Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on October 26, 2013, 04:16:04 pm
-
Plan A is definitely working. Well done George for sticking to your guns despite all the doom mongers telling you to go to Plan B. What was it Ed balls said. If we don't change to Plan B we'll have no growth and 1 million more on the dole. He has categorically proved he hasn't a clue about the economy. Get him sacked Mr Milliband.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24668687
-
And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/28/george-osborne-switzerland-tax_n_4171336.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
-
And on that note, how much tax do the left's beloved unions pay? But afterall, the unions are all for the many aren't they (b*llocks they are).
-
I fully agree you work within the law and that is exactly what they have done. As for the accounting bits, well anything within the rules is fair game, outside of the rules it is not, simple as that.
-
BFYP
I think you are perhaps missing the big picture of what the historical role of the unions has been.
Unions didn't appear out of nowhere in order to satisfy themselves. They grew because ordinary working people were exploited by employers, who screwed as much work out of them as possible and became stupendously rich themselves. Unions' power grew from the early 20th century onwards. The result was an epochal change in the way that proceeds of growth were distributed among the population. In particular, the growth of union power led to a society in which we really WERE all in it together, and the excesses of the very richest were kept in check. This graph shows how the amount of money going to the very richest fell dramatically between the start of the 20th century and about 1980.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YqhmZZKMyeQ/UmhIPAp3NPI/AAAAAAAAAbA/0TAOfElIXnc/s1600/1percent.png)
Of course there were problems with the unions. Of course some wanted to wage class warfare rather than look after their members' interests. Of course some union bosses lined their own pockets. But the general picture was that whilst unions were strong, we were a fairer and more equitable society.
Since the unions were smashed in the 1980s, our economic performance has not changed in any way whatsoever. We still grow at about the same rate that we did in previous decades. But NOW, the proceeds of growth go disproportionately to the very wealthiest. Just like they did back in 1920. Because, just like then, the working people do not have the leverage to keep the wealthy in check any longer. Look at that graph. It shows it clearly.
So criticise the excesses of the unions if you will. I would, and do. But remember, that the actual results of destroying the power of the unions has not been to transform the British economy. It has been to transform where the income of the British economy goes to.
-
I am jumping on the Russell Brand Revolution bandwagon personally!! This country, in fact this world is screwed with the current bent/overpaid/useless pillocks that are currently in charge, who have no grasp on reality and only care about increasing their bank a/c's and looking after their spiffing chums!!
-
And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....
You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html
In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.
-
Plan A is definitely working. Well done George for sticking to your guns despite all the doom mongers telling you to go to Plan B. What was it Ed balls said. If we don't change to Plan B we'll have no growth and 1 million more on the dole. He has categorically proved he hasn't a clue about the economy. Get him sacked Mr Milliband.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24668687
He has gone with Plan B, what do you think the housing boom is?
A recovery is by no means assured yet either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10408986/New-doubts-about-recovery-as-retail-sales-stall.html
-
He has gone with Plan B, what do you think the housing boom is?
A recovery is by no means assured yet either.
I agree he has changed Plan A. He was always going to do so. He has not gone with Balls Plan B though which has been totally discredited.
I also think that the housing boom is totally misguided. