Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on October 17, 2013, 07:33:40 pm
-
With news of gas and electricity prices going up again I thought I'd start a thread to encourage those of you that have never changed supplier to change. I constantly change my supplier for the best deal and did a comparison with British Gas for gas and electric on their standard tariff with payment by posted bill.
If I had been on this 'standard' deal that many people are on because they haven't ever changed supplier then they would be paying 40% more than I currently pay. That equates to an extra £36 per month. A not insignificant amount.
With gas and electric bills having doubled after allowing for inflation over the last 10 years it makes sense to be a 'changer'. One word of warning though. Unless you switch to a fixed deal you may well find that you get caught out with a 9/10% increase very soon as not all the energy suppliers have increased their prices yet this time around.
So if you want to do a variable deal wait until the dust has settled and all companies are on a level playing field before you commit. I personally will be going for a fixed deal as prices are only ever going to go up by more than the rate of inflation for years to come.
-
A very patronising post. Do you think we're all stupid? Personally I change suppliers on a regular basis. Whenever one disappears or gets nicked, I move on to the next. Let me give you a bit of advice,always have one than more supplier.
-
Signed up to price promise April 2015 with British gas (other tariffs are available)
A few months back I have been paying more but now with this rise I am back in front so any other rises means iam even more in front
-
It must be in a mess When the PM og great britian tells all and sundry to
Change Supply company if you are with British gas.
bought a new flat screen tv out Here few weeks back and there was an offer in the shop Of 500kr back if we changed our electric Supply company.
Looked at all the small print and it was a far better deal we was paying into,so we took the offer Of money back
500kr is about £55 give or take
-
A very patronising post. Do you think we're all stupid? Personally I change suppliers on a regular basis. Whenever one disappears or gets nicked, I move on to the next. Let me give you a bit of advice,always have one than more supplier.
I'm afraid you're the one that is very patronising. I'll let the the other readers of the forum decide whether you are also stupid.
You obviously don't know that more than 6 people in 10 have never changed supplier in the 23 years since the energy industry was privatised so are paying through the nose. I was just trying to point out to some of these people that the savings on fuel bills can be quite significant by giving a practical real life example.
-
Signed up to price promise April 2015 with British gas (other tariffs are available)
A few months back I have been paying more but now with this rise I am back in front so any other rises means iam even more in front
Glad to hear it. I was looking to do the same thing with my current supplier but they would have wanted to charge me 25% more than I am currently paying! I used USwitch and found a company (First Utility) that were prepared to offer me the same deal with only a 5% increase. So it pays to shop around.
-
Mick
You say you change suppliers regularly, how often is that? Do you go for the cheapest fixed term deals or alternative standard ones, as I understand there are penalties involved in changing from the cheaper deals?
Thanks for your info btw.
-
I tend to fix for periods of 12 to 18 months. My current deal was a fix for 18 months so I've been quids in. This time I've gone for a 14 months fix which is 5% more than my current deal. This deal was due to end at the end of January 2014 but I've changed now before the 9/10% increase comes into effect. If you are currently into a fixed deal you need to check if there are any exit fees for leaving the deal early. I had to stay with my current supplier for 12 months after which I could change supplier with no exit fees.
My advice would be to fix for a reasonable period. Currently there are offers for fixes up until April 2015. Thats what I've gone for to mitigate the current hike in prices and to not suffer another similar rise in 12 months time. If you go on a variable tariff you are betting prices are going to go down. All the evidence points to the opposite happening.
-
Thanks darling, you know how to put a man in his place. Excuse me for my ignorance,I thought yoy were being ironic by crossing the Daily Mail money section and top tips from Viz. Anyway,what do yoy do when your dealer gets busted? Change suppliers? Or a secrte winter stash? If so,I'm looking into the posibility of becoming a squirrel this winter. Thanks for the tip.
-
You'll have to forgive me for not giving a coherent response to your post. I'm afraid I found most of it incomprehensible. I could offer some advice on what to do if your dealer gets busted though. I'd give up the drugs or try and find another dealer. I'd also refrain from posting if I was under the influence.
-
It must be in a mess When the PM og great britian tells all and sundry to
Change Supply company if you are with British gas.
bought a new flat screen tv out Here few weeks back and there was an offer in the shop Of 500kr back if we changed our electric Supply company.
Looked at all the small print and it was a far better deal we was paying into,so we took the offer Of money back
500kr is about £55 give or take
... which is about 7 pints a year according to this ?
http://www.pintprice.com/city.php?/Oslo/Norway/gbp.htm
Averages out at 18 pints of ale over here in "blighty" :scarf: :scarf: :scarf:
-
I'm in a bit of a quandary having just moved and not having anything to compare usage against
-
I've just switched in the last hour and fixed until 2015 to a lower price than I'm already paying. I used this site:-
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclub
Very much worth doing!
-
It must be in a mess When the PM og great britian tells all and sundry to
Change Supply company if you are with British gas.
bought a new flat screen tv out Here few weeks back and there was an offer in the shop Of 500kr back if we changed our electric Supply company.
Looked at all the small print and it was a far better deal we was paying into,so we took the offer Of money back
500kr is about £55 give or take
... which is about 7 pints a year according to this ?
http://www.pintprice.com/city.php?/Oslo/Norway/gbp.htm
Averages out at 18 pints of ale over here in "blighty" :scarf: :scarf: :scarf:
I have converted to muslim ,so drink dont come into my equation anymore sorry to say
-
It must be in a mess When the PM og great britian tells all and sundry to
Change Supply company if you are with British gas.
bought a new flat screen tv out Here few weeks back and there was an offer in the shop Of 500kr back if we changed our electric Supply company.
Looked at all the small print and it was a far better deal we was paying into,so we took the offer Of money back
500kr is about £55 give or take
... which is about 7 pints a year according to this ?
http://www.pintprice.com/city.php?/Oslo/Norway/gbp.htm
Averages out at 18 pints of ale over here in "blighty" :scarf: :scarf: :scarf:
I have converted to muslim ,so drink dont come into my equation anymore sorry to say
You are Cat Stevens and I claim my £5!
-
N Power has just announced it's pushing it's duel fuel bills up by more than 10% this morning.
The energy Market isn't a real competitive market, it's a cartel. They will all follow suit.
If you want to change and fix a cheaper bill, better do it now, I suspect the offers won't be around much longer.
-
Managed to change to First Utility
Big thanks to IC1967 for post and Jonnydog for link
-
I would recommend joining the Cheap Energy Club referred to earlier by johnnydog . Here is the link:
https://cheapenergyclub.moneysavingexpert.com/register
The advantages listed on the website are as follows:
1. Check you're on the cheapest deal
We'll do a full market comparison to check you're not overpaying on your current deal. If not great, if you are we'll help you switch.
2. Constantly monitor your tariff
Energy bills move all the time. Just because your tariff is cheapest now, doesn't mean it always will be. Both because yours may get more expensive and the competition's may get cheaper.
3. Alert you when it's time to switch again
When the time is right for you to switch based on your current tariff and preferences, we'll alert you and show you the best deals.
I agree with River Don. Get switched as soon as possible before the deals end.
-
I switched last night to a cheaper deal than what I'm paying now with British Gas...
TO NPOWER!!
Hopefully my application will be the lower rate rather then the rates published today following their hike. I've got 14 days as cooling off period, but as long as NPower stand by the prices when I made the application last night I'm fixed till April '15.
IC1967 - As you have some savvy in this area, will my tariff be at the rate of when I applied?
-
IC1967 - As you have some savvy in this area, will my tariff be at the rate of when I applied?
Yes it will be. You get the rate you agree to on the day you do the deal. In any case the announced price rise doesn't take effect until 23rd November so you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
In theory all the current rates will be available up until this date. However in practice the companies pull the best deals before this date and bring out new ones that aren't as good as what is currently on offer. You did right to change now. I would urge everyone else to do the same and save some money.
-
I'd also recommend checking out this link as you may be due free insulation if you are on certain benefits. At the very least we all probably know someone who could benefit and need a bit of help e.g. pensioners. The way fuel prices are going we all need to do our bit to stop the needless deaths of old folk due to a reluctance to heat their homes due to lack of money:
http://www.which.co.uk/energy/creating-an-energy-saving-home/guides/energy-grants/free-insulation-deals/
-
I wonder if the current price hikes are caused in part by red eds promise to freeze the prices IF he get in power.
