, they are what are known as 'historical precedent', ie examples that have already happened at some point in the past and can be evidenced - unlike your fairy stories.
Construction is something like 3% of the economy, the service sector, leisure, retail, light factory production - something like 60-70%. And these construction workers who are unable to work beyond 60 - what did they do for the thousand years before the old age pension was created (taking the beginnings of the construction industry in this country from the construction of Norman castles and cathederals)? Ever read the book The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? Ever heard of it?
-
The only problem is that I now see deflation as inevitable but Billy still thinks you can spend your way out of the problem. A subtle but very important point.
See, that is very nearly a well thought out comment. But there's something missing in the logic - something commonly missing in your logic.
The issue is that you base all your prognostications on what YOU think.
You consider the IMF to be nutters until they say something that you agree with, then you think they are correct.
You consider inflation to be a horrific problem until YOU change your mind, without presenting the evidence to explain why you change your mind.
It's all and always about what YOU think Mick.
Now YOU tell us that, in your opinion, the combination of a huge debt burden and the demographic trends means that deflation is hard-wired and we can't escape it. That's fine. As an opinion.
But what we do in grown-up land is to see how our ideas and opinions fare when they are tested against the facts. I realise that every nerve in your egotistical body is now screaming "NO!!!!", but that's what the rest of the world does Mick.
Now, I know that you don't do history (except when you do), but we're going to take a little walk down a historical avenue. You come along if you wish. I don't really give a shit, because I have no interest in convincing you; I merely want to make sure that no-one else takes your witterings seriously.
Let's go back to 1950.
Back then, we had a horrendous debt burden from the War. We were still suffering from the overhang of the Great Depression. Govt debt was about 200% of GDP - more than twice as bad as it is now.
And, we had a demographic nightmare. The birth rate had collapsed in the 1920s as a result of the economic bad times after WWI. And the birth rate stayed low due to the Great Depression. By 1932, the birth rate was about 40% down on what it had been 20 years before, and it stayed low for a decade. And to make matters worse, them pesky Socialists had just started the unbelievably costly and inefficient NHS, which was resulting in a huge increase in life expectancy (when any sane person knows that what we really should be doing is killing off unproductive old folk, eh kids?)
Now, if THAT isn't a recipe for no growth and deflation, I really don;t know what is.
Guess what happened over the next 20 years? Average GDP growth after inflation was 2.1%. Average inflation was about 3%. Not a single year, not a single month when anything remotely resembling deflation was even on the horizon.
I wonder - could that have been anything to do with the UK and the other Western economies fully implementing the policies that Keynes had been working out in the 30s, to ensure that never again would we have to face the horrors of a deflationary depression?
Of course, we could simply chuck all that knowledge and experience away. We could say that deflation is absolutely inevitable. We could accept the inevitable decline in living standards and the concomitant increase in international tensions as nations scrap over what is left. We could say that one solution to our demographically-induced economic woes is to stop trying to extend the lives of economically worthless people. We could even suggest that we terminate those worthless lives.
We could say that...
But there's the difference between you and me Mick. I don't buy into any of that argument. Because I know that that outcome was not inevitable the last time we faced a similar scenario.
I think that it's possible to have an outcome that is based on a risky, but on balance, preferable, increase in Govt spending to get the economy moving again. and then we sort out the debt problem over the next 30 years, by reducing Govt spending once the private sector is back to health. It worked during our grandfathers' time. It would work again today.
I know which world I'd prefer my kids to grow up in.
-
Ah but the Western economies missed out one key part of Keynes studies - build a surplus when times are good, what happened to that? You seem a little obsessed with one study, the guy was revolutionary for his time, we're in a different world now, there's not one approach in my view that takes into account all the current pressures economically because we're in a situation never seen before and that seems to be a crucial thing you've both missed.
Neither economies who have stimulated or cut have seen massive boosts or disasters this time round, as the world is no longer balanced in the favour of countries like ours. Far more important than any of the theories is this key point, there is too much technology and globalisation to meet the demands of the workforce....
-
BFYP
1) I'm not sure what you mean by the surplus argument. We hadn't built a surplus in 1950, but Keynesian policies still worked. In 2007, we had a Govt debt level that was extremely low by historical levels. (In fact, it still is today). There is an honest political argument to be had over whether it should have been lower. I respect people with a different view on that topic, although my take is that period of slightly rising Govt debt (and it DID only rise slightly from 97-07) was necessary to re-build our public infrastructure and services after two decades of them being starved.
That is irrelevant to the economics of the current situation. I'm happy to explain further when I have more time.
2) you say I am obsessed with Keynes. If that is so, it is because he uncovered great truths about how macro economics works. In my professional life, you might equally say that I am "obsessed" with Isaac Newton. I apply his theories every day, and would sack any employee who claimed that his ideas were 300 years old and the world has since moved on. The terrifying thing about economic policy over the last few years is that Keynes's theories have been wilfully ignored by many politicians. Not because they ate demonstrably incorrect. Because they are politically inconvenient.
3) You say there are no disasters going on. What a smug, ridiculously ignorant thing to say. Greece and Spain are being systematically destroyed by policies which insist that Keynesian approaches cannot be countenanced. Both countries have Great Depression levels of unemployment. You say that is not a disaster?
Meanwhile, the evidence is perfectly clear that America, which ran a stronger stimulus for longer than we did, is doing far, far better than we are. I've posted the evidence before - I can do it again if you have forgotten. This is a crucial and historical issue. We (Austerity-mad UK & Europe) have already fallen behind America by several percentage points in our growth. That will take many, many years to claw back. Effectively, we have chosen to have a worse economic outlook than America. We will pay the penalty in a poorer standard of living for a long, long time.
-
Ah but the Western economies missed out one key part of Keynes studies - build a surplus when times are good, what happened to that? You seem a little obsessed with one study, the guy was revolutionary for his time, we're in a different world now, there's not one approach in my view that takes into account all the current pressures economically because we're in a situation never seen before and that seems to be a crucial thing you've both missed.
Neither economies who have stimulated or cut have seen massive boosts or disasters this time round, as the world is no longer balanced in the favour of countries like ours. Far more important than any of the theories is this key point, there is too much technology and globalisation to meet the demands of the workforce....
I don't believe I've missed it. Billy certainly has. You speak a lot of sense. All I'm doing in this thread is pointing out the huge deflationary effect an ageing population has on an economy.
Add in further advances in technology and globalisation and this will also add to deflationary pressures. There are other factors as well that make deflation an inevitability.
-
You consider the IMF to be nutters until they say something that you agree with, then you think they are correct.
You consider inflation to be a horrific problem until YOU change your mind, without presenting the evidence to explain why you change your mind.
It's all and always about what YOU think mjdgreg.
Now YOU tell us that, in your opinion, the combination of a huge debt burden and the demographic trends means that deflation is hard-wired and we can't escape it. That's fine. As an opinion.
But what we do in grown-up land is to see how our ideas and opinions fare when they are tested against the facts. I realise that every nerve in your egotistical body is now screaming "NO!!!!", but that's what the rest of the world does mjdgreg.
All I've said about the IMF is that I agree with C. Lagarde that It would have been a disaster if Labour had got in. So no great surprise there. They may get most other things wrong but they got that one right. You're the one that slags them off an then eulogises over a report when it suits your point of view.
'High' inflation is an horrific problem so is deflation. Ideally we need low inflation.
What do you think my first post in this thread is? it's a reasoned argument as to why deflation is on the way. It is not just my opinion. It is backed up with a lot of facts. As you know I only deal in facts.
-
Mick
Opinion again. You agree with Lagarde on that one point because it suits your opinion. You do not provide EVIDENCE for why they are correct on that one and wrong on other things. Is it so difficult to understand the difference between evidence-based analysis and personal opinion.
That is why I've been pushing you for the evidence on demographic-driven deflation. The evidence that you have found since July that led you to entirely change your opinion. If you don't provide that evidence, all you are saying is that you changed your mind. The rest of us are unable to assess whether your personal conversion is something that we should all take note of, or just a whim.
Evidence Mick. It is vital. That is why I provided historical evidence of a case when we got out of a combination of high debt and difficult demographics. something which you claim cannot be done.
When I've got a few minutes, I'll give you further evidence about why Keynes's analysis shows us why further Govt spending is the way out of the current deflation threat.
EVIDENCE Mick. It's what you need to draw robust conclusions. Opinions are like arseholes. We've all got one and most of them are full of shit. That's why I ignore opinions that don't offer detailed supporting evidence.
-
And so oh great one, if you only deal in facts when will this fact of a deflation be happening? Before Christmas? Next year? In the next Olympic cycle? By 2020? By the time I retire? Never? Just to enlighten you, facts are things which have happened. Projections are things which have yet to happen. Made up rubbish is what you are talking.
-
And so oh great one, if you only deal in facts when will this fact of a deflation be happening? Before Christmas? Next year? In the next Olympic cycle? By 2020? By the time I retire? Never? Just to enlighten you, facts are things which have happened. Projections are things which have yet to happen. Made up rubbish is what you are talking.
The deflationary process has already started. What do you think is happening to house prices at the moment? What effect do you think this will have on people with large mortgages? What is happening to wages? Are they going up in line with inflation or below inflation? Is the population ageing or not? Are people's savings going up by more than inflation or by less? Are consumers more inclined to spend or reduce their debts? I could go on, but by now I'm sure you're getting my drift.
Deflation doesn't just happen overnight. It's a gradual process and the evidence is all around you if only you would care to look for it. Making an accurate prediction as to when the CPI will turn negative is not easy. We are in uncharted territory. However I will stick my neck on the block and predict the CPI will have turned negative by July 17th 2014.
-
No we are not in uncharted territory - BST and I have given you the example of the policy of the Labour government in the late 1940's, when the welfare state and proper pension arrangements for old people, were first created - which did not lead to deflation - but an economic boom.
And where do you get you figures from? House prices are going up.
A buoyant London property market helped cushion the blow (of the month-by-month fall in November following the big rise in October) in what is traditionally a quiet time of year for buying activity. Despite the monthly fall, the average property price across England and Wales is 2pc higher year-on-year at £236,761 – the largest annual rise since 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9687490/House-prices-drop-2.6pc-in-November.html
as is demand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9673215/Housebuyer-demand-hits-three-year-high.html
and mortgage lending...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9671899/Mortgage-lending-ticks-up-in-third-quarter.html
With regard to wages it does of course vary as to which sector/industry/business you work in, financial services for instance is very different to the public sector, but as your Tory chums have a policy of pushing down wages for as many ordinary people as possible - thats what they are doing. I am sure you however, like any good boss, would give all your Polish employees inflation linked rises.
-
And where do you get you figures from? House prices are going up.
That's the biggest laugh I've had for ages. Just shows how little you know. Let's just conveniently ignore inflation. Let's also ignore the distortion to the average price by the London property bubble. Unbelievable.
The average price may have gone up by 2% but because inflation has been higher they have gone down in real terms. Interest rates being held lower than they should be is also distorting the market. The long-term trend in declining house prices is fact.
-
Let's just conveniently ignore inflation.
Why not? You have. According to you we can have deflation and inflation at the same time. Unbelievable.
-
Mick
If we are facing deflation, why should interest rates naturally be high?
Have you re-invented monetary theory? If so, I really do hope you haven't lost the piece if paper containing your thoughts down the back if the sofa, along with that astonishing evidence.
Let's have a little think. The rate of interest is essentially the price of money. It is how much you need to pay to borrow money. Now, in a buoyant, growing economy, lots of people want to borrow money. Maybe families wanting to buy a house. Maybe companies wanting to buy new plant or premises to enable them to capitalise on the growing market. So the interest rate should go up.
Of course, the BoE controls interest rates. If they don't raise rates in such a scenario, what happens? Too many people borrow money and there is consequently too much competition for goods (those houses or business equipments have too many people chasing them, with easily borrowed money in their pockets, so the price goes up).
Conversely, when the economy hits the rocks, no-one wants to borrow. People want to tighten their belts. The monetary response is to reduce interest rates -make it easier to borrow, encourage people and companies to take a punt.
When we are facing deflation, (and you, yourself say that we are on every score Mick, including on house prices) it is the economics of the madhouse to increase interest rates. That would drive deflation into a death spiral. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you of all people are advocating that approach Mick.
Now. Why is Keynes so important?
He realised back in 1933 that there is a natural limit to what you can do with interest rates. If you reduce rates effectively to zero and people STILL don't want to borrow, you are screwed. There's nothing more you can do to use interest rates to boost the economy. It's called the Zero Lower Bound (go Google it).
Once you hit the ZLB, you are in a circle of hell. Central Banks have then lost control of economic policy. They have the bug stick of interest rates, but they are simply not working. So they go to Plan B. if they can't lower rates any further, they can make interest rates effectively negative by increasing inflation. (Because if inflation is 2% but interest rates only 1%, the EEFECTIVE interest rate is negative.) in such a scenario, they can try to persuade people that they are better off spending than saving, and hence kick start the economy. QE is intended to raise inflationary expectations to do just that. It's worked slightly, but has been nowhere near enough to convince people and companies to spend.
Why? Because people and companies are too scared of the future. So they prefer to hang onto their cash, even if they are getting negative interest.
Keynes knew all about this in the 1930s. His beautiful theory says this. In such a scenario, when no-one is spending (even though it would be in their best interests to spend) because they have no confidence in the future, it is essential that Govts step in and spend. Spend on beneficial things like roads, airports, railways, schools, fibre optic links. Spend. Get money circulating. Get people working and spending on private industry goods. And give private industry confidence that they will have growing markets.
THEN Govts can tighten their belts and pay down their debts when the private sector is chugging along nicely.
The Right says:You can't do this. No-one will lend to Govts. But that is demonstrably untrue. 10 year (TEN YEAR!!) Govt bonds are at their lowest rates in history. Effectively, the world money markets are chucking money at our Govt -long term money- and saying: Have it. We want you to borrow. We trust you regardless of you already having a huge debt.
The Right says: Ah yeah, but what if they change their minds and put bond rates up?
Well that goes against experience, where the bond rates of monetarily independent countries have crashed just as their debts were exploding. And that is because bond rates of sovereign countries have NOTHING to do with debt levels[1]. They are a reflection of long term inflation expectations. So, within limits, our Govt can borrow what it likes without fear of bond rates exploding. It is criminally smug not to do so - to accept the alternative if long term stagnation/deflation. Yet that us what we are doing. Keynes would be screaming from the rooftops were he alive today.
The Right also says that the extra interest payments would cripple us. But a senior UK economist pointed out earlier this year that we could borrow £30bn and the interest would be less than that planned to be raised by the Pasty Tax. That £30bn could put a lot of people back into productive work.
PS. BFYP accused me if being obsessed with Keynes. I said it was because Keynes had great insights that we have ignorantly forgotten.
Here's an analogy. 100 years ago, great engineers harnessed Newton's laws of mechanics to produce heavier than air aircraft. Imagine if today, we have a spate of air crashes, because modern engineers got the weight-to-lift calculations wrong and made inefficient wings. Then, to solve the problem, 21st Century engineers say "Well we'll ignore Newton's Laws because they were developed years ago and planes are much more complex than they used to be. So the solution must be somewhere else. Or maybe there ISN'T a solution, and planes just shouldn't fly."
That sounds stupid, but it is EXACTLY what economists and politicians have done in wilfully ignoring Keynes's analysis of how to get out if a Depression.
Future historians will excoriate the current leaders. They are failing us on an epic scale.
[1] that is because there is no danger whatsoever of us not being able to pay our debts back. In the worst case, because we run our own Mint, we could just print more pounds to pay back our debt. The markets know this. Hence they give us low bond rates even when our debt has exploded. EXACTLY as Keynesian theory says.
The reason why the bond rates for Ireland, Greece, Spain etc went through the roof is because they DON'T control their monetary policy. If Germany decides to stop supporting them, they CANNOT pay back their debts. So creditors want a premium for the risk of lending to them.
The biggest ignorant f*** up of this whole Depression was Clegg flipping his economic policy to support Austerity, because he was spooked by Greek bond rates. Utter, imbecilic ignorance. The man wants buggering by the three-headed hound of hell for all eternity.
-
Why not? You have. According to you we can have deflation and inflation at the same time. Unbelievable.
You really need to read my posts a lot more closely. We currently have inflation now. I have predicted deflation by 17th July 2014. Now and 17th July 2014 are not the same time.
-
Why not? You have. According to you we can have deflation and inflation at the same time. Unbelievable.
You really need to read my posts a lot more closely. We currently have inflation now. I have predicted deflation by 17th July 2014. Now and 17th July 2014 are not the same time.
I did read your posts closely.
The deflationary process has already started.
-
Yes and I get quite well paid for it thank you very much.
We're all very happy for you. Just bear in mind that when you retire, that generous public sector pension is not going to turn out as you imagined. Due to the mess Labour have made of things it will be cut and cut as years go by because we can no longer afford such generous provision. Don't say I didn't warn you.
-
Deflation occurs when the rate of inflation is zero or below. Therefore deflation is not yet with us. What is so hard for you to understand about that? I'm glad you're not teaching my children.
-
Deflation occurs when the rate of inflation is zero or below. Therefore deflation is not yet with us. What is so hard for you to understand about that? I'm glad you're not teaching my children.
I understand it perfectly well thank you, which is why it's hilarious reading your drivel.
-
I understand it perfectly well thank you, which is why it's hilarious reading your drivel.
I'm afraid you don't. You're the one that everyone is laughing at. I'd leave things to Billy if I were you. He's much more of a challenge.
-
And where do you get you figures from? House prices are going up.
That's the biggest laugh I've had for ages. Just shows how little you know. Let's just conveniently ignore inflation. Let's also ignore the distortion to the average price by the London property bubble. Unbelievable.
The average price may have gone up by 2% but because inflation has been higher they have gone down in real terms. Interest rates being held lower than they should be is also distorting the market. The long-term trend in declining house prices is fact.
Do you realise that with everything you say you just make yourself look even more ignorant? You see them blue linkey things in my post - if you click on the first one:
Even when London's price increases are not taken into account, prices still rose 0.2pc year-on-year, according to property website Rightmove
Are your long term trens between now and July 2014? Or between now and this time last year? Between now and when the property market crashed because prices are highly overinflated? I bought my house in 2002 - its worth over double what I paid for it - that will do me for a long term trend.
-
Yes and I get quite well paid for it thank you very much.
We're all very happy for you. Just bear in mind that when you retire, that generous public sector pension is not going to turn out as you imagined. Due to the mess Labour have made of things it will be cut and cut as years go by because we can no longer afford such generous provision. Don't say I didn't warn you.
No problem - the profit I shall make from selling my house willsuit me quite nicely thank you very much - although as I can now work for as long as I wish and not be forced into compulsory retirement I intend to ease your pension burden for a while longer thank you.
-
I understand it perfectly well thank you, which is why it's hilarious reading your drivel.
I'm afraid you don't. You're the one that everyone is laughing at. I'd leave things to Billy if I were you. He's much more of a challenge.
I've got to hand it to you, you never let your comedy quotient flag.
-
These falling house prices could spell trouble for your property development hobby Mick.
-
If we are facing deflation, why should interest rates naturally be high?
Interest rates being kept artificially low is part of what is causing the problem. Low interest rates and QE have delayed the process of inefficient businesses going bust. These companies are now able to grimly cling onto existence and they are neither solvent or bust.
10% of companies are only paying the interest on their debt. Because they can't repay any of the actual loan, they continue to consume resources inefficiently and drag down the economy. This situation is increasing as the number of these types of company have grown by 10% in the last few months. These companies need to be put out of their misery, sooner rather than later. They wouldn't have got into this state if interest rates had not been lowered so recklessly. They'd have gone bust as they should have done.
The best laugh is that the BoE also thinks these companies are part of the reason why the economy is so weak. They caused the problem!
This problem also extends to mortgage borrowers. By allowing many of them to only pay the interest on their loans they could well be leaving them in a worse position in the future. They may never be able to repay the loan. It would be far better to repossess now and let them start anew. This is what will eventually happen anyway as soon as bank balance sheets have improved enough. Lenders will be getting one hell of a surprise once QE has sorted the banks balance sheets. It’s only a matter of time.
Adopting a low interest rate/QE policy has left us in a terrible position. We now rely on low interest rates/QE to get by. Unfortunately this so-called cure is actually slowly killing the patient.
-
These falling house prices could spell trouble for your property development business
It could if I weren't a strategic thinker. I have factored falling house prices into my business strategy. At the moment the rent I receive is still generating me a profit even allowing for the depreciation in my assets, some of which I bought at the bottom of the market years ago.
Also I am not a greedy man. As things stand I don't ever need to lift a finger ever again, even if my assets lost all their value. I'm more interested in keeping a roof over the head of my Polish workers to try and do my bit to combat the deflation problem.
-
I've got to hand it to you, you never let your comedy quotient flag.
I couldn't do it without you. Thank you for being such an understanding stooge.
-
I've got to hand it to you, you never let your comedy quotient flag.
I couldn't do it without you. Thank you for being such an understanding stooge.
You're too modest, you're hilarious in your own right.
-
Even when London's price increases are not taken into account, prices still rose 0.2pc year-on-year, according to property website Rightmove
What is it that you don't understand about inflation? If prices rose by 0.2% year-on-year then house prices have actually fallen in real terms. The link further goes on to say:
Prices fell on a month-on-month basis across all regions in England and Wales, except London where prices rose 1.2pc. The capital is benefiting from strong overseas buyer interest, with the most expensive boroughs seeing the largest price rises.
The North West saw the steepest decline, down 5.7pc to £156,431, followed by the South East with a 4.5pc fall to £297,564. Asking prices fell 4.2pc across the North to £142,200, by 3.8pc in the South West to £254,021 and 3.7pc in the West Midlands to £183,010.
The East Midlands and Wales both saw prices drop by 3.1pc – to £157,249 and £162,912 respectively – while prices declined by 2.8pc across Yorkshire and Humberside to £149,226. The smallest decline was recorded in East Anglia, down 2pc to £225,533.
Your own link proves house prices are falling. This is even without taking inflation into account. Got it? Stop digging the hole now and maybe people will stop laughing at you.
-
No problem - the profit I shall make from selling my house will suit me quite nicely thank you very much - although as I can now work for as long as I wish and not be forced into compulsory retirement I intend to ease your pension burden for a while longer thank you.
I'd sell it now if you want to maximise your profit. The longer you leave it, the less you are going to make. Me, I prefer to live in a big house so I won't be down-sizing. My house is a home not a cash-cow.
I'm pleased you've decided to carry on working. I bet all those unemployed graduates will also be very happy for you.
-
I bought my house in 2002 - its worth over double what I paid for it - that will do me for a long term trend.
Give it time and the effects of inflation/deflation and I reckon it will eventually be worth less in real terms. I won't tell you what my property portfolio is worth as modesty prevents me, and I don't want to piss on your parade.
-
Your own link proves house prices are falling. This is even without taking inflation into account.
In which case, and taking into account the fragility of the wider economy, only a madman would suggest raising interest rates...
-
Even when London's price increases are not taken into account, prices still rose 0.2pc year-on-year, according to property website Rightmove
What is it that you don't understand about inflation? If prices rose by 0.2% year-on-year then house prices have actually fallen in real terms. The link further goes on to say:
Prices fell on a month-on-month basis across all regions in England and Wales, except London where prices rose 1.2pc. The capital is benefiting from strong overseas buyer interest, with the most expensive boroughs seeing the largest price rises.
The North West saw the steepest decline, down 5.7pc to £156,431, followed by the South East with a 4.5pc fall to £297,564. Asking prices fell 4.2pc across the North to £142,200, by 3.8pc in the South West to £254,021 and 3.7pc in the West Midlands to £183,010.
The East Midlands and Wales both saw prices drop by 3.1pc – to £157,249 and £162,912 respectively – while prices declined by 2.8pc across Yorkshire and Humberside to £149,226. The smallest decline was recorded in East Anglia, down 2pc to £225,533.
Your own link proves house prices are falling. This is even without taking inflation into account. Got it? Stop digging the hole now and maybe people will stop laughing at you.
Despite it saying the opposite - if you dont believe the Daily Telegraph who do you believe!
My house is my home too, hence me not wishing to 'cash in' on it until I retire. When I have the fullest intention of moving. I dont believe in people using property purely to make money, it overinflates the economy to an unsustainable level, forces young people out of the home market - and was the primary cause of the economic diaster we are in now, but I am sure your Polish tenants are happy you are scamming them.
Yes the unemployed graduates are doing fine round here. I have had several working for me and managed to build up their skills for them to move into paid positions. In fact we have been quite lucky in that we have been so successful in growing in the past couple of years we created a new post for one of them - and will be creating another in March.
-
In which case, and taking into account the fragility of the wider economy, only a madman would suggest raising interest rates...
No, I am perfectly sane. I bet your mate is glad you've backed him up. Read my previous post. We need to raise interest rates to kill off all those half-dead companies and put overstretched home-owners out of their misery now and not in the future. Also it's not fair that savers should carry on getting piss poor rates just to bail out others that think no further than tomorrow and borrow and spend every penny they can.
-
Despite it saying the opposite - if you dont believe the Daily Telegraph who do you believe!
Keep digging. We'll keep laughing.
My house is my home too, hence me not wishing to 'cash in' on it until I retire. When I have the fullest intention of moving.
So you are planning to 'cash in', despite saying in the very next sentence:
I dont believe in people using property purely to make money
pmsl.
it overinflates the economy to an unsustainable level, forces young people out of the home market - and was the primary cause of the economic diaster we are in now, but I am sure your Polish tenants are happy you are scamming them.
My Polish tenants are very happy with the arrangement. They don't want to buy so renting makes perfect sense for them. I do encourage the ones that plan on staying here to eventually buy their own home. Now is not the time though because prices are going to fall a lot further. When they do, I'll be around to snap up some more to help put a roof over some more Polish tenant's heads.
-
In which case, and taking into account the fragility of the wider economy, only a madman would suggest raising interest rates...
No, I am perfectly sane. I bet your mate is glad you've backed him up. Read my previous post. We need to raise interest rates to kill off all those half-dead companies and put overstretched home-owners out of their misery now and not in the future. Also it's not fair that savers should carry on getting piss poor rates just to bail out others that think no further than tomorrow and borrow and spend every penny they can.
I think you should put yourself up for election at the next local election Mick. You could form the right wing of The Monster Raving Looney Party, and make your comedic remedies to economic problems public so everyone could have a laugh at you, not just people on here :thumbsup:
-
Yes the unemployed graduates are doing fine round here. I have had several working for me and managed to build up their skills for them to move into paid positions. In fact we have been quite lucky in that we have been so successful in growing in the past couple of years we created a new post for one of them - and will be creating another in March.
Would it not be possible to create two posts in March? Go on. Do the decent thing. Think of the younger generation for a change. I packed in working for 'the man' at fifty to create an opening for a youngster. But then again, I'm all heart.
-
I think you should put yourself up for election at the next local election mjdgreg. You could form the right wing of The Monster Raving Looney Party, and make your comedic remedies to economic problems public so everyone could have a laugh at you, not just people on here
You sound like a leftie borrower and spender to me. Just once in a while it would be nice if people like you stopped to think about what you have done. You have ruined the economy and you have made life very difficult for people who rely on their savings in retirement. No doubt that thought has never even crossed your mind.
I would only ever put myself up for election if it was to become the benevolent dictator of the UK. If ever an opportunity did arise, I'm sure I would win. I'd soon get things sorted out.
-
In which case, and taking into account the fragility of the wider economy, only a madman would suggest raising interest rates...
No, I am perfectly sane. I bet your mate is glad you've backed him up. Read my previous post. We need to raise interest rates to kill off all those half-dead companies and put overstretched home-owners out of their misery now and not in the future. Also it's not fair that savers should carry on getting piss poor rates just to bail out others that think no further than tomorrow and borrow and spend every penny they can.
Got you sussed Mick. You are a member of the Liquidationist School of recessions. You believe that recessions have "work" to do in cutting the inefficient slack from the system.
That is a classic example of what I was saying when I said that the world has wilfully forgotten Keynes's lessons. He was having that argument with Hayek back in 1931. It was the predominance of the Liquidationist School that led to the horrific deflation in Germany under Heinrich Bruning's Chancellorship in the early 30s. That absolutely crippled their economy and put millions out of work. Unemployment in Germany increased from ~1.5 million in 1928 to ~8 million in 1932. Millions were in abject poverty and this catastrophic policy paved the way for you-know-who.
Go and Google it...
And while you're Googling, think about why Keynes presented an alternative and why the Liquidationist School kept schtum for decades after the 1930s.
But you're being consistent. Since you believe in killing off undesirable members of society, I guess you would welcome a deflationary collapse and the rise of mad Dictator to save us all.
So aye. Let's raise interest rates, have deflation, put 8 million on the dole and have democracy collapse in all-out street-fighting, leading to the rise of a mad eugenicist dictator. Sounds like a plan.
EDIT: But of course I forgot. You don't believe that we can draw lessons from history do you Mick? Except when you do.
-
EVIDENCE mjdgreg. It's what you need to draw robust conclusions. Opinions are like arseholes. We've all got one and most of them are full of shit. That's why I ignore opinions that don't offer detailed supporting evidence.
If all I gave was an opinion it would run something like this:
'I think deflation is on the way.'
That would be it. There wouldn't be much more to say. Now if you check out this thread and my other threads and posts, in my opinion, you will find I've said a lot more than this and backed it up. Go figure.
-
Mick, Mick, Mick
You STILL, after all these requests, you STILL haven't told us WHAT it was that you read between July and October that changed your mind. You have shown us what you NOW think. But you haven't shown us what it is about that information was that you weren't aware of in July when you were absolutely adamant that inflation was the threat. So, what was that "astonishing evidence" that you found. Surely you can't have forgotten. You yourself said it was "astonishing".
Is it really, honestly so hard to understand? Back in July you believed X. From October onwards you believe Y, where Y is the antithesis of X. You have found something "astonishing" along the way that has changed your mind. What was it?
-
Got you sussed mjdgreg. You are a member of the Liquidationist School of recessions. You believe that recessions have "work" to do in cutting the inefficient slack from the system.
That is a classic example of what I was saying when I said that the world has wilfully forgotten Keynes's lessons. He was having that argument with Hayek back in 1931. It was the predominance of the Liquidationist School that led to the horrific deflation in Germany under Heinrich Bruning's Chancellorship in the early 30s. That absolutely crippled their economy and put millions out of work. Unemployment in Germany increased from ~1.5 million in 1928 to ~8 million in 1932. Millions were in abject poverty and this catastrophic policy paved the way for you-know-who.
No need to Google anything. I think you'll find I know my history much better than you. We need to look much closer to home as to why Hitler came to power. The reason was because the victors in World War One imposed far too harsh reparations on Germany. This led to social and economic melt-down and the rest is history as they say.
-
There we go. Mick proves to us that he knows the square root of f*** all about history as well.
As one-dimensional as a straight line on a diet.
Yes, the war reparations were an act of monumental stupidity. (By the way, go and read "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" written by a crank in 1919 for a prediction of the horrors that the reparations were likely to result in...)
The point is that by 1927-28, Germany, though economically troubled, was living with reparations, with an economy chugging along reasonably well, and unemployment no higher than anywhere else in the western world. What turned grumbling and discontent about reparations into outright revolt and love for Hitler was the crass stupidity of Bruning, keeping Germany on the Gold Standard, deflating the economy and quadrupling unemployment.
Your argument is that Hitler's rise was inevitable given Versaille. In that case, why was it that 8 years after Versaille, the NSDAP won only 2% of the vote for the Reichstag?
From 1928 onwards, Germany (with Bruning as a major driver) instituted a deflationary policy of wage cuts and tax increases to finance reparations. That wasn't a given. They could have gone for a reflationary growth policy. The result was that unemployment started to rise. By 1930, unemployment had doubled and the NSDAP got 19% of the vote. Then Bruning took over as Chancellor and REALLY let rip with deflationary policies. By late 1932, unemployment was four times what it had been in 27-28, and the following year, the NSDAP were the biggest party in the Reichstag.
It wasn't inevitable. Until insane deflation made it inevitable.
THAT is why Keynes's offered an alternative. Because the threat of deflation let rip is utterly horrific, beyond your wildest nightmares (or perhaps, dreams in your case Mick).
-
So at last we agree on something. Reparations were the root cause of Hitler gaining power. No need for a load of old waffle to further make the point.
-
Now then. Lets see if anyone can come up with the answer. Billy believes in borrowing and spending. He says that I believe in austerity. As it happens I don't, but lets just say for the sake of argument that this is what the debate is all about.
Can anyone come up with another more practical solution. I know I can, but I would like to throw it open to all the great and not so great leftie minds on this forum to see if any of you know what the other alternative is. I'm waiting.
-
Mick
I know a bloke who ran up 12 points on his licence and got pull in front of the beak. His defence was that it wasn't his fault he was speeding. Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz were to blame for inventing the internal combustion engine.
-
Can anyone come up with another more practical solution.
24/7 Parliament?
Pay the unemployed to drive ambulances?
Free thermals for the elderly?
Free tea bags?
Maternity leave for people with puppies?
Obese Olympics?
Free apples?
Free coffins?
Do away with computers?
-
Not a very good response so far. I'll wait a bit longer.
-
f**king hell lads. He's found some astonishing evidence.
-
So aye. Let's raise interest rates, have deflation, put 8 million on the dole and have democracy collapse in all-out street-fighting, leading to the rise of a mad eugenicist dictator. Sounds like a plan.
I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you. You've gone way too far this time.
-
But Mick. You WANT deflation. You WANT eugenics. You've said so yourself. Why not take your balls in your hands and see your ideas through to their logical conclusion?
-
But mjdgreg. You WANT deflation. You WANT eugenics. You've said so yourself.
Wrong and wrong again. I leave myself wide open for you to produce the EVIDENCE to back up your claim, safe in the knowledge that you will be unable to.
Claiming that deflation is on the way is just stating the blindingly obvious. It's not the same as WANTING deflation.
I don't think you know what eugenics is so I'll help you out. Being a scientologist I did think you'd know. Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population. It is a social philosophy which advocates for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of less desired people and traits. So eugenics is not the same as letting terminally ill old people have the option of dying with dignity.
You really must read my posts more carefully. If you don't, you will continue to make erroneous allegations that leave you looking daft.
-
And to think that the bloody stupid governments in this country actually spent real money (you know, that stuff that's supposed to be inflating - or is it deflating?) attempting to educate this clown. I suppose that's what good about this kind of society. They tried the impossible - even when it cost shed loads of that pesky money stuff.
It's scary though just how ineffective education can be isn't it? No idea at all about how to debate; about how to construct an argument; about how to evidence that argument; about the consequences of plagiarism; even good old fashioned logic doesn't work.
Mick: be warned btw. I am an extremely competent historian. I specialise in 19th and 20th century British and European, the colonial period in the Americas and Carthage. But I also have a fair amount of knowledge in several other areas too. Political and economic history is the focus. Best keep off them subjects then.
BobG
-
Mick
You say that we should put up interest rates in the current economic situation. That is inviting deflation.
You say "We need to spend less on the very old. They cost an absolute bleeding fortune. Old people should be put out of their misery once their quality of life is very poor."
You are not talking about allowing old people to chiose to die with dignity. You are talking about society deciding that it is economically disadvantageous to keep them alive.
But yes, I used the wrong word. There. Does that make you feel self-important? That isn't eugenics. What you are calling for is compulsory euthanasia. That is equally repugnant you odious cretin.
-
You say that we should put up interest rates in the current economic situation. That is inviting deflation.
So this is your evidence that I WANT deflation. Very poor effort. Higher interest rates now will improve the lot of savers (many of which are old and struggling to get by) and it will kill off all the half-dead companies that are being a drag on the economy that are eventually going to die anyway.
The housing bubble will be deflated much more quickly instead of dragging out the misery for many overstretched home-owners and give young people half a chance of buying their own home. I think you'd find my policy would get a lot of our problems out of the way quickly and help prevent deflation not cause it.
You say "We need to spend less on the very old. They cost an absolute bleeding fortune. Old people should be put out of their misery once their quality of life is very poor."
You are not talking about allowing old people to chiose to die with dignity. You are talking about society deciding that it is economically disadvantageous to keep them alive.
But yes, I used the wrong word. There. Does that make you feel self-important? That isn't eugenics. What you are calling for is compulsory euthanasia. That is equally repugnant you odious cretin.
You do really take the biscuit for always twisting my words. I said 'very old' you change this to 'old'. It is a fact that they do cost an absolute bleeding fortune. Just stating the obvious there. By allowing the VERY old who have a VERY poor quality of life to die that will mean we will spend less on the old. It's a win win situation.
To say that very old people should be kept alive at all costs even if it is against their will and their quality of life is VERY poor is absolutely crazy. You sound like a religious nutter, but then again you are a a scientologist. No doubt the drugs companies love people like you as their profits increase at the expense of quality of life for some of the very old.
-
Mick.
1) As I said. You WANT deflation. You've just said so with your own words. Deflation is neither inevitable nor beneficial. It will NEVER be the latter. We can choose to impose it anyway through increasing interest rates. Which is what you say we should do. So, you are calling for an OPTIONAL choice of policy that will exacerbate deflationary pressures. Play semantics all you want Mick, but in the real world outside your bedroom, that is WANTING to have deflation. If you believe that increasing interest rates in the current situation, leading to mass closure of companies and rapid reduction in house prices would help to avoid deflation, then you are even more f***ing clueless than I gave you credit for. It is pointless discussing this further with you.
2) You said nothing about giving old people the choice to end their lives. You said that they should be put out of their misery. Immediately after saying that it costs a bleeding fortune to keep them alive. Backtrack all you want now, but the meaning of that is perfectly clear. And I quoted you verbatim. You said "OLD people should be put out of their misery."
3) Grow up with that stupid scientology bullshit. You make yourself look even more of a juvenile prick than you need to do.
And yes, you have got under my f***ing skin. We are currently dealing with the slow demise of my wife's grandfather, who has seen more, learned more, done more, cared more and lived more than you will ever do, you arrogant little shit. You want to live in a world where people like him are quietly disposed of. I want to live in a world where they have the care and attention that they have earned through a lifetime of giving. And if that means that my own standard of living is a little reduced, then so be it.
Fortunately, we live in a caring society, where selfish sociopaths like you will always be a tiny, if really f***ing annoying, minority.
-
I'm very sorry to hear about your wife's grandfather and have no wish to inadvertently cause you any further suffering through my remarks. I promise not to refer to that subject again.
-
Thank you Mick.
Apologies for my intemperate language. It's a difficult time seeing a fine man fade away. He is a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps from extreme poverty in rural Italy, was conscripted to fight for Mussolini, almost killed by a Spitfire strafing raid, survived but was taken prisoner, returned to start a family and build a life, won international prizes for poetry, survived what was supposed to be a terminal illness in his 70s, lost his only son 10 years ago, and until a few weeks ago, was still riding his bike every day at the age of 92, waving and shouting greetings to his neighbours. He never bore a grudge against any person (other than Mussolini) and saw nothing but optimism for the future, having lived through hardships that we cannot imagine.
He's an example to all of us and the world will be a far poorer place when he has left it. I'm afraid I lost it when I saw you suggesting that people like him are a burden on us all.
-
I see today's borrowing figures suggest the private sector is struggling to do its bit. Corporation Tax receipts lower than expected, meaning government borrowing is up again.
Whatever George's plan to reduce the deficit is, it doesn't seem to be working yet.
-
Aye. And apparently Osborne's response is going to be more cuts and more tax rises.
That should help get demand going...
As Einstein said, doing the same think over and over again and expecting a different result is a symptom of insanity.
-
He sounds an amazing man. No need to apologise. Your reaction was perfectly understandable.
-
To put things in perspective for this months borrowing figures, we've borrowed the equivalent of about £136 for every man woman and child in the UK.
-
I cant agree with you Mick. Normal economic forces no longer operate. spain have built too many houses. Prices wont fall as theyve just opened their borders to give a passport to anyone who will buy one. Greece are about to be let off paying any interest on eu debt.no inefficient companies will go to the wall that have a way in to government. In effect we already have a "world government".
You also dont mention world population. We cant increase the supply of commodities like iron ore etc. The price of a lot of degree educated labour is zero due to over supply as tesco recentley demonstrated. So labour in many areas is irrelevant in pricing decisions {eg cost of building new houses}.
-
Now then. Lets see if anyone can come up with the answer. Billy believes in borrowing and spending. He says that I believe in austerity. As it happens I don't, but lets just say for the sake of argument that this is what the debate is all about.
Can anyone come up with another more practical solution. I know I can, but I would like to throw it open to all the great and not so great leftie minds on this forum to see if any of you know what the other alternative is. I'm waiting.
I'm still waiting. Time to give you all a clue. The first letter of the word I'm looking for is 'd'.
-
I'm still waiting. Time to give you all a clue. The first letter of the word I'm looking for is 'd'.
Do away with computers?
-
So far we have got 2 solutions. 'Spend', 'austerity' and my proposal 'd......'.
-
Dig a big hole and bury the b****y lot of them?
-
So far we have got 2 solutions. 'Spend', 'austerity' and my proposal 'd......'.
Drivel.
-
Drivel.
lol.
-
More deflation evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666
-
More deflation evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666
That's not a case for deflation - its a case for raising wages to get the economy going! That may be the average wage, but it is distorted by the massive top end executive pay
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c8376e8-7f24-11e0-b239-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CzBpC7oH
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c8376e8-7f24-11e0-b239-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2CzCuxDtZ
The gap between top executive pay in the private sector and that of the general public is widening rapidly and is “out of control,” according to a report from the High Pay Commission.
Top pay is spiralling towards relative levels not seen since the Victorian era, the commission, which is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, said.
So should you decide to go on a campaign to raise wages for lower paid workers, I am behind you all the way comrade.
-
More deflation evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666
Is it buggery.
-
Glyn
Good guess but I think he said it began with "d"
-
Duggery then.
BobG
-
(http://viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/files/DigForVictory.png)
-
That's not a case for deflation - its a case for raising wages to get the economy going! That may be the average wage, but it is distorted by the massive top end executive pay
Never said it was. If you take top end executive pay out of the equation wages are still going down. It's just another piece of evidence that is staring us in the face that strengthens my case. So far I've shown that demographics, falling house prices and falling wages are pointing the way to deflation. I'll produce more evidence over the coming weeks but so far I think I'm winning the argument hands down.
-
:suicide:
-
Time for another clue. I'm going to give you the second letter of the word I'm looking for, 'e'. De......
-
Time for another clue. I'm going to give you the second letter of the word I'm looking for, 'e'. De......
As popular as Debenhams is Mick, I think it's going to take more than a Boxing Day sale to get us out of this mess.
-
As popular as Debenhams is mjdgreg, I think it's going to take more than a Boxing Day sale to get us out of this mess.
lol.
-
How useless are you lot? Looks like I'm going to have to give you another clue. The third letter of the word I'm looking for is 'f'. Def.....
-
How useless are you lot?
Where on earth do you get the impression that anybody actually gives a flying one what you've read but not understood elsewhere on the internet?
-
Defecation? Most of your theories originate that way Micky boy.
-
I must say I'm very disappointed with you all. I think I'm going to have to find another forum where the posters are more clued up.
-
Why?
It's not d-e-f...
Economic growth is not sustainable, even a child knows that. Swings and roundabouts unless/until we get a world economy, which is very unlikely. What would deflation cure? It's only money.
-
I must say I'm very disappointed with you all. I think I'm going to have to find another forum where the posters are more clued up.
Bye!
-
Right you useless lot, this is the last clue. The fourth letter is 'a'. Defa.... if you still don't get it then there is no hope for you.
-
Why?
It's not d-e-f...
Economic growth is not sustainable, even a child knows that. Swings and roundabouts unless/until we get a world economy, which is very unlikely. What would deflation cure? It's only money.
I agree that economic growth is not sustainable. Thanks to Lloyd George who started the welfare state on 1/1/1909 we are now drowning in debt we will never be able to repay. Little did he know that he had created a monster that a century later would destroy the British economy.
I don't think deflation would cure anything. I just think it is now inevitable.
-
Yes if only he had not had to do such a half-hearted job and done away with the house of Lords and imposed a proper income tax as he had wanted to then we would be in a much better state now.
I saw an interview on tv this morning before heading back south in my submarine where the interviewee was saying that a one-off tax of 20% on the richest 10% in the country would raise over £800 billion.
By raising a massive £800bn, this tax would be enough to pay off the entire government deficit more than four times over - or it could be used to clear most of the national debt. A reduction in the national debt would dramatically cut the government’s huge debt interest payments, which amount to nearly £50bn a year. This vast sum of money would be better spent on schools, hospitals, pensions and job creation.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/economics/2012/09/20-wealth-tax-mega-rich-would-raise-800bn
I am sure Lloyd George would approve - I also think he would agree that nothing in life is inevitable.
-
Lord preserve us Mick, now you want default? The nightmare scenario of all nightmare scenarios. Where the currency loses 50% of its value overnight (but rich folk with clever accountants buy houses abroad so they are not affected, but poor folk lose most). Where the banks stop operating and the cash machines close down. Where industry and commerce stop because credit has ceased.
Mick. I will tell you this much. This country will not even consider default. Not in the next 100 years. We didn't after WWII when our Govt debt was three times higher than it is today. Instead we went on 30 years of pretty much unbroken growth.
You are making yourself look dafter than usual by even raising the possibility. It is what countries do when they have absolutely no alternative whatsoever. When they cannot borrow money to service their debts because the bond markets refuse to lend at realistic rates. It is the equivalent of being on the 100th floor of the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and deciding that, on balance, jumping is preferable to dealing with the flames.
At the moment, we are so far from the bond markets collapsing on us that even discussing default is farcical. It is the equivalent of seeing a waste paper bin catch fire in the toilets on the 100th floor of the World Trade Centre, and deciding to jump out the window.
What's your response to getting your Council Tax bill Mick? Burn your house down?
-
Hallelujah! Someone has finally worked it out. You've no idea how close I came to leaving this forum due to all of your ineptitude. By the way that is a brilliant crystal ball you've got Gypsy Rose Stubbs.
I'm afraid our economy is in such a bad mess that the only way out is default. You can argue all you want but Labour have ensured that the economy is totally screwed and this is the only solution. After World War 1, the Weimar Republic’s total debt equalled 913% of its economy. We all know what happened next (or at least I hope we do). Today the UK's total debt equals 900% of the economy when you add in our financial sector debt, government debt, personal debt and corporate debts. Say no more.
Austerity or stimulus will only delay the inevitable. There is no way we can ever repay our debt (which is still rising exponentially). To think we can is fantasy-land and it won't be too much longer before the penny drops with our lenders.
Default won't be easy but it is inevitable, so we may as well get on with it and get it over and done with. This is the best way out and makes those that deserve to suffer the most pay the price - careless lenders. Why should they get away with their irresponsibility? Then we have to learn the lesson and cut back dramatically the welfare state and start to live within our means.
It's time for the clued up amongst us to prepare now. For example, there won't be a state pension in 10 years time. The prudent amongst us will get rid of any debts as soon as possible before interest rates rise and will invest in gold. Don't say you haven't been warned.
-
The crowning pinnacle of your bullshit Mick.
If this argument were correct then you could sweep up. The bond markets must have it wrong. They are falling over themselves to pour money into the UK. Just as they are into those other massively indebted monetarily sovereign countries, USA, Japan, Canada.
So. You're a professional gambler. Bet against them. You'll make a fortune.
-
The crowning pinnacle of your bullshit mjdgreg.
If this argument were correct then you could sweep up. The bond markets must have it wrong. They are falling over themselves to pour money into the UK. Just as they are into those other massively indebted monetarily sovereign countries, USA, Japan, Canada.
So. You're a professional gambler. Bet against them. You'll make a fortune.
You really are naive to think the bond markets are always going to give us low rates. What goes down will eventually go up. The penny will eventually drop with them and when it does there will be total devastation to our economy. Of this I am certain.
Why on earth do you think they will continue to lend us money at low rates when they realise that we don't have a cat in hell's chance of ever paying it back? They're not completely stupid you know.
You'll be pleased to know that I am already heavily invested in gold and have placed some considerable bets with IG Index (a spread betting company). Due to my foresight I will actually benefit from what's coming and I am only trying to give others the benefit of my excellent advice.
You are supposed to be a business man. Have you ever heard of contingency planning? What would your plan be if bond rates did actually rise? You need to work it out now and not wait until it happens. If you haven't got one or can't be bothered to come up with one then you will deserve all you get especially after reading my warning.
-
Mick
You need to understand WHY the bond markets are giving us (and Japan, and USA and Canada etc, etc) low rates. It's very, very simple economic theory.
For monetarily sovereign countries, one thing alone governs bond rates: expectations of future interest rates. That's it. That is why we had a borrowing crisis in 1976 - not because we had an unsustainable debt (we didn't) but because the markets were spooked by our inflation and consequently hiked our borrowing rates.
UK, Japan, USA, Canada etc have low bond rates because the markets expect prolonged low inflation. They expect prolonged low inflation because they expect prolonged poor economic performance.
Now: you yourself Mick have (recently) been saying that we will not have inflation any time soon and we will have poor economic performance for years.
Here's a tester for you: find ANY example of a monetarily sovereign country that has faced default by bond market vigillantes in the absence of high domestic inflation. A single one will do.
Same old waste of time Mick. You grope your way to putting "2" and "2" on one side of the equation, but you end up with 58,432 on the other side. Total inability to follow a logical trail of thought to its proper conclusion. Week after week.
-
So you don't have a contingency plan. What if I'm wrong (chance would be a fine thing) and we get high inflation? After all, my deflation view is the minority one. What would be your contingency plan then?
Your tester question is a red herring. I deal with the here and now which is unlike anything we've ever faced before. You won't find a comparable situation in your history books.
It's very simple. Bond rates could quite easily go up. Even you have to concede that this is a possibility. If it happens what is your solution? It's totally naive and simplistic in the extreme to discount this possibility, which is all you ever seem to do.
-
So you don't have a contingency plan. What if I'm wrong (chance would be a fine thing) and we get high inflation? After all, my deflation view is the minority one. What would be your contingency plan then?
Your tester question is a red herring. I deal with the here and now which is unlike anything we've ever faced before. You won't find a comparable situation in your history books.
It's very simple. Bond rates could quite easily go up. I am certain they will. Even you have to concede that this is a possibility. If it happens what is your solution? It's totally naive and simplistic in the extreme to discount this possibility, which is all you ever seem to do.
Mick
It's amazing how often in the last few years we've heard "ah but it's all different now" when people who have made every economic call wrong have the theoretical basics and the empirical record pointed out to them.
They keep saying "Yeah but the things that used to apply, no longer apply in the current situation."
They never explain why. They simply use this argument to dismiss any prediction that conflicts with their own world view. Even when their predictions are consistently wrong. And the predictions based on simple theory and understanding of historical precedents are right.
You say, "what if the bond markets change their minds?"
I say:
The bond markets have done EXACTLY what basic economic theory predicts they should have done. Why should I base my ideas on your worst nightmares when you have been consistently wrong so far? Especially when following your ideas would have horrific consequences.
Specifically, you want to go through the catastrophe (and it really WOULD be that bad) of default on a whim because you think the bond markets MIGHT turn against us. Yet you refuse to even consider a tried and proven way out of the crisis. That is through demand stimulation, generating gentle inflation and depressing the debt through this combination of growth and inflation over 30 years or so.
Intellectually vacuous Mick. You have a half-baked idea based on some bullshit you have read on a swivel-eyed right-wing blog. And it doesn't even have any logical connection with the previous half-baked bullshit that you have posted.
3/10 for ideological pontificating
1/10 for logical discussion
Must try harder (unless you are taking the piss like you do with your grammar, in which case, the act is coming on nicely, do continue).
-
Mick
I do not have to concede that bond rates will go up. There is no historical or theoretical reason why they should. So there is no logical reason why you, I or anyone else should build a policy on the assumption that they will.
You don't get it do you? Your ideas are entirely predicated on the principle that the worst case in the bond markets WILL happen. Doing what you say we should would be sensible IF the worst turned out to be true. But it would be madness if the worst did not happen,
Imagine a man saying "I have a pain in my toe. I know that it is theoretically possible that toe nails can get infected, leading to gangrene and death. So I will cut off my leg."
If his toe pain DOES turn out to be undiagnosef gangrene then he may have saved his life. But if it turns out to have been something else, he has f**ked his life up for no sensible reason. THAT is the logic of what you are saying.
-
So as I thought, no contingency plan and not even prepared to consider one. Not even prepared to consider the possibility that bond rates could rise. You display all the dogmatic tendencies of your typical leftie. Your view is the only one that is right and everyone else is is a swivel-eyed right winger. Why am I not surprised.
In case you hadn't noticed, things are different this time. Our debt is 900% of the economy. It will eventually overtake that of the Weimar Republic. We have never been so indebted as a nation. Your simplistic laws of economics no longer apply.
-
More on why our economy will inevitably have to default on its loans.
When the coalition government took charge, thanks to Labour we had a £700 billion national debt. Despite an 'austerity' budget, tax rises and so-called 'cuts' our national debt is continuing to grow exponentially.
By the time this government leaves office they will have added an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. This is more than every British government of the past 100 years put together.
For all this talk of austerity, the government isn't cutting anything. State spending is going up, our national debt is going up and our interest payments are going up. By the time of the next election our national debt will be almost £1.4 trillion.
Britain is now officially one of the most heavily indebted countries in the Western world. Our total debt now stands at more than five times what the economy is worth. FIVE TIMES!!!!
Proportionally, we have more debt than Spain, Italy, Portugal, and nearly twice as much as Greece! We all know what is currently happening to those countries. It won't be long before we start to be affected in a similar way.
There are only two countries that have more debt than us. Japan and Ireland. Japan's economy has stagnated for 20 years and the stock market has crashed by 75%. Ireland's housing market has crashed 50%, and the government has been forced to accept a bailout.
Our debt is much larger than almost every other nation’s. Incredible I know, but that isn't even the full story. When all of Britain’s unfunded obligations such as public sector pensions are included, our debts swell to 900% of our economy. When this is all added up we owe ten times what the economy is worth.
In recorded economic history, every single country with debts as big as ours has suffered a devastating economic collapse. There are NO exceptions.
It's plain to see we are totally broke and are unable to pay back our debts because they are just far too large now.
If I can work it out why won't the bond markets eventually realise the error of their ways? Trust me, it is only a matter of time before they do, and then life will never be the same again.
-
Mick.
You say "we" have a debt 900% that of our GDP. Where do you get that data from?
-
More on why our economy will inevitably have to default on its loans.
When the coalition government took charge, thanks to Labour we had a £700 billion national debt. Despite an 'austerity' budget, tax rises and so-called 'cuts' our national debt is continuing to grow exponentially.
By the time this government leaves office they will have added an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. This is more than every British government of the past 100 years put together.
For all this talk of austerity, the government isn't cutting anything. State spending is going up, our national debt is going up and our interest payments are going up. By the time of the next election our national debt will be almost £1.4 trillion.
So thanks to the Coalition at the end of this Parliment the national debt will have doubled from the position Labour left it in ;)
-
So thanks to the Coalition at the end of this Parliment the national debt will have doubled from the position Labour left it in
No, it's not thanks to the coalition. It's thanks to Labour. They were the ones that set the wheels in motion. The coalition have been trying to stop the runaway train with very little success because by the time they were handed the controls, the train was moving so fast that it had become impossible to stop. All they've managed to do is slightly slow down its speed.
If Labour had remained in power, I reckon the debt would have trebled.
-
mjdgreg.
You say "we" have a debt 900% that of our GDP. Where do you get that data from?
I've worked it out myself from various websites. If anything, I've been conservative in arriving at that figure.
-
Can you point me to them? Only I have a healthy skepticism for "facts" unless I see them myself. Nothing personal. It's a professional thing. In my line of work, when we see someone passing off something as "fact" without giving a reference to where the "fact" can be independently verified, we tend to ignore it. As I've said before, in my line of work, if we work on "facts" that turn out to be wrong, people tend to get killed. It kind of focuses the mind to weed out "fact" from "bullshit"...
-
Sorry I haven't got time. I have relied on my photographic memory for the most part, but it only allows me to compute data and not remember superfluous things like the web address of each site I have visited. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
-
Was it this one Mick: http://smashabanana.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/socialism-is-destroying-nation-states.html
The title of the article suggests it'd be right up your street.
-
According to that great arbiter of facts, wikipedia', gov dept was 63% of GDP in Nov 2011, then again that was taken from ONS figures so probably reliable. Hell of a jump from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 then to reach 900% - how many months in that period were Labour in power?
-
That hike must be down to the half baked policy and thus forecasting idiocies of this wonderful Coalition then Wilts!
Come on Mick. if you're data is right, you have just singlehandedly proved how miserably incompetent these buggers are. Let's at least hear you admit they got it wrong, and are continuing to do so.
BobG
-
According to that great arbiter of facts, wikipedia', gov dept was 63% of GDP in Nov 2011, then again that was taken from ONS figures so probably reliable. Hell of a jump from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 then to reach 900% - how many months in that period were Labour in power?
You make the same classic mistake that Billy always does and are only considering government debt. You are not taking account of all the other debt that goes to make up the total of 900%. You really must read my posts more closely. I include financial sector debt, government debt, personal debt and corporate debts in my 900%.
-
Sorry I haven't got time. I have relied on my photographic memory for the most part, but it only allows me to compute data and not remember superfluous things like the web address of each site I have visited. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
No probs Mick. I'll file under "bullshit" then.
-
According to that great arbiter of facts, wikipedia', gov dept was 63% of GDP in Nov 2011, then again that was taken from ONS figures so probably reliable. Hell of a jump from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 then to reach 900% - how many months in that period were Labour in power?
You make the same classic mistake that Billy always does and are only considering government debt. You are not taking account of all the other debt that goes to make up the total of 900%. You really must read my posts more closely. I include financial sector debt, government debt, personal debt and corporate debts in my 900%.
Right. We're getting somewhere.
I'll ignore the fact that no-one but swivelled-eyed right-wing ideologue bloggers really thinks that the combined debt of the UK is remotely close to 900% of GDP. The But I'll accept your central premise that the UK overall is heavily indebted and it can't go on like that. (It would have been far, far better had Thatcher not deregulated the City back in the 80s and started the whole mad-cap debt spiral, but we'll let that pass for now because I know you don't take lessons from History. Except when you do.)
Now, something like 85% of the total debt is owed by UK companies and householders. What is the mechanism for a default there then Mick? How do you instigate a default of these debtors? What is the consequence of this default? And, crucially, who is their debt owed to (i.e. who will end up out of pocket when this default occurs)?
-
I've never said the coalition has got it right. All I've said is that they are better than the Labour alternative. Politicians of all parties have got it spectacularly wrong ever since the creation of the welfare state. They all allowed it to get far too big and we are paying the price now and will do in the future unless it is cut back dramatically. We simply can't afford it and haven't been able to for a long time.
-
You appear to have totally ignored the fact that much of the UK economy is controlled by international companies, who are making large profits whilst posting accounts that show they are in debt.
The UK business of Starbucks reported sales of £398m and paid no tax because it made a £32.9m loss.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9671576/Starbucks-is-leeching-tax-revenue-from-UK-Lord-Myners.html
You ought to get their accountants for your businesses which I am sure you have recorded and pay the approriate taxes on.
-
Billy, you must also try to read my posts properly. I'm only talking about the government defaulting on its debt. The other information I have posted is purely to demonstrate how bad a situation we are in.
-
You appear to have totally ignored the fact that much of the UK economy is controlled by international companies, who are making large profits whilst posting accounts that show they are in debt.
You appear to be going off at a tangent and posting irrelevant information in the context of this debate.
-
Billy, you must also try to read my posts properly. I'm only talking about the government defaulting on its debt. The other information I have posted is purely to demonstrate how bad a situation we are in.
Righto. So, with absolutely no pressure whatsoever from international markets, with interest rates at the lowest they have been in history, with interest payments on Govt debt lower than they were throughout the entire 20th century, you would elect to default on our debt, with all the nightmarish consequences that this would entail.
Have I got that right Mick?
-
Righto. So, with absolutely no pressure whatsoever from international markets, with interest rates at the lowest they have been in history, with interest payments on Govt debt lower than they were throughout the entire 20th century, you would elect to default on our debt, with all the nightmarish consequences that this would entail.
Have I got that right mjdgreg?
No as usual, you haven't. For example you say, 'with interest payments on Govt debt lower than they were throughout the entire 20th century'. Interest rates might be lower but our payments are definitely not. Our interest payment this year alone will be about £45 billion.
I'm not advocating defaulting overnight. We need to be crafty. We need to cut back on government spending so that we don't need to borrow any more then we gradually start to default.
-
Mick. As a ratio of GDP (which is the only thing that matters) our interest payments are lower than at any time in the 20th Century. Fact. Go and check.
Default gradually? I've just nearly choked on me coffee Mick. That is your best one yet. We, as a country say to one creditor "Psst! We're not going to pay you what we owe you. But keep it to yourself, because we're going to do this gradually. We don't want everyone else knowing that we're not going to pay them as well!"
Good one Mick. Really, really good funny one, that is. You've surpassed yourself.
-
mjdgreg. As a ratio of GDP (which is the only thing that matters) our interest payments are lower than at any time in the 20th Century. Fact. Go and check.
Default gradually? I've just nearly choked on me coffee Mick. That is your best one yet. We, as a country say to one creditor "Psst! We're not going to pay you what we owe you. But keep it to yourself, because we're going to do this gradually. We don't want everyone else knowing that we're not going to pay them as well!"
Good one mjdgreg. Really, really good funny one, that is. You've surpassed yourself.
What matters is the amount of money, not the ratio to GDP (these figures are from cooked books anyway, with many liabilities missed off the balance sheet). As usual you ignore all the other debt in the economy only focusing on what the government owes. This interest payment alone costs us as a country £725 per year for every person in the UK based on a back of a fag packet calculation. This is going up exponentially.
I can see that you are not as crafty as me. I would default gradually by introducing round after round of QE whilst pretending that I wasn't going to keep doing it. This would gradually erode the debt as our currency became worth less and less. Sorted.
-
Mick.
1) If you really, truly think that the absolute magnitude of a cost is the crucial thing, not the relative value of a cost compared to income, then you've lost the plot entirely. But of course you don't really believe that. You've just reverted to your standard approach of bluster and bluff whenever you are shown to be wrong.
2) So you'd have unlimited QE? But if the result of that is to debase the currency, it will lead to inflation and hence cause the bond markets to up the rates. Self defeating. The whole point about bond rates (for monetarily sovereign countries) is that they are set at a level that produces an expected return for the investor over and above the level of inflation in the country in question. That is why there is absolutely no danger of bond rates increasing while ever our economy is flat. Once we finally come to our senses, take the inevitable decision to use fiscal stimulus to get things moving, the economy will starts to perk up and the spectre of deflation will be removed. Bond rates will then rise gently in response to the prospect of mild inflation in the future due to the growing economy. Our interest payments will then increase, but the economy will be stronger so we will have more capacity to pay.
It really is very, very simple if you're prepared to look at the underpinning economic principles and not base your ideas on unsubstantiated opinions.
If you disagree, fine. In that case, substantiate your argument. I've asked you to give a single example of a monetarily sovereign country that has ever faced bankruptcy through raised bond rates in the absence of inflation. You'll not find one because there isn't one. Anywhere. Ever.
So, your argument comes down to this, as far as I can see. Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted you.
"I think we should implement a policy that will do ferocious and long-term damage to the economy, keep millions out of work for years and permanently depress our economic growth. I think we should do this because I am worried that if we don't, the bond markets might turn nasty. There is absolutely no theoretical or historical argument why the bond markets should do that. None whatsoever. But I think they will anyway. Trust me. I know what I am saying."
-
I would default gradually by introducing round after round of QE whilst pretending that I wasn't going to keep doing it. This would gradually erode the debt as our currency became worth less and less. Sorted.
Talk about not learning from history. 1923, No more clues.
-
So you'd have unlimited QE? But if the result of that is to debase the currency, it will lead to inflation and hence cause the bond markets to up the rates.
You are forgetting my deflationary view. QE will not change that no matter how much we do. Deflation not inflation is going to be the order of the day. Why hasn't the already large amount of QE not already meant we've got high inflation?
You also forget that I only want to introduce this policy when we no longer need to borrow any more money due to cutting back the welfare state. You just can't ever envisage us not needing to borrow money can you. Wouldn't it be nice if one day we actually lent money to other countries.
-
Talk about not learning from history. 1923, No more clues.
You'll be waiting a long time if you expect a correct answer without any more clues from this lot. I'll put everyone out of their misery.
Weimar crisis. Sorted.
-
The whole point about bond rates (for monetarily sovereign countries) is that they are set at a level that produces an expected return for the investor over and above the level of inflation in the country in question.
In that case they are missing the point. Yields are currently less than the rate of inflation. Why are they accepting losses? Because they think we are are headed for deflation.
-
Why hasn't the already large amount of QE not already meant we've got high inflation?
Because it's being done by people who actually know about economics and not by an internet gobshite who regurgitates other peoples words and pretends he understands them. Sorted.
-
Talk about not learning from history. 1923, No more clues.
You'll be waiting a long time if you expect a correct answer without any more clues from this lot. I'll put everyone out of their misery.
Weimar crisis. Sorted.
I know, and it's you that's not learning from history.
-
So you'd have unlimited QE? But if the result of that is to debase the currency, it will lead to inflation and hence cause the bond markets to up the rates.
You are forgetting my deflationary view. QE will not change that no matter how much we do. Deflation not inflation is going to be the order of the day. Why hasn't the already large amount of QE not already meant we've got high inflation?
You also forget that I only want to introduce this policy when we no longer need to borrow any more money due to cutting back the welfare state. You just can't ever envisage us not needing to borrow money can you. Wouldn't it be nice if one day we actually lent money to other countries.
Oh dear, you dont actually know anything at all about government debt do you? Go on, admit it, you just copy and past various bits from right-wing economists without actually having a full grasp of what it is you are talking about.
Just over 30% of our national debt/gilts are held by overseas institutions, the rest by domestic investors. In addition Britain is also a large international lender. For instance, we hold £196 billion of US debt (2009 figures).
-
Wilts
Aye. It'd be f**king brill if the UK Govt defaulted then, eh?
-
Why hasn't the already large amount of QE not already meant we've got high inflation?
Because it's being done by people who actually know about economics and not by an internet gobshite who regurgitates other peoples words and pretends he understands them. Sorted.
pmsl. What a piss poor answer. If you think the BoE is competent then that just shows how much of a fool you are. The idiots actually raised interest rates just as the financial crash was happening. Just shows they didn't have a clue.
I notice Billy has no response because he has been totally exposed as not having a clue about what he's on about. Game set and match.
It would also be nice if you didn't regurgitate my words and pretended you understood them because you clearly don't. Sorted.
-
It would also be nice if you didn't regurgitate my words and pretended you understood them because you clearly don't. Sorted.
I can't regurgitate something I can't swallow in the first place.
-
I notice Billy has no response because he has been totally exposed as not having a clue about what he's on about. Game set and match.
If it makes you feel good Micky boy. You're welcome to it. I lost interest somewhere about the point that you were saying we should be defaulting but not having any idea which creditors we'd be short changing.
-
If it makes you feel good mjdgregy boy. You're welcome to it. I lost interest somewhere about the point that you were saying we should be defaulting but not having any idea which creditors we'd be short changing.
Isn't it obvious? We'd be short changing all of them. They've lent the money, they take the risk. They're already being short changed by accepting less back than they are currently 'investing'. My plan is already being implemented (sort of) in case you hadn't noticed.
No, you've lost interest because I've exposed the fallacy of your statements that bond investors only invest to get a real return on their investments and that QE causes high inflation. This has sunk your argument without trace.
-
Give up Mick. You've gone way way beyond looking a plonker. It's plain cretinous now.
I think I'll default on a few of my debts. Reckon the credit card should come first. Way too expensive. Won't matter though. They can afford it. And it won't have any impact elsewhere will it?
BobG
-
Another reason deflation is on the way.
The banks still need to raise more capital as protection against possible future losses. So they aren't going to start lending again any time soon. The main reasons are as follows:
1) They are under-estimating the potential losses on loans to financially challenged borrowers, households and businesses, especially loans in forbearance (loans where the banks have temporarily eased cash payments). If we'd raised interest rates earlier like I said we'd now be over this problem instead of dragging it out for years.
2) Banks may be hurt by further big fines or compensation payments relating to their past sins (the mis-selling of PPI or alleged LIBOR rigging, as just two examples).
3) Big banks' discretion to set their own risk weights for different categories of loans under the Basel rules may mean they have systematically understated the riskiness of entire categories of lending.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20544433
-
Another reason deflation is on the way.
QE will not be able to stop the process. We just have far too much debt (and I'm not just talking about government debt). If you look at the graph on the following link you can see how badly we are drowning in overall debt.
We have easily the highest debt of the G10. Government debt is absolutely horrendous but is only about 10% of the problem. I've done a back of the fag packet calculation and we currently owe about £340k for every person in employment. I've arrived at this figure by dividing the total amount of debt by the number of people in employment. I'd be grateful if someone could explain how all this debt (which is still rising) can ever be paid back. No wonder defaulting on the debt is the only solution:
http://smashabanana.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/socialism-is-destroying-nation-states.html
-
Mick.
Is that debt net or gross? As in: do the debtors have no collateral to offset against that debt?
-
mjdgreg.
Is that debt net or gross? As in: do the debtors have no collateral to offset against that debt?
Obviously it's gross. I'd have thought you'd have been able to work that one out. I'll give you a hypothetical example. Say a householder has debt of £340k but has a house with £100k equity in it. Then their gross debt is £340k but their net debt is £240k. However if they lose their house to pay down their debts, that then means they don't have anywhere to live any more. Due to welfare claims and being given a council house etc. they actually cost the country more in the long run than their gross debt that they started out with!
So don't give me any of that net debt nonsense to try and make the figures look better.
-
Right. And? Expand...
-
What do you think I've just done?
-
Do the UK have a house, or are we homeless? ;-)
-
Do the UK have a house, or are we homeless? ;-)
Could you please re-phrase your question. I'm not very good at understanding pigeon English.
-
Missed the reasons why the global banking crises happened in 2008 and the measures that various international governments have put in place to address it since?
-
Do the UK have a house, or are we homeless? ;-)
Could you please re-phrase your question. I'm not very good at understanding pigeon English.
Not not very good at understanding most things! ;)
-
No Mick. You haven't expanded.
If the debt figures are gross, then, in isolation they are utterly meaningless.
Consider. If I have a gross mortgage debt of £200k, but a house worth £2million, I am in a damn sight better off position that someone with a mortgage of £100k and a house worth £80k.
The gross debt data is meaningless without some discussion of the assets that are held by organisations in each of these countries.
And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way - is considered highly questionable by most economists. They make some very sweeping and unjustified assumptions. The McKinsey data is considered to be the gold standard - go have a look http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Financial%20Markets/Debt%20and%20Deleveraging%20-%20Uneven%20path%20to%20growth/MGI_Debt_and_deleveraging_Uneven_progress_to_growth_Executive_summary.ashx
It's still a pretty bleak picture, for sure, but nowhere remotely close to the silly stuff talked about on your swivelled-eyed right-wing nutter site.
You might also want to have a look at what the McKinsey report suggests for ways out of the debt crisis. And compare them to what i have been saying these last few months.
You might also want to do a search for the term "default" in that report.
And finally, you might want to think about who the UK debtors owe money to, and what would the effect of their defaulting be. Surely you've considered this Mick? You HAVE haven't you?
-
If the debt figures are gross, then, in isolation they are utterly meaningless.
Utterly meaningless!!! Are you having a laugh?
-
Consider. If I have a gross mortgage debt of £200k, but a house worth £2million, I am in a damn sight better off position that someone with a mortgage of £100k and a house worth £80k.
What a very realistic example. pmsl.
-
And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way
Morgan Stanley are a major respected company. How you can dismiss their data in such an off-hand way is amazing. Your preferred company still have our overall debt at 507% of GDP. This figure is absolutely astounding. What they don't include are unfunded liabilities which the other company does. That's why there is a difference. However this is just arguing over semantics. At 507% we are still way past the point of no return.
-
And finally, you might want to think about who the UK debtors owe money to, and what would the effect of their defaulting be. Surely you've considered this mjdgreg? You HAVE haven't you?
I know who the money is owed to and of course I've considered the effect of defaulting. The plain fact is that if you invest money you are putting it at risk. It doesn't matter what the rights and wrongs are. We have so much debt that the ONLY solution now is to default.
If people are still daft enough to lend us more money then they deserve all they get. I'll be getting as much of my private pension (which I now have 100% invested in gold) out as soon as possible. If you're daft enough to wait until you are 65 then you deserve all you get especially after all my excellent advice.
-
Missed the reasons why the global banking crises happened in 2008 and the measures that various international governments have put in place to address it since?
Have you? You must lead a very sheltered life. You sound like a person who likes to bury his head in the sand and then hope the problems will just magically go away on their own.
Briefly what happened was that Gordon Brown didn't regulate the banks and let them know that whatever huge gambles they took the taxpayer would bail them out. He also vastly increased government spending which was used for consumption and not investment. He abolished 'boom and bust' so everyone went on a spending spree due to the housing bubble that the BoE allowed to happen because they didn't use interest rates correctly.
Now we are far and away the most indebted nation in the G10 with no sign of this situation improving. In fact it's getting worse by the day.
-
Mick
You remember a week or so back, I patiently explained to you the importance of checking your sources?
Here's a challenge for you. Go and dig out the ORIGINAL report that presented that Morgan Stanley graph.
Go on. Go and find it. Personally, I wouldn't wipe my arse on something presented by that website you linked to. But if you can find the original report, we can see how they compiled their data and we can come to a rational conclusion about its accuracy.
See, anyone could post a link to ravingnutter.com which claims to have definitive proof that the moon is made of monkey spunk because they claim that Neil Armstrong said so.
-
Semantics Billy, semantics. There's no need for me to bother. Why anyone would decry a website that is anti socialist is beyond me.
I'm prepared to accept your source that says it's only 507% even though this is a very rose tinted view of things and puts the best gloss on figures from cooked books. Only 507%!!! When you are dead you are dead. Even at 'only' 507% we are well and truly dead as an economy. I've done another back of the fag packet calculation and at 507% every working person 'only' owes £192k. Only £192k!!! Even at this 'low' figure we are still dead. Dead, dead, dead. Got it, get it, good.
-
I know who the money is owed to and of course I've considered the effect of defaulting. The plain fact is that if you invest money you are putting it at risk. It doesn't matter what the rights and wrongs are. We have so much debt that the ONLY solution now is to default.
I do sometimes feel a bit guilty about all this Mick. It is a bit like taking the piss out of the thick kid at school who doesn't realise he's having the piss taken out of him because he's too thick. But I can't help it. You DO keep setting yourself up.
You clearly do not know who UK debt is owed to, or you wouldn't consider the rank stupidity of default to be a solution. It would be the road to utter and permanent economic catastrophe. Here's why.
Around 75% of UK debt is owed to UK companies. Banks borrowed from UK companies to finance lending. Now, if we as a nation defaulted on that debt, it would destroy the balance sheets of the companies who lent the money. That would rip through the entire world economy. Look at the effect that the collapse of ONE financial company (Lehman Brothers) had in 2008. That was the catalyst for the whole credit crunch as the world financial system froze up because everyone suddenly became terrified of lending.
And you, Mick the economic genius, reckon that the UK defaulting on trillions if dollars worth of debt would just be shrugged off by the rest of the world. Aye alright lad.
The solution, as it always is in such a situation, is to have GDP growth with moderate inflation. Over a 20+ year period. Just like we did after WWII. Just like the way that every major country has got out of huge debt problems. So that debt as a proportion of GDP falls over time.
We went through this months ago Mick, when you were refusing to take lessons from history. Now that you ARE taking lessons from history, you might be prepared to listen.
In 1945, our Govt debt to GDP ratio was 250%. By 1975 it was 40%. But that didn't happen by Govt debt reducing. Govt debt increased in 24 of those 30 years. Debt fell as a proportion of GDP because the economy grew. That is the way out now, just as it was then.
And THAT is why the policies currently being employed, which have destroyed growth for 2 years or more are almost the epitome of imbecility. I say "almost" because the only things more imbecilic than Osborne's economic policies are the ones that you keep dredging up from FarRightSwivelledEyedLoony.com
-
Mick. It's not semantics. It's about whether we can ever trust anything you post. You are a serial poster of "facts" that turn out not to be "facts".
But anyway. Back to the earlier question. What are the assets held against those debts?
-
I do sometimes feel a bit guilty about all this Billy. It is a bit like taking the piss out of the thick kid at school who doesn't realise he's having the piss taken out of him because he's too thick. But I can't help it. You DO keep setting yourself up, so I'll have to carry on taking the piss.
God you talk a load of old drivel. How many times are you going to just bang on about government debt and ignore the other debt in the economy that totally dwarfs the humongous government debt?
If we just talk about the National Debt, this is going to double over the life-time of this parliament. How much more money do you want them to borrow? To listen to you you'd think they were doing the opposite. They're doing exactly as you want and it's getting us nowhere. Stop being so thick.
-
Those assets Mick? Maybe you can find them under that "astonishing evidence" that you never managed to put your hands on.
-
I do sometimes feel a bit guilty about all this Billy. It is a bit like taking the piss out of the thick kid at school who doesn't realise he's having the piss taken out of him because he's too thick. But I can't help it. You DO keep setting yourself up, so I'll have to carry on taking the piss.
God you talk a load of old drivel. How many times are you going to just bang on about government debt and ignore the other debt in the economy that totally dwarfs the humongous government debt?
If we just talk about the National Debt, this is going to double over the life-time of this parliament. How much more money do you want them to borrow? To listen to you you'd think they were doing the opposite. They're doing exactly as you want and it's getting us nowhere. Stop being so thick.
Mick. We can simplify the entire discussion
I believe, based on straightforward economic theory and historical precedent, that very large debts can be brought under control over a generation by economic growth. Economic growth can be, indeed in a liquidity trap depression can ONLY be fostered by Govt spending. The long run effect of that additional Govt borrowing would be long term decrease in debt.
You believe, with no support from either economic theory or historical precedent, (although, admittedly with some "astonshing evidence" apparently) that none of this is possible and that the only way out is for us to effectively tip the entire world economy into the abyss.
I think sums up 6 months of argument in a nutshell.
-
BST, it pains me to do this but I am afraid I have to come up in support of mjdgreg this time in that there is historical precedence for his course of actions. It is of course the sack of Rome by the Barbarian tribes in 410AD, due to the Romans not being able to pay their mercenary soldiers (defaulting on debt) and high taxation on the ordinary people of the provinces to keep the corrupt central government in place (re-banking & finance institutions of the day). The result being the collapse of western civilization for 1000 years, reduction in life expectency, black death, etc, etc..
I didn't say it was a good or positive precedent - but I in my opinion its the closest to what he is suggesting.
-
mjdgreg. We can simplify the entire discussion
I believe, based on straightforward economic theory and historical precedent, that very large debts can be brought under control over a generation by economic growth. Economic growth can be, indeed in a liquidity trap depression can ONLY be fostered by Govt spending. The long run effect of that additional Govt borrowing would be long term decrease in debt.
You believe, with no support from either economic theory or historical precedent, (although, admittedly with some "astonshing evidence" apparently) that none of this is possible and that the only way out is for us to effectively tip the entire world economy into the abyss.
I think sums up 6 months of argument in a nutshell.
Can't you read? THE NATIONAL DEBT IS GOING TO DOUBLE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS PARLIAMENT. Cuts, what f.....g cuts. They are spending as much in 5 years as all the other governments from the last century put together. The government is doing exactly as you want them to. It is not, I repeat, not solving the problem. There is no historical precedent of a nation being in so much debt (not just f......g government debt) ever avoiding total economic melt-down. You really make my piss boil by only ever going on about government debt.
We are in so much debt that government spending won't make a blind bit of difference. All it will do is make matters worse. We can't keep on doubling the National Debt every 5 years. Spare a thought for future generations for a change and stop being so selfish.
-
BST, it pains me to do this but I am afraid I have to come up in support of mjdgreg this time in that there is historical precedence for his course of actions. It is of course the sack of Rome by the Barbarian tribes in 410AD, due to the Romans not being able to pay their mercenary soldiers (defaulting on debt) and high taxation on the ordinary people of the provinces to keep the corrupt central government in place (re-banking & finance institutions of the day). The result being the collapse of western civilization for 1000 years, reduction in life expectency, black death, etc, etc..
I didn't say it was a good or positive precedent - but I in my opinion its the closest to what he is suggesting.
Another one with his head stuck in a history book and can't see what's in front of his nose. The government is currently DEFAULTING on its debt. Its just hoping no-one will notice and judging by the total lack of intelligence on this forum I'm not surprised they're getting away with it. You will all rue the day you ignored my excellent advice.
Hang around for a state pension. Believe that you're going to get an inflation-linked public sector pension for life when you retire. Believe you're going to get a free bus pass and a winter fuel allowance. Believe health-care is going to remain free at the point of use. Believe in housing benefit etc.
The welfare state is going to be severely cut back. It's plain to see that we are no longer able to afford it and so you better start preparing for a totally different life than you were expecting. Thank you Gordon Brown, never in the course of human history have so many lives been ruined by one man.
-
Are you suggesting that we, as individuals, all default on our own debts then Mick?
Also, when I was student, if my overdraft reached a hundred quid. I'd really start to panic. Now, years later, I earn more, own a chuff of a lot more and each pound is worth less. So my current debt of several thousand actually means f**k all to me. see? That's what Billy is trying to get through your myopia. Debt as an absolute really don't matter two hoots. US government debt makes ours look sodding pygmy. Their absolute debt is massively more than ours. So why aren't you panicking about the size of their debt? It's far worse than ours.
My debt today is not large when compared to the assets I hold. Even if I did absolutely nothing except gently increase that debt, it would, in any sane world, matter less and less, and be worth less and less as each year passes by. Inflation is a wonderful thing Mick sometimes. Absolutely wonderful. I loved the early 80's. Bought my first house and lo: my mortgage debt related to my pay shrank hugely every single year. So less and less pay had to be devoted to servicing the debt. That's what we should be doing now. economic stimulus, and inflation.
BobG
-
Bob,
I'll get to all your points when I've got a bit more time. For now I'd just like to point out something about 'stimulus'. Billy keeps arguing for it all the time and it seems he has convinced many people that this is what is needed. All I would say in part to destroying that argument is that the government is going to double the National Debt during the five years of this parliament. Never has so much money been spent in such a short time (not even by Labour). If this isn't stimulus then I don't know what is.
Why isn't it working as Billy says it should?
-
I thought you understood economics? This is so basic - it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount instead of it being spent on capital investment that would result in employing people who can't spend money because they don't have it earning money, increasing their disposable income and therefore their consumer demand, with the concomitant benefits of removing them from the benefit expenditure, increasing the tax revenue, and still having a capital investment infrastructure product with the economic benefit it garners at the end of it.
-
For the half a dozen people who are actually interested in the topic, here's an article from the Huffington Post's (tory) economist, reproduced in full so Mick can pull it pieces, hope the HP dont mind:
Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"
- Winston Churchill
As a Conservative I have no pleasure in exposing David Cameron's deficit claims. However, as long as the party continues to talk down the economy via the blame game, confidence will not be given an opportunity to return. For it is an undeniable and inescapable economic fact: without confidence and certainty there can be no real growth.