The irony of course is that there is a cat in hells chance of him being elected!
-
I wonder if the current price hikes are caused in part by red eds promise to freeze the prices IF he get in power.
The irony of course is that there is a cat in hells chance of him being elected!
You could be on to something there. It just shows how economically illiterate the Labour party is if it thinks it can freeze prices and the suppliers won't hike them before and after the freeze to compensate.
Luckily the economy has turned a corner and the good news just keeps on coming for the Tories. Labour have got no chance of being elected now.
-
I wonder if the current price hikes are caused in part by red eds promise to freeze the prices IF he get in power.
The irony of course is that there is a cat in hells chance of him being elected!
You could be on to something there. It just shows how economically illiterate the Labour party is if it thinks it can freeze prices and the suppliers won't hike them before and after the freeze to compensate.
Luckily the economy has turned a corner and the good news just keeps on coming for the Tories. Labour have got no chance of being elected now.
Has the economy turned a corner yet?
Average wage rises are still running way below inflation. It's a funny sort of recovery when most people are still getting poorer.
-
Has the economy turned a corner yet?
Labour is looking less and less likely to win the election boosting business confidence. Unemployment is falling (not going up like Ed Balls said it would). There are more people in work than ever before. There have been far more private sector jobs created than ones lost in the bloated public sector. House prices are going up (not a good thing IMHO). I could go on.
-
Has the economy turned a corner yet?
Labour is looking less and less likely to win the election boosting business confidence. Unemployment is falling (not going up like Ed Balls said it would). There are more people in work than ever before. There have been far more private sector jobs created than ones lost in the bloated public sector. House prices are going up (not a good thing IMHO). I could go on.
I think Labour probably will still win because an incumbent government doesn't usually improve on it's vote and UKIP will screw them in key marginals.
Not that I think a Labour victory in the UK will amount to anymore than Hollandes victory in France.
The unemployment figures in the UK are suspect because of numerous factors including underemployment. The private sector would outstrip the public sector in employment since the public sector has been put on hold.
The housing boom is just that and so far its only really noticeable in the SE. It is not a good thing.
Please go on.
-
Please go on.
The deficit down by a third. Low interest rates. Exports doubled to China. Taxpayers’ money back from the banks, not going in. I could go on.
-
Please go on.
The deficit down by a third. Low interest rates. Exports doubled to China. Taxpayers’ money back from the banks, not going in. I could go on.
yes because they are having us over with a power station ;)
-
The price we pay for our gas stinks, and the electric is shocking.
-
Please go on.
The deficit down by a third. Low interest rates. Exports doubled to China. Taxpayers’ money back from the banks, not going in. I could go on.
The deficit is helped quite considerably by a bit of creative accounting and the sale of Royal Mail.
Interest rates have been low since before the coalition took over. They are stuck low, not just here but right across the west. There IS NOT much prospect of them rising, no matter who is in government.
Exports up to China? yes mainly through Jaguar Landrover I expect. A lone success story. Shame they are owned by Tata motors.
Money returned from banks? That is a contentious issue, I don't trust it for a minute, for instance they are still busy forming a bad bank out of the ruins of RBS right now. The banks are very, very adept at hiding their colossal losses. Do you trust the banks?
-
Do you trust the banks?
I certainly don't. We are all paying the price for Labour's love affair with them.
-
Do you trust the banks?
I certainly don't. We are all paying the price for Labour's love affair with them.
We've been through this before, it was the Tories that let the Banks off the leash by de regulation
-
The price we pay for our gas stinks, and the electric is shocking.
It's going to double at least over a relatively short period time, this nuclear deal indicates that.
I keep saying, the globe faces a serious energy crisis.
-
We've been through this before, it was the Tories that let the Banks off the leash by de regulation
Can you explain why then in 13 years Labour didn't tighten regulation. They did the complete opposite! Please explain why Gordon Brown (not a man to ever admit to any mistakes) admitted he made a "big mistake" over the handling of financial regulation in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2008.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013
To blame the Tories when they hadn't been in power for 13 years is laughable.
-
Mick
Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation and then we can talk. Otherwise, you're doing the usual thing that bairns do, which is to throw a strop and moan that the grown-ups weren't perfect.