Below are the three deficit claims - the mess. The evidence comes from the IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury, ONS and even George Osborne. The claims put into context are:
CLAIM 1
The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.
After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Watch: Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story.
Its common sense, in cash terms a millionaire's debt would be greater than most people. Therefore, the UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK's debt and deficit with Tuvalu's who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK's income is £1.7 Trillion.
Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?
CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.
Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.
Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.
CLAIM 3
Our borrowing costs are low because the markets have confidence in George Osborne's austerity plan and without it the UK will end up like Greece.
Yes, the markets have confidence in our austerity plan and that's why PIMCO the worlds largest bond holder have been warning against buying UK debt.
The real reason why our borrowing costs have fallen and remained low since 2008 is because, savings have increased. As a result, the demand and price for bonds have increased and as there is inverse relationship between the price of bonds and its yield (interest rate) the rates have fallen. Also, the markets expect the economy to remain stagnate. Which means the price for bonds will remain high and hence, our borrowing costs will also remain low.
Secondly, the UK is considered a safe heaven because, investors are reassured the Bank of England will buy up bonds in an event of any sell off - which increases the price of bonds and reduces the effective rate. Note, how rates fell across the EU recently when the ECB announced its bond buying program. Thirdly, because, we are not in the Euro we can devalue our currency to increase exports. Moreover, UK bonds are attractive because, we haven't defaulted on its debt for over 300 years.
David Cameron would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I.
Overall, when the facts and figures are put into context these juvenile deficit narratives and sound bites ("mere words and no evidence") simply fail to stand up to the actual facts. The deficit myth is the grosses lie ever enforced upon the people and it has been sold by exploiting people's economic illiteracy.
So, David Cameron when are you going to apologise?
Cameron is playing the blame game to depress confidence and growth to justify austerity. Secondly, to use austerity as justification for a smaller state to gain lower taxes. Thirdly, to paint Labour as a party that can not be trusted with the country's finances again. Therefore, we Conservatives will win a second term because, people vote out of fear. The latter strategy worked the last time in office (18 years) and will work again because, in the end, elections are won and lost on economic credibility. Hence, as people believe Labour created the mess they won't be trusted again.
Finally, as the truth is the greatest enemy of the a lie I urge you to share this on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, text and email etc etc. So the truth can be discovered by all. Finally, have no doubt, people have been mislead by the use of the following strategy:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?ncid=edlinkukhpmg00000082
-
I thought you understood economics? This is so basic - it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount instead of it being spent on capital investment that would result in employing people who can't spend money because they don't have it earning money, increasing their disposable income and therefore their consumer demand, with the concomitant benefits of removing them from the benefit expenditure, increasing the tax revenue, and still having a capital investment infrastructure product with the economic benefit it garners at the end of it.
As far as drivel goes, this really does take the biscuit. All going on tax cuts!!! pmsl. You're embarrassing yourself (again).
Also, if you're going to post, please use a few full stops in future. It's bad enough reading drivel without having to put up with bad punctuation as well.
-
wilts rover, that article is unbelievable. I'll guarantee you that even Billy will have no truck with it. I thought Glyn_Wigley had taken the biscuit with the drivel he posted, but this article has to go down in history as the biggest load of hogwash that has ever been posted on this forum.
You've obviously not read BST's most recent thread 'The importance of checking your facts'.
-
After two piss poor posts by wilts rover and Glyn_Wigley, I'll ask again in the vain hope that I might get a sensible answer.
Why isn't it working as Billy says it should?
-
Are you suggesting that we, as individuals, all default on our own debts then mjdgreg?
No. You should only default on your debts if you can't pay them back.
Also, when I was student, if my overdraft reached a hundred quid. I'd really start to panic. Now, years later, I earn more, own a chuff of a lot more and each pound is worth less. So my current debt of several thousand actually means f*** all to me. see? That's what Billy is trying to get through your myopia. Debt as an absolute really don't matter two hoots. US government debt makes ours look sodding pygmy. Their absolute debt is massively more than ours. So why aren't you panicking about the size of their debt? It's far worse than ours.
Have a look at a graph in the link BST posted not so long ago. It can be quite easily seen that in relative terms the UK is the most heavily indebted country in the G10, closely followed by Japan. The US debt does give me great cause for concern but it is much less than ours.
My debt today is not large when compared to the assets I hold. Even if I did absolutely nothing except gently increase that debt, it would, in any sane world, matter less and less, and be worth less and less as each year passes by.
Possibly. Depends on the value of your assets. They could (and probably are) declining in value and the interest you pay could increase putting you in a worse position as time goes on. Compounding is not a wonderful thing when you are in debt. The debt would also not get less and less if and when deflation takes hold.
Inflation is a wonderful thing mjdgreg sometimes. Absolutely wonderful. I loved the early 80's. Bought my first house and lo: my mortgage debt related to my pay shrank hugely every single year. So less and less pay had to be devoted to servicing the debt.
Inflation is a good thing if it decreases your debt. It is also a bad thing in many other ways, and overall, high inflation is best avoided.
That's what we should be doing now. economic stimulus, and inflation.
If only it were that simple. As I said earlier, we are doubling the National Debt during the lifetime of this parliament. This is the most any government has ever spent in such a short space of time. You've got your stimulus already. It isn't working because the overall debt in the economy is too great and house prices are falling.
Inflation is currently reducing the debt, but unfortunately we are borrowing far more than the reduction in debt this gives us. So our debt carries on rising exponentially. Things are going to get worse once deflation gets going.
-
I thought you understood economics? This is so basic - it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount instead of it being spent on capital investment that would result in employing people who can't spend money because they don't have it earning money, increasing their disposable income and therefore their consumer demand, with the concomitant benefits of removing them from the benefit expenditure, increasing the tax revenue, and still having a capital investment infrastructure product with the economic benefit it garners at the end of it.
As far as drivel goes, this really does take the biscuit. All going on tax cuts!!! pmsl. You're embarrassing yourself (again).
Also, if you're going to post, please use a few full stops in future. It's bad enough reading drivel without having to put up with bad punctuation as well.
Yep, just as expected. You haven't got an argument against the economics so you attack the man not the ball in order to avoid doing so. 10 out of 10 from Troll School.
-
wilts rover, that article is unbelievable. I'll guarantee you that even Billy will have no truck with it. I thought Glyn_Wigley had taken the biscuit with the drivel he posted, but this article has to go down in history as the biggest load of hogwash that has ever been posted on this forum.
You've obviously not read BST's most recent thread 'The importance of checking your facts'.
Thanks for that insightful post - would you mind pointing out WHY it is the biggest load of hogwash? I am sure you will have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors of Mr Patel.
-
Yep, just as expected. You haven't got an argument against the economics so you attack the man not the ball in order to avoid doing so. 10 out of 10 from Troll School.
Look, do yourself a favour and leave well alone. To say that it is all going on tax cuts for the wealthy is just such an incredibly stupid thing to say. I'm just trying to save you from further embarrassment.
-
Yep, just as expected. You haven't got an argument against the economics so you attack the man not the ball in order to avoid doing so. 10 out of 10 from Troll School.
Look, do yourself a favour and leave well alone. To say that it is all going on tax cuts for the wealthy is just such an incredibly stupid thing to say. I'm just trying to save you from further embarrassment.
I didn't say that it is ALL going on tax cuts for the wealthy and it's an incredibly stupid thing to assume that I did. I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed about you not being as literate as you think you are.
-
Thanks for that insightful post - would you mind pointing out WHY it is the biggest load of hogwash? I am sure you will have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors of Mr Patel.
I'd be there all day. I've got better things to do. You must be really naive to fall for that one. It's so obviously a wind up. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
-
You said, 'it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount'. If I misunderstood you then I would be grateful if you could explain what this statement means. I would also be grateful if you didn't use pigeon English this time.
-
Thanks for that insightful post - would you mind pointing out WHY it is the biggest load of hogwash? I am sure you will have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors of Mr Patel.
I'd be there all day. I've got better things to do. You must be really naive to fall for that one. It's so obviously a wind up. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
6 out of 10. Must try harder.
-
You said, 'it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount'. If I misunderstood you then I would be grateful if you could explain what this statement means. I would also be grateful if you didn't use pigeon English this time.
That statement means exactly what it says and no more. If you can't help reading extra meaning into it it's your problem.
-
You said, 'it's because the money is being chucked away on tax cuts for those for whom it's not going to increase consumer demand by any significant amount'. If I misunderstood you then I would be grateful if you could explain what this statement means. I would also be grateful if you didn't use pigeon English this time.
Mick
You have surpassed yourself in your use of rapier-like irony.
I wonder if you even realise what you have done.
I could explain, but I'd be there all day. I've got better things to do. It's so obviously a wind up. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
I wonder if YOU do?
-
Right, the gloves are off. So far I've been very patient and put up with a lot of unfounded, outlandish statements. All those of you that argue against 'austerity' need to explain yourselves. What is your 'evidence' for austerity?
How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'? I'm waiting. If no-one answers this question properly, then there can be no doubt that Billy's solution to our problems is nothing more than a load of leftie hot air.
-
mjdgreg
You have surpassed yourself in your use of rapier-like wit and irony.
I wonder if you even realise what you have done.
Of course I do. It would seem that your humour by-pass operation has not been as successful as I first thought.
-
Mick
The answer is extremely simple for anyone who has spent any time looking into the fundamental economic theory.
Depressed economic output, by definition, is economic output which is lower than that which would be produced if the economy were firing on all cylinders.
Economies fail to fire on all cylinders because there is a lack of demand from private (business and individual) economic agents.
In such a case, a Govt fiscal stimulus basically fills the gap of demand by injecting demand into the economy. If total aggregate demand remains weak, it is because Govt spending is not high enough. That is precisely the case that we have had since 2010. In 08-10, the Labour Govt supplemented aggregate demand by their fiscal stimulus. The result was a very strong rebound in growth. In 2010, this Govt cut the stimulus and growth collapsed. I really don't see how you can argue against that.
Actually, I DO see. It's because you have no comprehension what a fiscal stimulus is. You think Govt borrowing equals fiscal stimulus.
What is happening at the moment is that Govt borrowing is very high because tax receipts are in a long term slump. That is precisely the root of the deficit problem. Whilever private business is depressed and the economy is running below potential, tax receipts will be depressed. So, the only way that Govt borrowing can come down is by huge Govt spending cuts. But huge Govt spending cuts would remove still more demand from the economy (by putting more people on the file and removing more contracts from companies). So the economic slump will go on and tax receipts will go still lower. Round and round and round. A bit like arguing with you Mick.
Now, one of the reasons why this Govt has been particularly economically illiterate is that the cuts they HAVE introduced in the first 2 years have been almost entirely in big infrastructure investments. One of the first things they did was to pull £4bn of school building jobs. Madness. Apart from creating long term problems in the quality of school infrastructure, this also led directly to a crippling collapse in the construction sector, putting more people on the dole and pulling yet more demand out of the economy.
So, the simple answer to your ignorant question Mick, is that what we have at the moment is categorically NOT a fiscal stimulus. The Govt is spending on day-to-day stuff (pensions, NHS, dole money, running schools) but it doesn't have enough tax coming in to pay for it. (Which is why it has to borrow.) A fiscal stimulus would be DISCRETIONARY spending on long-term infrastructure projects over and above this day-to-day stuff, filling in for the things that the private sector is too scared to invest in. Or it would include massive inducements to companies to expand. Things like abolishing NI contributions on new recruitments. Or subsidies for companies to buy new plant and facilities. Govt subsidised encouragement for companies to expand. On a massive scale, with the intention of getting unemployment down by 1.5 million in 18 months. A fiscal stimulus would entail a much bigger increase in Govt spending. Another £50bn or so right now.
Clear enough argument for you Mick.
-
mjdgreg
You have surpassed yourself in your use of rapier-like wit and irony.
I wonder if you even realise what you have done.
Of course I do. It would seem that your humour by-pass operation has not been as successful as I first thought.
Go on then. What was it?
Simple answer for once Mick. No bluff and bluster. Tell us what your deliberate irony was.
-
Go on then. What was it?
Simple answer for once Mick. No bluff and bluster. Tell us what your deliberate irony was.
You obviously spotted it but couldn't work out if it was humour or not. I have no wish to patronise the readers of the forum who I'm sure got the joke straight away. Those that didn't get the joke will not find it funny if it is explained to them so it is best to leave them in the dark. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
-
As they say, ignorance is bliss.
You must be in a state of permanent orgasm then.
-
Like I say Mick. Good job you don't play poker because your bluffing is shite.
You haven't the first idea what I am talking about.
I've now got a list of 12 separate occasions where you have graciously declined to expand on a topic when you have been directly challenged.
You are an embarrassment.
Anyway, I've already PM'd the regulars on this thread to point out your wit, so you'll not be patronising anyone by explaining it.
-
Like I say mjdgreg. Good job you don't play poker because your bluffing is shite.
You haven't the first idea what I am talking about.
I've now got a list of 12 separate occasions where you have graciously declined to expand on a topic when you have been directly challenged.
You are an embarrassment.
Anyway, I've already PM'd the regulars on this thread to point out your wit, so you'll not be patronising anyone by explaining it.
Actually poker is one of my pastimes and I am very good at it. Of course I know what you are on about. I don't think the people you have PM'd will be very happy with you though. It's like your saying they are too thick to get the joke so you felt the need to explain it to them because you are more intelligent than them. That's quite patronising in my book.
It seems you are just trying to wind me up. Trust me I know what I am talking about.
-
You tell yourself whatever you need to Mick, if it keeps your self-prestige up. But a word of advice. You do look a bit of a bullshiter if you graciously decline to comment every time you are faced down.
I hope for your sake that you don't go all-in on a 3-7 hand in poker, the way you do every week on here.
-
mjdgreg
The answer is extremely simple for anyone who has spent any time looking into the fundamental economic theory.
Depressed economic output, by definition, is economic output which is lower than that which would be produced if the economy were firing on all cylinders.
Economies fail to fire on all cylinders because there is a lack of demand from private (business and individual) economic agents.
In such a case, a Govt fiscal stimulus basically fills the gap of demand by injecting demand into the economy. If total aggregate demand remains weak, it is because Govt spending is not high enough. That is precisely the case that we have had since 2010. In 08-10, the Labour Govt supplemented aggregate demand by their fiscal stimulus. The result was a very strong rebound in growth. In 2010, this Govt cut the stimulus and growth collapsed. I really don't see how you can argue against that.
Actually, I DO see. It's because you have no comprehension what a fiscal stimulus is. You think Govt borrowing equals fiscal stimulus.
What is happening at the moment is that Govt borrowing is very high because tax receipts are in a long term slump. That is precisely the root of the deficit problem. Whilever private business is depressed and the economy is running below potential, tax receipts will be depressed. So, the only way that Govt borrowing can come down is by huge Govt spending cuts. But huge Govt spending cuts would remove still more demand from the economy (by putting more people on the file and removing more contracts from companies). So the economic slump will go on and tax receipts will go still lower. Round and round and round. A bit like arguing with you Mick.
Now, one of the reasons why this Govt has been particularly economically illiterate is that the cuts they HAVE introduced in the first 2 years have been almost entirely in big infrastructure investments. One of the first things they did was to pull £4bn of school building jobs. Madness. Apart from creating long term problems in the quality of school infrastructure, this also led directly to a crippling collapse in the construction sector, putting more people on the dole and pulling yet more demand out of the economy.
So, the simple answer to your ignorant question Mick, is that what we have at the moment is categorically NOT a fiscal stimulus. The Govt is spending on day-to-day stuff (pensions, NHS, dole money, running schools) but it doesn't have enough tax coming in to pay for it. (Which is why it has to borrow.) A fiscal stimulus would be DISCRETIONARY spending on long-term infrastructure projects over and above this day-to-day stuff, filling in for the things that the private sector is too scared to invest in. Or it would include massive inducements to companies to expand. Things like abolishing NI contributions on new recruitments. Or subsidies for companies to buy new plant and facilities. Govt subsidised encouragement for companies to expand. On a massive scale, with the intention of getting unemployment down by 1.5 million in 18 months. A fiscal stimulus would entail a much bigger increase in Govt spending. Another £50bn or so right now.
Clear enough argument for you mjdgreg.
Look, I'm sure when you were at school your teachers tried to drum it into you to answer the question that is asked and not to answer the question you would have liked to have been asked. My question was about austerity. You don't mention this word once. So I'll ask again. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?
-
Jesus wept Mick. Are you back in that frame of mind where you deliberately try to appear thicker than you are?
The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity.
What they have since found is that this doesn't lead to the expected reduction in Govt borrowing. Just like anyone who had every studied basic economics was predicting back in 2010.
I'll explain in simple words for you.
Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy.
We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010. We have had zero growth since 2010. How much simpler does it need to be before you finally get your closed mind round it?
-
How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?
Just because austerity measures don't have the effect the Government tells everybody they will doesn't make them not austere. Do you really need to have this spelt out to you? Why am I even asking that question, of course you do.
-
More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:
The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme
So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
That doesn't affect Mick he's got his Betterware round and Gold Mine
-
More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:
The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme
So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?
Now then Mick, did you not see the word 'intended' in the middle of that definition or do you not understend it's meaning? It has to be one deficiency or the other.
Something can have the intention of doing something and fail. Failure doesn't change its nature. The government austerity programme can have whatever intentions it likes - just because it fails in those intentions doesn't stop it being an austerity programme. It just makes it a failure.
-
I give up Mick. You are beyond parody.
Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"
What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."
What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?
You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.
What do you get out of this Mick? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?
-
Unfortunately Glyn it isn't failing, it is doing exactly what the government want it to - lower the standard of living for the majority of working people so they will accept worse working conditions and wages. A small percentage of people are getting very wealthy because of it too. Its only when the people in the middle (like Mick) realise that they are more likely to end up in the former - than the latter, will they recognise which clothes the emperor is wearing...
-
Don't I count then Billy?
This is my first port of call every single night. Not only do I learn things from you but I also marvel, positively goggle in fact, at the wrigglings, evasions and untruths of our esteemed colleague. It's an object lesson in political chicanery. Repeat rubbish long enough misquote statistics loud enough and some poor sap will end up believing it. Indeed, I've got a half baked theory that our entertaining friend is either an aspiring Tory politician practising how not to answer questions before he goes public, or, a wannabe journalist working just how little fact he can get away with.
Two simple questions Mick:
1) what was it that got the whole world out of the economic depression of the 1930's? You know, that time when there was the Jarrow marches, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the dustbowls and mass unemployment right across the whole world? (There's a hint here: I mentioned the answer a few weeks back as a possible tongue in cheek solution today)
2) What economic policy had been followed by the entire western based world through those years? (With the honourable exception in the later years of a physical cripple)
The answers to those two questions give you the truth of where we are today, and, what the answer to todays' problems is.
BobG
-
More piss poor answers. Austerity is not as Billy would have you believe, 'Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'. You won't find that definition anywhere except in Billy's post. I defy Billy to post a link with his definition. No, the true definition is as follows:
The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme
So I repeat my question again in the vain hope of a sensible answer. How on earth can doubling the already massive National Debt be described as 'austerity'?
Now then Mick, did you not see the word 'intended' in the middle of that definition or do you not understend it's meaning? It has to be one deficiency or the other.
Something can have the intention of doing something and fail. Failure doesn't change its nature. The government austerity programme can have whatever intentions it likes - just because it fails in those intentions doesn't stop it being an austerity programme. It just makes it a failure.
Glyn
Amen. Govt spending has been reduced significantly from the trajectory it would have been on under Labour. The result has been a collapsed growth and anaemic tax receipts. The result of THAT is that the deficit has reduced more slowly than every independent forecaster said it would do under Labour's spending plans.
Jonathan Portes, one of the country's leading macro-economists, ex-Treasury chief economist, one-time economics adviser to the 1992 Tory Govt (one that gave a textbook example of how to reflate out of a recession) and current head of an independent economics research institute summed it up perfectly in a recent article:
"The direct implication is that the policies pursued by EU countries over the recent past have had perverse and damaging effects. Our simulations suggest that coordinated fiscal consolidation has not only had substantially larger negative impacts on growth than expected, but has actually had the effect of raising rather than lowering debt-GDP ratios, precisely as some critics have argued. Not only would growth have been higher if such policies had not been pursued, but debt-GDP ratios would have been lower."
-
I give up mjdgreg. You are beyond parody.
Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"
What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."
What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?
At least you seem to agree with my definition of 'austerity'. We might be getting somewhere at last.
You also posted:
'The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity'.
You also posted:
'Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'.
How many definitions are there? Which definition do you believe in? Where is the link (evidence) that shows one of your definitions is correct? Do you change your definition to back up the current load of waffle you are spouting?
You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.
I'd be grateful if you could point out my most recent 'lie'. I am nothing but honest and am sure you will struggle. Same goes for non-facts. Which is my most recent one? Show me where I am wrong. Again, I am confident you won't be able to.
What do you get out of this mjdgreg? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?
All I'm doing is putting the common-sense view across and exposing the spend, spend, spend, leftie ideology for the idiocy that it is.
Now, back to my question. So far no-one has answered it properly and I've given up hope that anyone ever will. So I'll give you the answer.
Due to the government spending more during this parliament than any previous government ever has, then we are not enduring 'austerity'. Public spending is continuing to rise in case you hadn't all noticed. For us to be enduring austerity it would have to be falling.
How simple was that to work out? I gave you the clue in the question (the National Debt is going to double in 5 years). So why on earth anyone thinks we are enduring 'austerity' is totally beyond me. Another one of Billy's myths exposed.
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.
Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?
The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.
-
I give up mjdgreg. You are beyond parody.
Your definition:"Goverment austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending"
What I posted:"We have been tightening Govt spending since 2010. We have had Austerity since 2010."
What are those two statements if not equivalent to each other, you infuriating idiot?
At least you seem to agree with my definition of 'austerity'. We might be getting somewhere at last.
You also posted:
'The current Govt cut back on the stimulus that the previous Govt utilised. That is the very definition of Austerity'.
You also posted:
'Austerity = Govt fiscal policy that is tighter than it ought to be given the state of Aggregate Demand in the economy'.
How many definitions are there? Which definition do you believe in? Where is the link (evidence) that shows one of your definitions is correct? Do you change your definition to back up the current load of waffle you are spouting?
You are the single most ignorantly argumentative person I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You argue the most facile points of semantics when you are demonstrated to be wrong, whilst simultaneously making sweeping generalisations and posting easily checkable lies and non-facts.
I'd be grateful if you could point out my most recent 'lie'. I am nothing but honest and am sure you will struggle. Same goes for non-facts. Which is my most recent one? Show me where I am wrong. Again, I am confident you won't be able to.
What do you get out of this mjdgreg? What exactly is your purpose? Are you interested in finding out by rational discussion, or simply being an utter prick?
All I'm doing is putting the common-sense view across and exposing the spend, spend, spend, leftie ideology for the idiocy that it is.
Now, back to my question. So far no-one has answered it properly and I've given up hope that anyone ever will. So I'll give you the answer.
Due to the government spending more during this parliament than any previous government ever has, then we are not enduring 'austerity'. Public spending is continuing to rise in case you hadn't all noticed. For us to be enduring austerity it would have to be falling.
How simple was that to work out? I gave you the clue in the question (the National Debt is going to double in 5 years). So why on earth anyone thinks we are enduring 'austerity' is totally beyond me. Another one of Billy's myths exposed.
What a complete and utter fool, you`ve told us in the same post that we are suffering austerity and we are n`t!
-
Mick
1) I realise that I'm pushing on a string trying to get you to understand concepts beyond your intellectual ability. But those three definitions are formally identical. They all state that the current trajectory of Govt spending (SPENDING Mick, keep that it your thoughts) is lower than that planned by the previous administration, which itself was a level intended to fill the gap in Aggregate Demand. The "reduction" is a reduction from the previous, AD-gap filling levels.
There's no contradiction in any of my definitions. It's not so difficult if you think for a moment Mick. Unless you are fundamentally incapable of forming cogent thoughts.
2) Despite numerous clear postings on here, you STILL simply refuse to acknowledge what Austerity is, or what the consequences of it are. Austerity is NOT about the absolute level of Govt spending. It is about the level relative to what it would be if you believe that Govt spending can fill the Aggregate Demand gap. This Govt believes that Govt spending cannot do that. So they cut Govt spending on discretionary items, like long term infrastructure investment spending.
We've now had 4 years since the crisis broke. In 2009, a big Givt stimulus was put in place. The economy bounced back from 6% contraction in 09 to 2.5% growth in 2010. That was a quite phenomenal turn round in performance in performance. It was one that Osborne said wasn't possible (after Darling's 2009 Budget predicted 1.75% growth in 2010, Osborne called him a fantasist). Then Osborne tightened Govt spending cut back the stimulus, cut back Govt spending from the level required to fill the AD gap (three identical definitions Mick - got it through your skull yet?). And since then, we have had precisely zero growth in 2 years. And tax receipts have dropped. So the deficit has come down more slowly than it would have done if the Govt was spending more but the economy was growing. Very, very simple. Simple enough even for you to understand.
3) Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.
-
What a complete and utter fool, you`ve told us in the same post that we are suffering austerity and we are n`t!
No I haven't. I agree I've said we aren't suffering austerity. All I've offered up is the Wikipedia definition of austerity. I agree with the definition but nowhere have I said that we are suffering austerity, in fact I've argued the complete opposite.
I'm afraid you're the complete and utter fool. I challenge you to show where I have said what you say I have. I think you're getting me mixed up with Billy. He'd like everyone to believe that we are, when demonstrably we're not.
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.
Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?
The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.
Mick.
You're doing it again.
You see an intellectually coherent argument. You refuse to engage with the argument. You instead say "Nope. That can't work."
No explanation why it doesn't work. No critique. Just a statement of faith.
It's like arguing with a Catholic about whether Mary really gave birth while still a virgin. Or arguing with a Southern Baptist about evolution. You set out the facts and the theoretical argument. You explain patiently the logic. And the religious zealot says, "Nope. I don't believe it. I won't argue with you. I'll just state that what I believe is true, even though I can offer no rational argument why that should be."
There's a theory in psychology that people most criticise what they most despise about themselves. I understand why you hate the religious so much Mick. Because you're one of them yourself.
-
Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.
That was easy. Here's what you said about the evidence I provided about the 900% 'lie'. Next 'lie' please.
http://smashabanana.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/socialism-is-destroying-nation-states.html
'And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way - is considered highly questionable by most economists. They make some very sweeping and unjustified assumptions'.
-
mjdgreg.
You're doing it again.
You see an intellectually coherent argument. You refuse to engage with the argument. You instead say "Nope. That can't work."
No explanation why it doesn't work. No critique. Just a statement of faith.
It's like arguing with a Catholic about whether Mary really gave birth while still a virgin. Or arguing with a Southern Baptist about evolution. You set out the facts and the theoretical argument. You explain patiently the logic. And the religious zealot says, "Nope. I don't believe it. I won't argue with you. I'll just state that what I believe is true, even though I can offer no rational argument why that should be."
There's a theory in psychology that people most criticise what they most despise about themselves. I understand why you hate the religious so much mjdgreg. Because you're one of them yourself.
I'll have you know I'm a devout atheist. What is it that you don't understand about human nature? Why do you need an explanation and loads of evidence that when people are drowning in debt the last thing they are inclined to do is get into more debt just because a few new schools are being built?
Sometimes common-sense and logic is enough.
-
Examples of you posting lies? That 900% debt to GDP ratio is but the latest example. I challenged you to post the original source and once again you went into hull-down bullshit mode. Just like every time your bluff is called. Every. Single. Time. Of course, the reason you cannot post the original source is that it doesn't exist. There you go. A perfect example to prove me wrong if you can find it.
That was easy. Here's what you said about the evidence I provided about the 900% 'lie'. Next 'lie' please.
'And by the way, that Morgan Stanley data on that website that you linked to - the one that discusses the issues in such a careful and balanced way - is considered highly questionable by most economists. They make some very sweeping and unjustified assumptions'.
Mick
Go back and check. I challenged you to find the original source. Go on. Go and have a look. That challenge still stands by the way, and like a dozen other cases when I've challenged you to substantiate claims, you've tried to bluff it. If only you weren't so shit at bluffing Mick, folk might actually believe you.
But of course you won't go and check will you. You'll be too busy. Your piss will be too hot. Or you'll come up with some other reason to dissemble.
Just once Mick. Just once you might actually prove us wrong and take a challenge head on instead if ducking it like a bairn faced down for being naughty.
Good job you didn't live 200 years ago. I'd have slapped you round the face with a leather glove and challenged you to a duel and your response would have been, "No, I haven't got time. I will save you from embarrassing yourself. And anyway, you spell it 'dual'."
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.
Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?
The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.
CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.
Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.
Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.
As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?
-
mjdgreg
Go back and check. I challenged you to find the original source. That challenge still stands.
Good job you didn't live 200 years ago. I'd have slapped you round the face with a leather glove and challenged you to a duel and your response would have been, "No, I haven't got time. I will save you from embarrassing yourself. And anyway, you spell it 'dual'."
I can't believe I'm reading this. Are you still saying that I lied about the 900% claim? This despite what your response was to the link with the 'evidence'. You yourself stated that the data was provided by Morgan Stanley. If you look a little more closely at the graph on the link at the bottom it states: 'Source: Haver Analytics, Morgan Stanley Research'. So I've given you a link to the evidence. You've referred to Morgan Stanley. The bottom of the graph gives you the source. What more do you want?
You have made yourself look a complete and utter fool. I can't believe you are so stupid. Your followers will be holding their heads in their hands and wondering how on earth you could have made yourself look so daft.
Look, I'm a magnanimous soul and will accept an abject apology. Hopefully your followers will have a short memory and over a period of time you might be able to build up a little bit of credibillyty again. Just expect it to be a very slow process.
Next lie please.
-
CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.
Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.
Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.
As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?
I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?
Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.
-
This is your answer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20572144
These people are suffering the consequences of believing Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust. They are also trying to come to terms with an unsustainable housing bubble that still has some way to go to deflate.
Does any sane person expect that Billy's solution that we should spend £50 billion on infrastructure really think that this will solve these people's problems? Does anyone seriously think that building some more schools is going to make all these people spend more money and get into even more debt?
The simplicity of Billy's ideas beggars belief. Look, its very simple. People have overspent and now need to cut back and get their houses in order. Only then will they start to spend again. We've had the party, now its time to get on with the hang-over.
It would appear your hero disagrees with you (and agrees with Billy)
He (George Osbourne) is expected to announce an increase in capital infrastructure spending, including roads and housing, as well as a package of help for further education.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/02/osborne-climbdown-failing-fiscal-goals
-
CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.
Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.
Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.
As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?
I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?
Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.
Then please correct it for us thickos.
-
Mick.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
-
CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.
Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.
Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.
As you refused to answer my previous request to correct the allegations made here - and that you have now repeated with your comment about Gordon Brown above - can you now do so please?
I really can't believe you are posting this drivel again. The claims in it are so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant a reply. Have you looked at the grammar and punctuation? Do you think a serious journalist would write in such an appalling way?
Have you checked out his track record? The guy is a nobody and is obviously as thick as two short planks. It's so obviously a wind up and I'm amazed you can't see it.
Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f**king idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?
-
Source for the 900% total debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
this is the best I could find - although to my eyes it says 390% not 900% - so looking forward to Mick showing us where he got his data from and therebye proving he is not a liar.
-
mjdgreg.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
You have a very suspicious mind. To all intents and purposes you are calling me a liar. You do it regularly. You try to make out that I'm making it up as I go along.
That graph was published late last year. I first heard about it from a very respected source. One that requires a subscription so I can't post a link. It was another poster on this thread that came up with the right wing nutter website that had the graph so I used the same link for your benefit to show you the graph and the source.
To say I'm lying because you can't find the original source on the internet is laughable. Don't you believe anything you are given second-hand? Is your life so sad that you have to always go back to the original source or you won't believe it? Do you believe everything you can't find the original source for is a lie? How ridiculous.
My life isn't so sad as to want to waste my time checking original sources all the time. Like I said earlier, sometimes all that's needed is a bit of common-sense. Something you clearly don't possess.
Next lie please.
-
Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f***ing idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?
Look, I don't make mistakes. I leave that to you.
-
mjdgreg.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
You have a very suspicious mind. To all intents and purposes you are calling me a liar. You do it regularly. You try to make out that I'm making it up as I go along.
That graph was published late last year. I first heard about it from a very respected source. One that requires a subscription so I can't post a link. It was another poster on this thread that came up with the right wing nutter website that had the graph so I used the same link for your benefit to show you the graph and the source.
To say I'm lying because you can't find the original source on the internet is laughable. Don't you believe anything you are given second-hand? Is your life so sad that you have to always go back to the original source or you won't believe it? Do you believe everything you can't find the original source for is a lie? How ridiculous.
My life isn't so sad as to want to waste my time checking original sources all the time. Like I said earlier, sometimes all that's needed is a bit of common-sense. Something you clearly don't possess.
Next lie please.
That's a long way of saying, "I can't show you the original data because it doesn't exist."
More bluffing. If you didn't do this every time I ask you to substantiate your claims Mick, I wouldn't call you a liar and serial bullshitter.
But you do, so I do.
Every single time there is an excuse. It really is like dealing with a guilty 6 year old who knows that the grown up has sussed him, but who has to find some bullshit excuse to save face.
You're not saving face Mick. You're making a fool of yourself. Regularly.
You accept as "fact" any bullshit you find on the internet that supports your opinion. You have no ability whatsoever to critically appraise the information you stumble across. Month after month after month of it.
And then you fall back on the final argument of the intellectually stunted. "Don't worry me with your facts and your logic. I'm talking about common sense!" So your common sense trumps all logic and basic ability to critique data. And your common sense leads you to post "facts" that cannot be backed up when they are faced down.
That's the same common sense that told us that football teams had to retain possession to do well. Or was it having lots of shots? Or was it possession efficiency?
You spouted poorly researched bullshit on that topic, and you want us to trust your common sense on macroeconomics?
Some common sense Mick. If it's all the same, I'll pass on your common sense.
But, if you can find that original data, I'll apologise and accept that you know what you are talking about.
-
Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f***ing idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?
Look, I don't make mistakes. I leave that to you.
So you didn't make a mistake in that post last night? No, right. You made a deliberate error in irony. Sure you did.
-
Look, I don't make mistakes.
All the crap you post is deliberately posted crap.
-
Right, you asked for it. Prepare to be educated.
Now, I'm not going to bother trying to find the original source of the graph. I trust Billy in that if he says he can't find it on the internet, then his word is good enough for me.
So what can we do in circumstances like this? You can either use your common-sense and assume that it is a valid graph and get on with your life. Surely Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley would have had it removed from the internet or issued a rebuttal saying the graph was a work of fiction. I've not looked but I'll bet a rebuttal has not been issued. You'd expect one would have been as Billy says there are economists out there that disagree with the findings of the graph.
However there is a solution that will hopefully keep even Billy happy. The required information can be found from various sources. This is information that I was aware of but decided not to post it as it would have taken me quite a bit of time and I have got a life to get on with. However due to the serious nature of Billy's accusations I've decided on this occasion to clear my name (not that it needed clearing) and spend some time educating you all. So here goes:
DEBT % of GDP £bn SOURCE
UK Household Debt 91.6% 1,415 Credit Action bulletin
(mortgages plus Nov 2012
unsecured debt)
Non-financial
Corporation Debt 109% 1,683 McKinsey Global Institute -
Debt and Deleveraging:
Uneven progress on the
path to growth (Jan 2012)
Financial Institution
Debt 238.9% 3,688 Bankstats Sept 2012
Government debt 69.2% 1,068 ONS
Financial sector
interventions 71.1% 1,098 ONS
Unfunded public
sector pensions 306.3% 4,729 ONS
PFI 15.7% 242 Treasury 2012
TOTAL DEBT 901.8%
So there you have it. All the evidence and all the sources. The picture is actually much worse than this because I haven't included future healthcare costs. Also we all know that politicians will do their utmost to 'cook the books' to make things seem better than they really are.
I await your abject apology post haste. Don't worry, I will accept it in full as I don't like to bear a grudge (unlike some others around here that I could mention).
Next lie please.
-
All the crap you post is deliberately posted crap.
What evidence do you have for this? I would be grateful if you could also include the original sources because until you do I won't believe a word you say.
-
Then please correct it for us thickos.
Look, I've got better things to do. At least you have admitted what is your fundamental problem. I respectfully suggest that you are way out of your depth on this thread. In fact I'm beginning to think that I am the only one around here who knows what he's on about.
-
It would appear your hero disagrees with you (and agrees with Billy)
He (George Osbourne) is expected to announce an increase in capital infrastructure spending, including roads and housing, as well as a package of help for further education.
He is certainly not my hero. I just think he is ten times better than Ed Balls. I would make a much better Chancellor. I've no problem with investing in capital infrastructure if it is done properly. What I do have a problem with is government borrowing for consumption and the huge size of the welfare state.
-
UK household debt
Households, as a group, have a lot of debt. But they also have a lot of assets - in fact, a lot more. (see chart 6).
Households' total wealth, including housing, was worth eight-times annual disposable income at the end of 2010. That's above the 25-year average, despite everything that happened in 2008-10.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014
If you have the money to pay off your debt - are you really in debt? Selective use of statistics.....and also tax avoidance.
[attachment deleted by cleanup process]
-
That doesn't affect mjdgreg he's got his Betterware round and Gold Mine
You're forgetting about my landlord, property development, teaching and gambling businesses as well. You are right though. Whatever happens to the economy I won't be affected. I have made sure that I have got no debt and have put in place an investment strategy that does not rely on the government looking after me.
If only you lefties could do the same and stop believing it is the government's job to look after you from cradle to grave. My tax bill would be lower and the less fortunate in society could be better looked after.
-
Fascinating that you spent all that time finding the information from various sources Mick. You could have found it all here:
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/uk/the-end-of-britain-sources
Hey! It's even got the same formatting! Cool eh?
Anyway, now we get to the nub of the issue. The vast majority of the difference between what most economists take as the national debt and that 900%figure that you quote comes from "unfunded" pension commitments.
Two questions:
1) Do you know what an "unfunded" pension commitment is Mick?
2) Do you know wht the ONS said about lumping unfunded pension commitments into aggregate figures of public debt? (Course you do - you got the data from the ONS didn't you, so you must have checked what they said.)
-
One question. Where is my abject apology?
Next lie please.
-
Mick
We haven't finished yet. Not by a long chalk. There are some very big outstanding questions about the data you presented.
-
Have you figured out what the big outstanding questions are yet. Not difficult, so I'm sure you have.
-
Right, you asked for it. Prepare to be educated.
Now, I'm not going to bother trying to find the original source of the graph. I trust Billy in that if he says he can't find it on the internet, then his word is good enough for me.
So what can we do in circumstances like this? You can either use your common-sense and assume that it is a valid graph and get on with your life. Surely Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley would have had it removed from the internet or issued a rebuttal saying the graph was a work of fiction. I've not looked but I'll bet a rebuttal has not been issued. You'd expect one would have been as Billy says there are economists out there that disagree with the findings of the graph.
However there is a solution that will hopefully keep even Billy happy. The required information can be found from various sources. This is information that I was aware of but decided not to post it as it would have taken me quite a bit of time and I have got a life to get on with. However due to the serious nature of Billy's accusations I've decided on this occasion to clear my name (not that it needed clearing) and spend some time educating you all. So here goes:
DEBT % of GDP £bn SOURCE
UK Household Debt 91.6% 1,415 Credit Action bulletin
(mortgages plus Nov 2012
unsecured debt)
Non-financial
Corporation Debt 109% 1,683 McKinsey Global Institute -
Debt and Deleveraging:
Uneven progress on the
path to growth (Jan 2012)
Financial Institution
Debt 238.9% 3,688 Bankstats Sept 2012
Government debt 69.2% 1,068 ONS
Financial sector
interventions 71.1% 1,098 ONS
Unfunded public
sector pensions 306.3% 4,729 ONS
PFI 15.7% 242 Treasury 2012
TOTAL DEBT 901.8%
So there you have it. All the evidence and all the sources. The picture is actually much worse than this because I haven't included future healthcare costs. Also we all know that politicians will do their utmost to 'cook the books' to make things seem better than they really are.
I await your abject apology post haste. Don't worry, I will accept it in full as I don't like to bear a grudge (unlike some others around here that I could mention).
Next lie please.
So you struggle with the basics of copy and paste?
With all your experience I thought you might be pretty quick with it by now! :)
-
Filo.
Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.
-
mjdgreg
We haven't finished yet. Not by a long chalk. There are some very big outstanding questions about the data you presented.
Look, you said I was a liar. I've categorically proven that this is not the case. By delaying your abject apology you are doing your already tattered reputation no favours at all. Just get on with it and I'll put it behind me. I'm not so sure the rest of the forum will be so forgiving though.
I'm quite happy to discuss the data but you need to do the honourable thing first.
Next lie please.
-
Filo.
Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.
I can't remember how many times I've told you all about my photographic memory. How many more times do you need to be told?
-
Mick
So let's get this straight. The data you have posted today is, to all intents and purposes, the data that was in that graph on swivelledeyedravingf**kingnutter.com?
Is that what you are telling us?
If that is the case then I will apologise unreservedly.
-
Filo.
Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.
I can't remember how many times I've told you all about my photographic memory. How many more times do you need to be told?
Err. Aye. That photographic memory. My apologies.
Mind, I thought you found all those data by your own painstaking research?
I'm confused Mick. Was it your own research, or was it your photographic memory?
-
mjdgreg
So let's get this straight. The data you have posted today is, to all intents and purposes, the data that was in that graph on swivelledeyedravingf***ingnutter.com?
Is that what you are telling us?
If that is the case then I will apologise unreservedly.
Are you on drugs? No, that is not what I'm telling you. I've already made it clear that I 'trusted' the data. This is because I was already aware that our debt problem was over 900%.
Unlike you I don't feel the need to always go to the original source. We're on an off topic forum with not many views. The way you go on you'd think we were posting on a forum with millions of views. Perspective Billy, perspective.