The big picture is that Brown and everyone else was working in a paradigm where the market was king and politicians were supposed to keep out. We NOW know that was a recipe for a colossal disaster. Think about who brought the market-is-sacrosanct culture in.
Now, if you are complaining that New Labour was too much in thrall to the markets and not prepared to have the socialist balls to cobtrol the excesses of market and make it work for people, I fully agree with you. If you are NOT saying that, what exactly ARE you saying?
-
Vince Cable.
He predicted the recession and warned of a housing market crash. He was in favour of light touch regulation carried out the right way (as am I). Unfortunately Gordon put the FSA in charge of the banks which is a role any fool could see they were unfit for. A colossal, unforgivable mistake which meant the banks could do as they pleased with virtually no oversight from the regulators. In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable. He said "llight-touch regulation was not at the time wrong, in principle the credit crunch has made it clear that the way this regulation was carried out was entirely inadequate."
He also warned about excessive consumer debt. In November 2003 he challenged Gordon Brown about “the brutal truth” that “the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level.”
So you and Filo are far too simplistic in your statements. Light touch regulation of the banks can work if the correct regulatory framework is in place. This is where Gordon surpassed himself in financial illiteracy. He put the FSA in charge of the banks even though they were totally unsuited to the role. So no I don't agree de-regulation was the problem. The problem was the FSA.
-
Good old Dave. He's just announced that he is going to reduce energy bills by reducing the green levies brought in by red Ed. That's a far better way to tackle the problem than to con the public over a price freeze.
-
Mick
I'll say it again, because Mickv4.0 is obviously as incapable of reading as MickV1.0-3.0.
I said
Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation.
You give me an example of someone who said that the credit crunch made it clear that the regulatory system was unfit. Did he say that in the early-mid 2000s?
-
And there's me (and the rest of the world) thinking the world financial crises was the result of the crash of the American sub-prime mortgage market, when really it was the FSA all along. How silly we all look.
-
Wilts.
That and the unutterably cack-handed dealing of the Lehman's collapse by Bush and Hank Paulson. That is what turned a very serious problem into a once a century catastrophe.
And to think, there are still those who say that Brown should have let Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds etc go bust. Must be nice on their planet.
-
I'll say it again, because Mickv4.0 is obviously as incapable of reading as MickV1.0-3.0.
I said
Quote
Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation.
You give me an example of someone who said that the credit crunch made it clear that the regulatory system was unfit. Did he say that in the early-mid 2000s?
You need to read my post more carefully. I've got the relevant section here for you again:
In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable.
Anyway this is a moot point. There is no point in trying to offload the blame onto others. Labour were in power for 13 years. No matter what anyone else was saying they have to accept responsibility for their actions. Simple.
-
And to think, there are still those who say that Brown should have let Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds etc go bust.
Of course he should have let them go bust. Thats how capitalism works. They took the stupid risks they did because they knew he wouldn't let them go bust no matter how reckless they were. I'd love it if I could go into my local bookie and place some wild bets safe in the knowledge that Gordon would always bail me out if I lost.
-
Mick.
Eeh it's just like the old days int it? You say something that you are totally unable to back up, then you just keep repeating it.
I'll give you another chance. What did Cable say about banking regulation in the early/mid 2000s. Before the crash.
-
Eeh it's just like the old days int it? You say something that you are totally unable to back up, then you just keep repeating it.
I'll give you another chance. What did Cable say about banking regulation in the early/mid 2000s. Before the crash.
I've answered this question twice now. Please read my previous posts properly and stop obfuscating.
-
Mick.
I asked you to point out who had complained about banking regulation IN THE EARLY/MID 2000s
You quoted only one thing that Cable actually said on the topic of regulation. Read what you quoted from Cable about banking regulation.
"llight-touch regulation was not at the time wrong, in principle the credit crunch has made it clear that the way this regulation was carried out was entirely inadequate."
And don't reply until you have read it and thought about it. In particular, think hard about WHEN Cable must have said that.
Now, if you have a source to justify your comment that:
In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable
then tell us where that is. As it stands, that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Presumably yours, although your track record makes me doubt it. But show us the evidence that he said this.
-
Not that it really matters because I am not sure why or what it is I am actually arguing about, but here are a couple more quotes from St Vince showing how he predicted the whole thing. This from his wiki page backing up Mick on how Gordon Brown started the world financial crises and totally dismissing my theory it was a world crises in which we were just minor players:
In his book The Storm, Dr Cable writes, "The trigger for the current global financial crisis was the US mortgage market and, indeed, the scale of improvident and unscrupulous lending on that side of the Atlantic dwarfs into insignificance the escapades of our own banks." In an interview about the book, Cable was asked whether he had warned about this. Cable replied, "No, I didn’t. That’s quite true." He continued, "But you’re quite right, and one of the problems of being a British MP is that you do tend to get rather parochial and I haven’t been to the States for years and years, so I wouldn’t claim to have any feel for what’s been going on there".
And this from a New Statesman interview where they discuss Vince's new found conversion to tight banking regulation and his opposition to GB's finance policies:
On the contrary, in June 1999, speaking in a Commons debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, Cable endorsed "the liberal market"approach to the regulation of financial services. "No one," he said, "is arguing for an increasingly severe, more onerous and dirigiste system of regulation." Any regulation, he said, should be "done on a light-touch basis".
-
then tell us where that is. As it stands, that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Presumably yours, although your track record makes me doubt it. But show us the evidence that he said this.
You really are a distrustful soul. You're the one that keeps saying unsubstantiated things like the Tories underspent when last in government. Labour clearly disagreed with you at the time as I have already substantiated by letting people see the extract from their 1997 manifesto.
Anyway back to your pedantic point. If you check Hansard you will see I am being honest. You could also check Channel 4's FactCheck blog for further 'evidence'. Now please admit you disagreed with what was in the Labour manifesto and explain how they got it so badly wrong when you got it so totally right.
-
How dull are you my friend?
-
How dull are you my friend?
I think thats a bit harsh on Billy. He's not dull, he's just totally deluded and misguided. However, I detect he is starting to see the light.
-
How dull are you my friend?
I think thats a bit harsh on Mick. He's not dull, he's just totally deluded and misguided.
-
Unfortunately we followed the USA's way to deal with the financial meltdown, unlike Iceland who didnt bail the financial institutes and instead inprisoned the culprits. Who now have a thriving ecomomy that growing faster than USA and europe put together. They also paid off peoples loans and mortgages, for those buying properties in the boom years.
How refreshing it must be to live in a country who is prepared to do the right thing by its own Citizens and not its Finacial institutions.
I dont agree with teh once a century collapse posted earlier, we will see this 5-6-7 times in the next century each one worse than the last until the power is taken from the Financial Institutions and the spread of wealth is back to a level it was in the 1950's.
Unfortunately that will require a revolution, in the mean time we should instead put our energy into changing our gas & electric suppliers as Mr Cameron suggests because that will solve the problem. A problem started by 'Maggie's' drive to rid our seas of gas and oil in the 80's, to allow a small percentage of rich people get richer in the shorterm and all us plebs to pay ridicoulsy high fuel prices today. Which is exactly the opposite to what the Nowegians did and are now reaping the benefits.
Maybe we should be looking up instead of West when it comes to matters of our Country. We are far more alike to our Northern cousins than the Capatalist t**ts over the Atlantic.
-
I have to agree with you Keith about how Iceland handled the financial crisis. I hope you are going to read this Billy because it would appear that 2 of your favourite economists also think bailing out banks is not the way to go:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong.html
I particularly like the fact that they prosecuted their former prime minister. Something that should have happened to Gordon Brown.
-
Which is bizarelly something that Iceland did try to do, i.e. prosecute Gordon Brown.
He is thought of as being 'part of the problem' in Iceland, and won't be forgiven for his part in their downfall, although admitedly he didnt create it.
Theres some cracking books about the Icelandic Collapse, reading them almost seems unbelievable in the real world.
PS i spend alot of time in Iceland, hence the unhealthy interest
-
Keith
Iceland did exactly the right thing.
For Iceland.
Iceland has roughly the population of Doncaster. It had a grossly inflated banking sector, but the collapse of those banks was never going to pose a systemic problem for the rest of the world. So yes, they were right to let them go to the wall.