I've just proved from other sources that the 900% figure was not made up by me and is valid data. You may have points to make about the data and I have no problem with that. However your serious allegation that I lied about it is shown to be ludicrous. Just apologise and I'll happily debate the issues surrounding the data which of course I know all about.
Next lie please.
-
Mick
Right. Thanks for the useful data proving that the graph you posted was correct. Very helpful.
I would now normally apologise unreservedly, but there's just U2,or 3 things still nagging me. I wonder if you could put my mind at rest Mick, because there's still a little voice in the back of my head telling me that you are lying through your teeth again. I'm sure it's wrong.
Anyway, here's where the confusion is.
1) the graph you posted. It said clearly that the Financial Sector debt was about 620% of GDP, and the Govt debt about 70%. But the numbers that you posted say that the Financial Sector debt is 239% of GDP and the Govt debt tots up to 422%. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble about numbers not quite rounding up to the odd £6trillion, but your reputation for honesty is at stake so I thought you might want to comment.
2) See, that leaves me thinking that the graph on swivelleyedravingf***ingnutter.com didn't include the unfunded pension commitments in its totals. But you did. Interesting, that is Mick, because the authors of the latest ONS report on unfunded pension commitments expressly state that they should not simply be added to the overal debt level of the country. Must have slipped your notice when you were reading their data, eh Mick? And of course, we're still left no wiser about where the figures in that graph come from. Which was kind of the point when I accused you of gullibly peddling a lie (not of lying in that occasion Mick).
3) That gets me to thinking. Why is it that YOU chose to add unfunded pension commitments to the total? And isn't it a coincidence that you made exactly the same decision, with exactly the same numbers and the same formatting as a that report on moneyweek.com? Amazing coincidence Mick. But, hey, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you didn't do your own research.
Oh f*** it. Yes I am. I've got you red handed in yet another bare faced lie Mick. Copying and pasting data from a website whose entire raison d'etre is to scare gullible fools into buying its investment tips by telling them that we're going to hell.
Fascinating reading on that site Mick. They have articles saying "The only solution to Britain's debt problem is DEFAULT." And "How can this be Austerity when Cameron and Osborne are spending more than all the previous Govts in the last 100 years combined."
All sounds a bit familiar.
I've finally had enough of this Mick. I actually think that lying is so deeply a part of your personality that you don't even realise you are doing it. If you REALLY think that anyone is going to buy the line that you slaved over a computer to do your own research and it just happened to pop out in exactly the same form as that on a commercial website with a line to peddle; that you just happened to make exactly the same call on unfunded pensions; that you even made the same comment about the numbers not including health costs, then you need professional help.
I have had no intention when arguing with you of doing anything other than demonstrating that your arguments were not worth a bucket of piss. Because you have no comprehension of how to form a cogent thought that's not been placed in your gullible head by some blogger with a line to peddle.
I think I'm finally done.
-
Are you on drugs? No, that is not what I'm telling you. I've already made it clear that I 'trusted' the data. This is because I was already aware that our debt problem was over 900%.
Unlike you I don't feel the need to always go to the original source. We're on an off topic forum with not many views. The way you go on you'd think we were posting on a forum with millions of views. Perspective Billy, perspective.
I've just proved from other sources that the 900% figure was not made up by me and is valid data. You may have points to make about the data and I have no problem with that. However your serious allegation that I lied about it is shown to be ludicrous. Just apologise and I'll happily debate the issues surrounding the data which of course I know all about.
Next lie please.
F**k, so you are telling me I wasted £10k researching my MA when I could have just made things up and not attributed or sourced my 'facts'. I will tell that to History Today when I put in my next article.
To my mind you 'trusting' someone elses' data without checking it is tantamount to lying (particuarly if you dont quote the correct origin), or why do you not trust what BST is telling you when he presents his data? Why is one person more reliable then other - if you do not have access to the raw data or the ability to analysise it for yourself?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels
-
As a reader of this thread and seeing Micks often quoted saying that he thinks we all think BST is a fool, I think we should have a vote.
I vote the biggest knobhead bullshitter Mick!
-
mjdgreg
Right. Thanks for the useful data proving that the graph you posted was correct. Very helpful.
I would now normally apologise unreservedly, but there's just 2,or 3 things still nagging me. I wonder if you could put my mind at rest Mick, because there's still a little voice in the back of my head telling me that you are lying through your teeth again. I'm sure it's wrong.
Anyway, here's where the confusion is.
1) the graph you posted. It said clearly that the Financial Sector debt was about 620% of GDP, and the Govt debt about 70%. But the numbers that you posted say that the Financial Sector debt is 239% of GDP and the Govt debt tots up to 422%. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble about numbers not quite rounding up to the odd £6trillion, but your reputation for honesty is at stake so I thought you might want to comment.
2) See, that leaves me thinking that the graph on swivelleyedravingf***ingnutter.com didn't include the unfunded pension commitments in its totals. But you did. Interesting, that is mjdgreg, because the authors of the latest ONS report on unfunded pension commitments expressly state that they should not simply be added to the overal debt level of the country. Must have slipped your notice when you were reading their data, eh Mick?
3) That gets me to thinking. Why is it that YOU chose to add unfunded pension commitments to the total? And isn't it a coincidence that you made exactly the same decision, with exactly the same numbers and the same formatting as a that report on moneyweek.com? Amazing coincidence mjdgreg. But, hey, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you didn't do your own research.
Oh f*** it. Yes I am. I've got you red handed in yet another bare faced lie mjdgreg. Copying and pasting data from a website whose entire raison d'etre is to scare gullible fools into buying its investment tips by telling them that we're going to hell.
Fascinating reading on that site mjdgreg. They have articles saying "The only solution to Britain's debt problem is DEFAULT." And "How can this be Austerity when Cameron and Osborne are spending more than all the previous Govts in the last 100 years combined."
All sounds a bit familiar.
I've finally had enough of this mjdgreg. I actually think that lying is so deeply a part of your personality that you don't even realise you are doing it. If you REALLY think that anyone is going to buy the line that you slaved over a computer to do your own research and it just happened to pop out in exactly the same form as that on a commercial website with a line to peddle; that you just happened to make exactly the same call on unfunded pensions; that you even made the same comment about the numbers not including health costs, then you need professional help.
I have had no intention when arguing with you of doing anything other than demonstrating that your arguments were not worth a bucket of piss. Because you have no comprehension of how to form a cogent thought that's not been placed in your gullible head by some blogger with a line to peddle.
I think I'm finally done.
You really can't see the woods for the trees can you? You accuse me of lying and I show conclusively that you are wrong. Unbelievable. You then go on to accuse me of further lying. I can't get my breath.
Look, just apologise and we can move on. I'm a big picture sort of person and all I was trying to do was to point out that our debt is out of control. 500% or 900% it doesn't really matter. I've now produced 2 pieces of evidence showing its over 900%. What more do you want?
If you want to claim it's only 507% then fine (only 507% ffs), I don't have a problem with that. If you want to exclude unfunded liabilities I'm fine with that too. If you want to ignore the fact that governments don't use the correct figures because they want to look as good as possible then that's fine too. The bottom line is that it's still way too big.
You should also realise that I get my information from many different sources. Its not my fault that I am able to reproduce a lot of it almost word for word. Remember, I have a photographic memory.
Now do the decent thing and issue an abject apology.
-
F**k, so you are telling me I wasted £10k researching my MA when I could have just made things up and not attributed or sourced my 'facts'. I will tell that to History Today when I put in my next article.
To my mind you 'trusting' someone elses' data without checking it is tantamount to lying (particuarly if you dont quote the correct origin), or why do you not trust what BST is telling you when he presents his data? Why is one person more reliable then other - if you do not have access to the raw data or the ability to analysise it for yourself?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels
From what I've seen you post then yes I would say that you've wasted £10k. To say that 'trusting' someone else's data without checking it is tantamount to lying is a right load of baloney. You and Billy might have very suspicious minds and the time to do all this unnecessary research but the rest of us that live in the real world have to get on with our lives.
For example, when the BBC News reports that its been snowing in Scotland do you disbelieve this until you've been on the Met office's website and looked at the evidence to prove its true? Of course you don't. Get a grip man, you're making yourself look as daft as Billy with all this lying nonsense.
-
As a reader of this thread and seeing mjdgreg often quoted saying that he thinks we all think BST is a fool, I think we should have a vote.
I vote the biggest knobhead bullshitter mjdgreg!
Lol. I'm sure after the embarrassing lying debacle Billy has just got himself embroiled in he will sleep easier in his bed tonight knowing you are on his side. He needs all the support he can get.
-
Yes, good analogy there, 'when the BBC News reports'..... has there not been some sort of controvosy recently about the errors in BBC reporting with facts not being checked and the DG forced to resign? And some sort of official report publishe din the past week about errors and unsatisfactory reporting in the media? It got a brief mention somewhere. I went to hear Nick Robinson speak last Friday and he made a big point of how much background research he does in checking facts and sources.
So yes BBC good analogy - and you are still a lier for presenting someone else's facts/rubbish as your own. Oh btw, is it snowing everywhere in Scotland - or just the places you say it is.
-
Yes, good analogy there, 'when the BBC News reports'..... has there not been some sort of controvosy recently about the errors in BBC reporting with facts not being checked and the DG forced to resign? And some sort of official report publishe din the past week about errors and unsatisfactory reporting in the media? It got a brief mention somewhere. I went to hear Nick Robinson speak last Friday and he made a big point of how much background research he does in checking facts and sources.
So yes BBC good analogy - and you are still a lier for presenting someone else's facts/rubbish as your own. Oh btw, is it snowing everywhere in Scotland - or just the places you say it is.
You're a fine one to criticise the BBC for errors looking at your appalling grammar. I just hope History Today have someone to proof read the drivel you send them before it is published.
You criticise the BBC then praise Nick Robinson who works for the BBC! Unbelievable.
-
Mick. I am caught somewhere between finding you risible and pitiable. If you really, really believe what you type, then you deserve all our pity. Your constant insistence that your cut and paste jobs are the work of your photographic memory is either puerile dissembling bullshit, or the product of instability. I genuinely don't know which it is, but I've finally tired of it.
Whichever it is, you've finally tripped yourself up, because you claim that the same data was both the work of your own painstaking research, that took far too long to allow you to post it instantly, and the result of a photographic memory that allows you to recall what you have read at the drop of a hat.
What I don't understand is why you have to do this. Why you need to pretend to be a great intellect. If your modus operandi had simply been to copy and paste the opinions of others and to state, "I agree with this and here's why", that would have been fine. We could have had a proper discussion.
But you can't do that can you. You have to pass stuff off as your own. And you're so wrapped up in your Walter Mitty world (a world in which you won't even own up to your own alter ego) that you don't even realise that even if you WERE recalling stuff photographically, that is still plagiarism and not your own ideas.
The issue is nothing to do with what the level of the UK debt is. It is to do with that fact that you are unable to understand the basics of an adult discussion. It is to do with your constant approach of posting "facts" that are not facts, refusing to accept when those "facts" are demonstrated not to be facts and posting other people's opinions and swearing blind that they are yours. It's not just on this post Mick. You've been doing this as a standard approach since you started on this board. It is pointless discussing anything with someone with that approach.
As I say, if you TRULY believe that you are in the right on this, you desperately need help.
-
And a final PS, since you are still criticising other people's grammar when all else fails. It is "Pidgin" English, not "Pigeon".
I know. I know. It was a delibarate error made to catch people out. I know.
-
Where have I ever claimed that the same data was the work of my own painstaking research? I've never claimed this. You really do have a penchant for trying to twist my words.
Just apologise and all will be forgiven.
-
And a final PS, since you are still criticising other people's grammar when all else fails. It is "Pidgin" English, not "Pigeon".
I know. I know. It was a delibarate error made to catch people out. I know.
You're right, it was deliberate. At least you spotted my joke. No doubt the rest of them all missed it. That's OK. I don't mind laughing at my own jokes. By the way that wasn't a bad attempt at humour yourself. Well done. You have obviously been learning from the master.
-
Where have I ever claimed that the same data was the work of my own painstaking research? I've never claimed this. You really do have a penchant for trying to twist my words.
Just apologise and all will be forgiven.
The required information can be found from various sources. This is information that I was aware of but decided not to post it as it would have taken me quite a bit of time
Why would it have taken you quite a bit of time if you can instantly recall the data, the sources and even the formatting? I'd have thought it would have taken you less than 5 minutes to type that out from memory. I'll accept that it would have taken you a hell of a lot longer to collate the data yourself from "various sources". So, what did you do? Collate the data yourself? Or type it out from your photographic memory, formatting and all? You can't have both. So which one was it?
Whatever your wriggle this time Mick, I am truly, really tired of this now and I have far more important things to spend my time on. Feel free to continue. You've made yourself look daft enough as it is and I don't need to help you in the process any further.
-
Look, it's very simple. I was aware of the information but posting it would have been a painstaking process and would have taken a lot of time. I don't have as suspicious a mind as you, so posted the graph which I was prepared to accept at face value as it mirrored my earlier findings.
Subsequently you called me a liar because you couldn't find the original data. So I posted a simplified version of this data which I came across after, I repeat after I made the 900% claim. I only bothered to post it for your benefit to prove I wasn't lying and making it up!
Get a grip man. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill just because you want everyone to think I'm making it all up. You'd do better to argue against the points I make rather than resorting to puerile attacks on the messenger. This shows to anyone with an open mind that you have lost the debate. These are the actions of a desperate man who only seems to be bothered about maintaining his cult status amongst his gullible leftie friends. You're not bothered about the rights and wrongs of the debate.
-
You'd do better to argue against the points I make rather than resorting to puerile attacks on the messenger. This shows to anyone with an open mind that you have lost the debate. These are the actions of a desperate man who only seems to be bothered about maintaining his cult status amongst his gullible leftie friends. You're not bothered about the rights and wrongs of the debate.
If that isn't a perfect example of hypocracy in one paragraph - then I will pick any one of the other couple of dozen of your examples in this thread.
Poster have been giving example after example of why you and 'your' data and conclusions are wrong, and you just sail merrily on by ignoring them. My grammar is appaling because I am typing this as fast as possible - as you are not worth any more time than that.
-
Look, it's very simple. I was aware of the information but posting it would have been a painstaking process and would have taken a lot of time. I don't have as suspicious a mind as you, so posted the graph which I was prepared to accept at face value as it mirrored my earlier findings.
Subsequently you called me a liar because you couldn't find the original data. So I posted a simplified version of this data which I came across after, I repeat after I made the 900% claim. I only bothered to post it for your benefit to prove I wasn't lying and making it up!
Get a grip man. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill just because you want everyone to think I'm making it all up. You'd do better to argue against the points I make rather than resorting to puerile attacks on the messenger. This shows to anyone with an open mind that you have lost the debate. These are the actions of a desperate man who only seems to be bothered about maintaining his cult status amongst his gullible leftie friends. You're not bothered about the rights and wrongs of the debate.
Mick
For the record, I did not accuse you of lying on this issue. I accused you of gullibly repeating a lie. Which you have continued to do at length.
As for the numbers you posted mirroring that graph. Well aye. They added up to the same number. But they were composed of totally different numbers. That were mutually incompatible to the tune of £6 trillion. Both sets of data comprised figures presented as "facts" which turned out to be utterly unsubstantiated.
You really, really don't get it do you? The whole point is that we simply cannot trust anything you ever post. You post "facts" which are not facts. Constantly. Your posting of the numbers data today doesn't "prove" anything, because the data you posted today are incompatible with the graph you posted earlier. Are you incapable of processing that fact?
Pointing that out is not a clever-clever debating style. It is crucial. Fundamental. Because if a debate is not based on real, genuine facts, and genuine approaches to "proving" the veracity of arguments it is worthless. And since you inevitably fail to back up any of the "facts" you post, your arguments based on those "facts" are worthless.
I realise that you will not understand a word of this, but other readers will.
End. Finish. Done.
-
You know, if you imagine Mick's asinine rambling and bizarre circular arguments as a kind of Chris Morris/Stephen Colbert-esque skewering of right wing nutters, his posts actually become quite brilliant. Can't you imagine him appearing in a comedy sketch:
"Well, I came up with this graph which shows we are severely in debt. I know it's trustworthy because I copied it with my photographic memory. I propose we pull our creditors aside and quietly tell them we're not going to pay them back. The important part is to do it quietly, because if someone else twigs it won't work. While we do this, we can put all the old folks in a landfill somewhere. Then we can melt them down and use them to power machines like in The Matrix. Trust me, I know what I am talking about."
"You can't live your life in the history books" can be your catchphrase, Mick. Let me know how the comedy career goes. Keep this up and you'll make it big someday. Trust me. I know what I am talking about.
-
For the record, I did not accuse you of lying on this issue.
I'm gob-smacked! You accuse me of posting easily checkable lies and when I challenge you to prove this you come up with the 900% claim. Now you say you are not accusing me of being a liar on this issue when this is the issue you picked to prove I was a liar! Unbelievable.
Despite this I am still prepared to forgive you. Issue an abject apology and I will gracelessly accept it instantly.
-
Mick
Obtuse to the last. I'll repeat. I did not accuse you on this occasion of lying when you posted that data. I accused you if regularly posting "facts" which turn out to be lies. I don't think you do that deliberately. I think you are just incapable of distinguishing "fact" from polemic. So you post "facts" that turn out to be lies.
However, I did and do accuse you of habitually lying over your approach to just about everything else, from your "deliberate" grammatical mistakes to your approach to plagiarism. The last few posts in this thread regarding your source material have been a textbook example.
-
mjdgreg
Obtuse to the last. I'll repeat. I did not accuse you on this occasion of lying when you posted that data. I accused you if regularly posting "facts" which turn out to be lies. I don't think you do that deliberately. I think you are just incapable of distinguishing "fact" from polemic. So you post "facts" that turn out to be lies.
I don't think Haver Analytics and Morgan Stanley would be very impressed with you saying their graph is a lie. You yourself said that many leading economists disagreed with their findings. For them to disagree with their findings then they must have thought the graph was real and not made up by some right wing website.
It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with findings of research, but to say it is a lie is going way too far. Then to use this as evidence that I am a liar is off the scale. I even stated I was happy to go along with 507% (your evidence) as once you are so heavily indebted it doesn't make any difference what the true actual figures are.
Above 900% or above 500% it is all academic. This is because I am a big picture sort of person whereas you are a small picture sort of person who will argue the toss over a 900% graph when you yourself agree it should be 507%. At 507% we are still finished as an economy so 900% whether it is fact or not is irrelevant.
To make such a mountain out of a molehill on this issue has been totally ridiculous. You'd have been far better pulling the statistics apart (your 507% data) and making the case why at this level of debt we would still be OK as an economy.
You didn't. You resorted to calling me a liar instead of engaging in intelligent debate. I think this is because you knew that I had finally totally exposed your ludicrous arguments to the point where even your hard-core leftie friends secretly had lost faith in your views.
You have obviously found this very hard to deal with. Don't be too hard on yourself. I am a force of nature and I don't think there is anybody out there who could take me on in a debate and win. You fought valiantly and I respect you for that. You did your best but it was never going to be good enough. At least you now seem to have realised this fact.
Game set and match.
-
Christ up above Mick, I think I've fallen through a crack in the space-time continuum and emerged in a parallel Universe where the laws of logic no longer apply.
Let me precis for you what has happened in this discussion. In simple words that you can follow. Because it is a textbook example of why you are totally lacking in any logic and rigour when you post your "facts" and opinions.
1) You claimed that we were doomed - doomed ah tell thi - because our total debt was at Weimar Republic levels.
2) To support this, you posted a graph from a website that thinks we're being taken over by a socialist revolution.
3) The graph has the words "Source: Morgan Stanley Haver Analytics" on it.
4) I said that I would be prepared to have a rational discussion about that graph if you could find out how it had been compiled.
5) The reason for that was that the data on that graph was wildly different (by about £6trillon) from any data published anywhere else on the total UK debt.
6) I was particularly interested in finding out why Morgan Stanley had the UK total debt very much higher than other sources claim it to be, but none of the other countries' debt was correspondingly higher.
7) That suggested that either a) there was something worringly unique about the UK's situation or b) the data couldn't be trusted.
8) In the light of the thread I posted on the Iran nuclear bomb research, I take the line of healthy skepticism that, when I see something way out of line with the usual concensus, posted on a site that has a very particular political line to peddle, I doubt its accuracy unless I see how it has been compiled.
9) So I went looking for the original data. I couldn't find it. Neither could several other people who discuss this graph on other website.
10) That left me thinking that the source of the graph was rather dubious.
11) So I invited you to show me where it came from.
12) You found a set of data totting up various bits and pieces data to come up to more or less the same total value.
13) You claimed that this came from "various sources" but interestingly it had precisely the same formatting as one particular source, the moneyweek.com website.
14) I pointed out that the data in your/moneyweek list could not possibly be the same as the data on the "Morgan Stanley" graph, because the total Govt debt and total Financial Sector debt levels were wildly out of line - to the tune of about £6trillion.