Now, think what would have happened to the world's economy if a country with far, far bigger financial institutions had allowed a big financial company to go bust.
-
Iceland did exactly the right thing.
For Iceland.
Iceland has roughly the population of Doncaster. It had a grossly inflated banking sector, but the collapse of those banks was never going to pose a systemic problem for the rest of the world. So yes, they were right to let them go to the wall.
Now, think what would have happened to the world's economy if a country with far, far bigger financial institutions had allowed a big financial company to go bust.
How do you respond to what your idols Mr Stiglitz and Krugman said then.
-
Mick.
You're asking what Krugman said about Iceland?
He wrote a post specially for you.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/22/icelands-saga-2/
Hit the link in that post.
Next.
-
I wasn't suggesting for one second it would have worked over here, purely inciting how nice it must be to live in a country that has A) the forethought 'Norway' or B) the tenacity 'Iceland' to do what the hell it wants. The damage was done here along time ago, irreperable damage that wont be solved by the present incumbent or the next, or th eone after that.
To be fair to Iceland, they did go it alone, against ALL advice from practically every finacial institute in the world, Infact our very own Goverment tried to wash our hands and Sanction Iceland for "their" financial irregularities for choosing to go down the path they did.
If nothing else Iceland, served to show that when the time does come, and we do throw out this capatalist entrenched goverment that it is possible to against the world and come up smelling of roses (Or sulphur in Iceland's case)
Infact in much the same way as the Chicago School of Econonmics in the 1950's blooded there ideas on relatively peaceful South American countries by turning them upside down politically, finacially, and Socially. Maybe Iceland is the start of the antidote to Milton Friedman, a fresh way of thinking, enpowering larger countries with 10's , 100's or even 1000's the GDP of Iceland to take a stance against the Finacial institutions that for all intents and purpose run our goverments.
Incidentely back to the original subject matter, the same institutions that benefit from the high energy prices we will be paying year after year. Something the Icelandic people will never have to worry about, in more ways than one.
-
Keith
I agree with you. Iceland showed their mettle in ignoring the received wisdom at the time. (Not sure I can agree about Norway being a role model though. A country with a population no bigger than Yorkshire and enormous oil revenues bloody well ought to be able to survive owt that a mini Depression can throw at it!)
But yep, I agree that there is a need for the world to throw off the Chicago School's economic concepts. They were the ones that brought us the unfettered free markets that ended up lining the pockets of the very rich and left the rest of us to pick up the tab when it went tits up.
The Chicago School foisted a revolution on us in the late 70s/early 80s. New Labour were playing by the world rules that Friedman had set. It's time for a counter-revolution.
-
Here you are Billy, extracts from the link I posted earlier:
Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes:
What Iceland did was right. It would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes:
What [Iceland's recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.
Krugman also says:
A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.
Krugman is right. Letting the banks go bust – instead of perpetually bailing them out – is the right way to go.
Seems to me that they both think other countries could learn from Iceland by letting troubled banks go bust. Not quite your point of view despite your untold admiration for both economists.
-
Mick
Have you ever realised that in the real world, there are more than 1 dimension?
Krugman and Stiglitz both say that Iceland dealt with their problems correctly. YOU interpret that as them saying that EVERYONE should have dealt with their problems by letting banks go bust.
But Iceland is tiny by global standards. They can do things that don't tip the rest of the world into catastrophe.
Good for them. They had the balls to realise that and tough it out. Just as Krugman and Stiglitz said they should.
That says nothing about what countries bigger than Doncaster should do. Although YOU obviously think it does.
So, come on then. As I asked earlier, what do you think would have happened if countries with larger financial sectors had allowed major financial organisations to go bust.
-
What [Iceland's recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.
By the way Mick. What did Krugman say in that gap that you replaced with ellipses? And before the quote?
Because quoting something entirely out of context is what t**ts who can't craft a sensible argument do.
Let me give you an example.
If I say, "Mick, I really like you. You are an intelligent man. Some people think you are a thick Kitson but I don't" and you quote me as saying, "Mick...I...think you're a thick Kitson," then you'd be misrepresenting me, no?
-
So, come on then. As I asked earlier, what do you think would have happened if countries with larger financial sectors had allowed major financial organisations to go bust.
Current and future generations of taxpayers would not have had to foot the bill. Bad banks would have gone to the wall allowing the good banks to pick up the pieces and to move forward in a constructive manner. The banking sector would then behave more responsibly in future and avoid taking silly risks because they would know there would be consequences. There may also have been a world wide depression that would have brought people to their senses and countries would then have started to live within their means meaning a far better world for us all long term.
-
So, letting a major financial organisation go bust would have been the right thing to do Mick?
Right?
-
I know I've joined this debate a bit late ,but just thought I'd add a side note. My mum's gone to Iceland. Don't know why.
-
There may also have been a world wide depression that would have brought people to their senses and countries would then have started to live within their means meaning a far better world for us all long term.
I missed this comment last night Mick
You know what? Something special just happened. For the first time in 2+ years, you just made me laugh out loud. That's a cracker.
-
So, letting a major financial organisation go bust would have been the right thing to do Mick?
Right?
I do wish you'd get to the point quicker. You don't half draw things out. I know you are constantly trying to trip me up. Well i've got nothing to hide and am quite happy to express my views whether you think you are being clever by laying traps for me or not.
I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence would say I've already answered that question, but just for you Billy, just so you can feel I've walked into your cunning trap I'll answer yet again. Yes. There. Are you now chortling to yourself?
-
By the way. What did Krugman say in that gap that you replaced with ellipses? And before the quote?
Because quoting something entirely out of context is what t**ts who can't craft a sensible argument do.
Let me give you an example.
If I say, " I really like you. You are an intelligent man. Some people think you are a thick Kitson but I don't" and you quote me as saying, "I...think you're a thick Kitson," then you'd be misrepresenting me, no?
I think you'll find if you check the link I didn't remove any ellipses. I copied the statement straight from the website. What about Mr Stiglitz? You conveniently totally ignore what he said.
-
OK...so you copied something straight from a website. There's a surprise.
So. What do YOU think the context of what Krugman is saying was? Do you think that what he wrote around that quote that the Washington Post selected might be important? Do you?
Of course not. Because you don't do detail, do you Mick. You troll about looking for quotes that you think support your world view. Like the quote that you posted from Vince Cable to "prove" that he had foreseen that our banking regulation was defective. Whereas in fact,that quote was made AFTER the banking crash. Which was obvious to anyone who bothered to read it, but apparently not to you Mick.
HERE is the link to what Krugman himself actually said about Iceland. Not the selective quote that has been bandied around in right wing papers and by useful idiots like you.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/the-times-does-iceland/?_r=0
He said:
"I guess I should say some more about the relevance of the Icelandic sort-of miracle. For the most part, Iceland’s lesson is relevant to countries that experienced big capital inflows followed by a sudden stop — that is, the European periphery, not the US or the UK. What it demonstrated was the usefulness of devaluation (and therefore of having your own currency), and the case for temporary capital controls in an emergency. Also the case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses."
He is clearly talking about the very specific case of Iceland and a few other smaller, peripheral countries who had specific banking problems. He overtly and clearly NOT saying that countries like the USA and UK should have let their banks go bust. Because we know what happens when countries with systemically important financial institutions do that. Because THAT is what made the 08 crash such a catastrophe, when Hank Paulson let Lehman's go bust. The resutl was that the world financial system froze for a month and the entire developed world was tipped into the biggest economic recession in 80 years. To you, apparently, that would be just a little inconvenience to teach us a lesson. I don;t give a f**k what you think about it to be honest.
Anyway, back to your continuing education on how to be a grown up. You could have found that quote in 10 seconds by typing...let's have a think.."Krugman" and Iceland" into Google. But no. You read what the f**k you want to read and regurgitate it.
As for Stiglitz, I don't understand what you are talking about. What evidence do you have that he is an "idol" of mine, other than your own imagination? So he thinks that banks around the world shouldn't have been bailed out. That's his prerogative.
But, since you asked, I gave my piece on this nearly three years ago.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=141711.msg142574#msg142574
Now. I've got more to do than continue to f*** around dealing with you at your most stupendously obtuse. You will not read anything that I post on here so there is no f***ing point.
-
OK...so you copied something straight from a website. There's a surprise.
Wrong yet again. I posted the link.