15) You then say that the 900% debt level is irrelevant anyway.
16) Despite, at the start of the discussion, having said that "When all of Britain’s unfunded obligations such as public sector pensions are included, our debts swell to 900% of our economy. When this is all added up we owe ten times what the economy is worth."
(Another quote that comes pretty much verbatim from the moneyweek.com site http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/uk/end-of-britain-uk-government-debt-spending-interest-rates
17) That moneyweek article by the way is one where they have the express intention of scaring the living shit out of people so that they will subscribe to the moneyweek investment guide in an effort to save themselves in the wreckage.
18) As usual, you quote this sort of shit verbatim believing that it "proves" your argument.
You see why I hold you in contempt Mick?
You post "facts" that turn out not to be facts.
When you are confronted by this, you lie about where you find information that you claim "proves" your facts.
When you are faced down on this, you then say "Ah well, THAT fact doesn't matter anyway, what about THIS fact?"
And all the way through, you plagiarise. The very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
You don't realise that even if your fabled photographic memory was the reason for your instant and perfect recall of information, repeating what someone else has written and passing it off as your own is still plagiarism.
And you are actually THE most dishonest type of plagiariser. When you first started doing it, you simply cut and pasted entire chunks of text. When you were pulled up on this, you went into the mode that the most devious plagiarisers do - copy and paste large sections, then change a few words in the hope that it won't show up in a search. Academia has been dealing with this sort of intellectual dishonest for years. They boot people out of University with no appeal if they are caught doing that, because it perverts the entire system of intellectual discourse.
And you don't even plagiarise from reputable sources - just from ones that have a particular interest in getting everyone to believe that we are doomed - you consider no information or argument whatsoever that goes against that line.[/li]
-
I wonder what Bob Diamond thinks.
-
Look Billy. I'm sure that report with that graph is out there somewhere. Why would leading economists dispute its findings if they didn't have the original source themselves? They've obviously got the time to check the validity of claims (like you seem to have) but the ordinary bloke in the street (like me) has to prioritise their lives and accept second-hand information. We haven't got time to waste on finding original sources and when the second-hand sources are reputable there is no need for this anyway.
So do the decent thing and issue me with an abject apology. I'll accept it and we can try and move on and forget about this unsavoury incident.
-
Mick.
Did you read that post about the AP and the Iran nuclear bomb research?
"Reputable second hand sources"?
Aye, like Smashabana.com?
What the "reputable second hand sources" have done Mick, is either in total ignorance, repeat the graph assuming it were true (like the Washington Post and CBS did with that Iran graph), or, like MoneyWeek, try to find data to make the numbers on that graph work, but find WRONG data.
I gave you a challenge Mick, to find out where the data came from - what information it was based on that made it out of line with ANY other information out there by a cool £6trillion. You were unable to do it. Because the information is NOT out there. it doesn't exist.
YOU Mick were the one who was pissing his pants telling us that we had a worse debt than Weimar Germany, and YOU were the one who posted the "evidence" to back up that wild claim. Since then, the ball has been in your court. It's still there. It'll remain there until you accept that you have (again) posted something that you can't back-up.
-
Right, that's it. I'm going to find that report if it kills me. I'll post again as soon as I find it.
-
Right, I've found it. That didn't take long. I await your abject apology.
Right, you need to put FX Outlook - Morgan Stanley into Google. You will then find a pdf file that you can download. Go to page 26 and there you will find the graph in the report.
Game set and match.
-
Morgan Stanley???
A company played a large part in causing the world banking crises in the first place, needing that lost $1billion in tha last quarter and have such reliable forecasts including on the first page of that report
£ to USD 1.5 - sell for target 1.4 (its currently 1.6, you would have lost out big time)
not to mention their current embarrassment
For Morgan Stanley, one of the country’s premier investment banks, landing Facebook’s eagerly awaited initial public offering was one of the biggest banking coups in almost a decade. A successful debut would most likely have cemented the bank’s position as the dominant force in technology I.P.O.s. But Morgan Stanley now faces questions about its role in the events surrounding Facebook’s disappointing debut as a publicly traded company on May 18, 2012.
In the days before the company went public, Facebook and Morgan Stanley bankers decided they had enough demand and interest for Facebook to justify an offering price of $38 a share.
But when Facebook began trading on May 18, its shares barely budged — closing at $38.23, just 0.6 percent above the I.P.O. price — and they have been falling ever since. On its third day of trading, the stock closed at $31, more than 18 percent below its offering price.
Now the continued struggles of Facebook’s I.P.O. have turned up the heat on Morgan Stanley, which has been criticized by rival bankers and investors for pricing the stock too high and selling too many shares to the public. What was supposed to be the bank’s crowning achievement is turning out to be a big embarrassment, raising broader questions from regulators about the I.P.O. process.
Not a company I would put too much faith in if I were you, hope you haven't got too much money tied up with them.
-
Right, I've found it. That didn't take long. I await your abject apology.
Right, you need to put FX Outlook - Morgan Stanley into Google. You will then find a pdf file that you can download. Go to page 26 and there you will find the graph in the report.
Game set and match.
All I can see a pretty graph. It doesn't say whether it's based on actual facts, or is a guesstimate projection like the rest of the report. Nor does it say where the figures come from, not even in an appendix. The blurb next to it doesn't even seem to refer to it much, if at all.
Do you know the answers to these questions? Because I can't find them in that document.
-
Get a f-------g grip. That report is laden with data about the UK and world economy. According to Billy the graph was a lie. It isn't. I await abject apologies from all of you.
-
mjdgreg.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you mjdgreg?
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
I believe I have satisfied your requirements. I suspect I'll be waiting a while for your abject apology. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I don't get one. No doubt you'll find some weasel words to justify yourself. Unfortunately your post above does not allow any wriggle room. Get on with it man and save what little is left of your battered credibillyty.
-
Mick
Well done on catching up. I saw that report 6 days ago at the start of this farrago.
As Glyn points out, there is no information on the source data. In fact, after labelling it "Exhibit 1" in a section in "deleveraging", they do not mention where the data in the graph came from (or what in earth it has to do with their discussion about deleveraging, come to that). In fact, nowhere in the entire document is any mention whatsoever made of that graph, the data presented on it, where it came from or what the implications are of it being £6 trillion out if line with any other assessment if our debt. It's presence in that report doesn't give MORE confidence in its accuracy Mick. It looks like a mistake in an undergraduate report.
So, as I say. When I see data that is wildly out of line with anything that anyone, anywhere in the rest of the world is saying, and when I see that data unsubstantiated, I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
Now. If you can find on what they are basing their assertions that the financial sector debt is £6trillion greater than ANYONE else is saying, I will apologise profusely.
In the absence of that, I will continue to say that you are gullibly peddling a lie. Because if it isn't backed up, that is what it is, whether it is published by Morgan Stanley or not.
I'll ask you again.
-
I await abject apologies from all of you.
We all still await your 'astonishing evidence'. Looks like we're all going to have a long wait.
-
mjdgreg
Well done on catching up. I saw that report 6 days ago at the start of this farrago.
As Glyn points out, there is no information on the source data. In fact, after labelling it "Exhibit 1" in a section in "deleveraging", they do not mention where the data in the graph came from (or what in earth it has to do with their discussion about deleveraging, come to that). In fact, nowhere in the entire document is any mention whatsoever made of that graph, the data presented on it, where it came from or what the implications are of it being £6 trillion out if line with any other assessment if our debt. It's presence in that report doesn't give MORE confidence in its accuracy mjdgreg. It looks like a mistake in an undergraduate report.
So, as I say. When I see data that is wildly out of line with anything that anyone, anywhere in the rest of the world is saying, and when I see that data unsubstantiated, I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
Now. If you can find on what they are basing their assertions that the financial sector debt is £6trillion greater than ANYONE else is saying, I will apologise profusely.
In the absence of that, I will continue to say that you are gullibly peddling a lie. Because if it isn't backed up, that is what it is, whether it is published by Morgan Stanley or not.
I'll ask you again.
I didn't think you could embarrass yourself any further, but unbelievably you have managed to do so. There is no point discussing this graph any more with you. Any objective reader of these last few posts will see that I have provided you with exactly what you wanted. I'll let them make up their minds about the rights and wrongs of the issue.
Here's a reminder of what you said as you conveniently seem to have forgotten. You have been damned by your own words:
mjdgreg.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you mjdgreg?
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
-
There is no point discussing this graph any more with you.
Of course there's no point. Because you don't know what it says or where it's data comes from, so now you want to stop talking about it.
-
It's very simple. Did I show where the report was that the graph came from as requested? A yes or no will do.
-
Mick
Do you understand the meaning of the word "original"?
What you have done is point me to a report I was fully aware of, which posts exactly the same graph with no reference whatsoever to explain where the ORIGINAL data came from.
Let me expand. That Morgan Stanley graph contains what appears to be quite astonishing (!) data. They do not mention it AT ALL in the text. Not once. Not at all. They present information that claims that our debt is SIX TRILLION POUNDS greater than ANYONE else says. They just do that as an incidental issue in passing. Then they don't comment on it AT ALL.
Me, if one of my staff presented such astonishing data in a report that was going to go public, I'd ask:"Can we substantiate this? How have you calculated those numbers? Because no one is going to believe it unless we CAN substantiate it. Because that is the sort of information which, if true, will have an utterly devastating, world-changing effect."
You, apparently, just take it at face value and see nothing strange about it at all.
And then, after presenting this astonishing evidence(!) Morgan Stanley never mention it again, although countless right-wing blogs do.
Doesn't that strike you as just a little odd? Just a little?
-
Yes you did. And thanks to you showing us it underlined for all of us how much BS it is. Many thanks.
If you don't believe me, answer me one extremely simple but very important question about the 'data' on that graph...what time period is it meant to represent? This year? Last year? Next year? A number of years? Or one specific moment in time (in which case, when)? For some reason. Morgan Stanley seem have left that very important piece of information out...
-
Yes you did. And thanks to you showing us it underlined for all of us how much BS it is. Many thanks.
If you don't believe me, answer me one extremely simple but very important question about the 'data' on that graph...what time period is it meant to represent? This year? Last year? Next year? A number of years? Or one specific moment in time (in which case, when)? For some reason. Morgan Stanley seem have left that very important piece of information out...
Thank you. I'm quite happy to have a debate about whether the report is BS or not. I've already said I took the graph at face value. If there are issues with the graph then again I'm quite happy to debate them. You ask some valid questions. I don't know the answers.
All I do know is that I did what Billy requested, and he is making himself look unbelievably stupid by using weasel words and going off at a tangent in an attempt to justify not issuing an abject apology.
One of you needs to PM him to let him know this. The longer this goes on the more battered his already ruined credibillyty will become. He's inflicting massive damage on his reputation and I take no pleasure in watching this unfold. For all our disagreements and the abuse he hurls at me I do have respect for him but it is quickly evaporating.
-
I've already said I took the graph at face value. If there are issues with the graph then again I'm quite happy to debate them. You ask some valid questions. I don't know the answers.
I think your credibility just went down the plughole.
-
I think your credibility just went down the plughole.
I think you'll find my reputation has been enhanced. It may surprise you to know but if the graph is BS and anybody can prove it then I am quite happy to concede that point. I'm not the one that keeps on banging on about it. In fact I'm quite happy not to discuss it again as at 507% we are dead any way. I'm quite happy to accept Billy's claim that our debt is 507% as I've said earlier.
What is the problem with you people? You all seem intent of making yourselves look incredibilly pedantic and stupid. Get a grip and stop being so silly.
-
As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley
-
As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley
It probably has n`t been missed, rather ignored, because it does n`t suit Micks agenda
-
I think your credibility just went down the plughole.
I think you'll find my reputation has been enhanced. It may surprise you to know but if the graph is BS and anybody can prove it then I am quite happy to concede that point. I'm not the one that keeps on banging on about it. In fact I'm quite happy not to discuss it again as at 507% we are dead any way. I'm quite happy to accept Billy's claim that our debt is 507% as I've said earlier.
What is the problem with you people? You all seem intent of making yourselves look incredibilly pedantic and stupid. Get a grip and stop being so silly.
The more you shovel it on the more transparent you become.
-
As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.
Your post has been ignored because nobody could care less what you think about Morgan Stanley. Now, if you'd said how you would sort out the nation's finances that might have been a bit more interesting. Unlike me, this task is obviously beyond you.
-
The more you shovel it on the more transparent you become.
I can see straight through you.
-
mjdgreg.
I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim.
I think most people are pretty clear you were calling me a liar.
I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.
Are you feeling a bit foolish now?
Show us where the original source is
I have done.
and I will 100% retract my accusations.
I'm still waiting.
So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source.
I have!
You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.
I have!
Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.
It only took me 2 minutes to find it. You must try harder in future.
I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you mjdgreg?
You're right I can find it, no problem. No I didn't check the veracity because unlike you I am a trusting person and don't have an overly suspicious mind. I also have a life to get on with.
Prove it to us. Show us where the original data or report is.
I have!
My apology is waiting for you
.
Where is it then?
I suspect it'll be waiting a while.
Did you mean to say 'I suspect you'll be waiting a while.'
-
Mick
I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?
Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.
EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.
EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.
-
As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.
Your post has been ignored because nobody could care less what you think about Morgan Stanley. Now, if you'd said how you would sort out the nation's finances that might have been a bit more interesting. Unlike me, this task is obviously beyond you.
From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.
Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?
-
mjdgreg
I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?
Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.
EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.
EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.
What a surprise. Moving the goal posts again. Originally you ask for the source of the graph and say you will issue an apology. When I give you the source of the graph you don't issue an apology and then say you want the source of the data. Weasel words.
You've made yourself look a right numptie over this. No doubt if I gave you the data you'd want to know the names and addresses of the researchers and what their qualifications were. What a plonker.
-
From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.
Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?
Unlike some people on here I do make apologies. I apologise for being rude and admit my hypocrisy. I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings.
-
mjdgreg
I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?
Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.
EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.
EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.
What a surprise. Moving the goal posts again. Originally you ask for the source of the graph and say you will issue an apology. When I give you the source of the graph you don't issue an apology and then say you want the source of the data. Weasel words.
You've made yourself look a right numptie over this. No doubt if I gave you the data you'd want to know the names and addresses of the researchers and what their qualifications were. What a plonker.
Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!
-
From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.
Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?
Unlike some people on here I do make apologies. I apologise for being rude and admit my hypocrisy. I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Thank you and that is most gracious of you. It would be good if we could (all) keep our differences to the subject rather than the poster.
-
Mick
What I said when you first presented that graph was:
Here's a challenge for you. Go and dig out the ORIGINAL report that presented that Morgan Stanley graph.
I've now lost count of the number of times you have demonstrated your ignorance of the word "original".
Let me make it simpler for you because you clearly haven't the first idea what I am talking about.
That report is NOT the original source of that graph. It shows a graph with some coloured bars on it, gives a "source" as "Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics" and then does not discuss anything whatsoever about the graph.
That is not an original source (or if it is, it is meaningless). An original source would explain where the data came from that went into the graph, how it had been analysed etc. Without that sort of information, the graph is meaningless. I assume that a company as renown as MS would have presented their rationale somewhere. Surely they wouldn't assume that they could present a nice coloured graph suggesting that our debt was six trillion quid bigger than everyone else believes, and that anyone would be so suggestible as to just simply accept it as fact without any justification? No-one would be as gullible as that would they?
I've just twigged. You're not being deliberately evasive are you? You really don't understand the difference between a) published information and b) published information that is properly explained, justified and referenced. You really don't get it do you?
Your approach is that you will believe something if
a) it is published somewhere
b) it says what you want to hear.
If it meets those criteria, you will accept it. If it fails the second, you will reject it.
Your posts all now suddenly make perfect sense. My apologies for accusing you of being deliberately obfuscatory.
-
Thats a very poor excuse for an apology Billy I expected better from you.
-
Thank you and that is most gracious of you. It would be good if we could (all) keep our differences to the subject rather than the poster.
I agree and will try harder to be more civil.
-
Thats a very poor excuse for an apology Billy I expected better from you.
I see the relations have been called in!
-
Billy, you said that the graph was a lie. The OED definition of a lie is as follows:
To lie = to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.
Because I referred to the graph you then imply therefore that I am a liar.
You yourself have stated that you cannot find the data that explains how the graph was made up. So therefore if you haven't got this information how do you then decide the graph is a lie and was made up with the intention to deceive?
You've made some serious assumptions there, and in my opinion you've done this because the graph makes your argument look very weak. Now, I will admit that I took the graph at face value and am prepared to take its findings with a pinch of salt if there is evidence to the contrary. In other words I have an open mind on it.
You on the other hand say it is a lie and therefore I am a liar. That makes you look extremely silly because you have based this opinion on no data whatsoever because it can't be found. For someone who prides himself on doing research before coming to conclusions you have just shot yourself in the foot big time.
The data isn't out there. Haver Analytics (closely linked to Morgan Stanley) have removed it from their website. Don't ask me why. So the Morgan Stanley report I gave you is as good as it gets. I proved that the graph was real. It did have data to back it up but this has mysteriously disappeared.
So just apologise. You are asking the impossible (which no doubt you've known all along since I produced the report with the graph in it) by asking for me to now also produce the data that backs up the graph. You only wanted the report with the graph in it. I gave you that. Then you decided not to apologise and used the fact that the data has disappeared to try to wriggle out of you responsibilities. Pathetic really and I fear you will be judged accordingly.
-
Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!
You are being very silly. I issue you with a challenge. Please provide ten examples of where my facts have been rubbished. Shouldn't be too difficult as I have posted hundreds of facts. I'll give you 10 days to sort it. You can do them one at a time if you wish. If you fail, then I expect an abject apology. It will be gracelessly accepted immediately. If you succeed, I will offer you an abject apology.
-
Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!
You are being very silly. I issue you with a challenge. Please provide ten examples of where my facts have been rubbished. Shouldn't be too difficult as I have posted hundreds of facts. I'll give you 10 days to sort it. You can do them one at a time if you wish. If you fail, then I expect an abject apology. It will be gracelessly accepted immediately. If you succeed, I will offer you an abject apology.
You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!
-
You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!
You sound very confident that you will have the ten examples before your time is up. I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. I'm already getting ready to accept your apology.
-
Right Mick
Here's the deal. I am utterly bereft of ideas on how to communicate with you. You have, through ignorance or wilfull argumentativeness, decided to ignore what I was asking you and the central lesson therein - that simply regurgitating "facts" that cannot be substantiated destroys any concept of meaningful discussion. You have convinced yourself that you have proved something by showing a set of coloured lines in a graph. You appear to have not the slightest interest in why that information is wildly, grossly out of line with anything else published anywhere else in the world. You post it and build an argument around it because it suits you to do so.
If that is the standard of "proof" that you work by, it's pointless talking to you. I've told you before that I would sack you on the spot if you worked for me with an attitude like that.
So. The deal. I'm taking a vow not to reply to anything else you post. Anything I post will not be directed at you, and you have no need to feel a need to reply to it. We know what your approach to facts and arguments are, so there's no point in taking issue with it.
-
Billy, you said that the graph was a lie. The OED definition of a lie is as follows:
To lie = to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.
Because I referred to the graph you then imply therefore that I am a liar.
All cats have four legs.
Dogs have four legs.
Therefore all dogs are cats.
-
Right mjdgreg
Here's the deal. I am utterly bereft of ideas on how to communicate with you. You have, through ignorance or wilfull argumentativeness, decided to ignore what I was asking you
What a load of rubbish. I gave you the graph. I gave you the report. I told you the data has been removed from the Haver Analytics website. I stated that if the graph is dodgy I will accept that. I stated I would accept your version of events that the debt is 507%. I could go on. You are so unreasonable it is untrue.
and the central lesson therein - that simply regurgitating "facts" that cannot be substantiated destroys any concept of meaningful discussion.
This graph was your best attempt to prove that I was a liar. You failed abysmally. You did not then provide any other lies despite me prompting you. Says it all.
You have convinced yourself that you have proved something by showing a set of coloured lines in a graph. You appear to have not the slightest interest in why that information is wildly, grossly out of line with anything else published anywhere else in the world. You post it and build an argument around it because it suits you to do so.
You obviously are incapable of reading my posts properly. I've stated more than once that if the graph is dodgy then I will accept that.
If that is the standard of "proof" that you work by, it's pointless talking to you. I've told you before that I would sack you on the spot if you worked for me with an attitude like that.
No need to worry. I'd never work for someone who is as anal as you. You can't see the wood for the trees and with an outlook like that it is only a matter of time before your business fails.
So. The deal. I'm taking a vow not to reply to anything else you post. Anything I post will not be directed at you, and you have no need to feel a need to reply to it.
Hallelujah!!! That is the best thing I've ever seen you post. You really make my piss boil with your uncompromising hard left ludicrous views and it will be an absolute pleasure never having to batter you again. My work is done.
-
You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!
You sound very confident that you will have the ten examples before your time is up. I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. I'm already getting ready to accept your apology.
Not even one example yet. You are running out of time. I hope you've got your apology prepared.
-
Right Filo, your time is up. Not even one example. I'm ready to accept your abject apology.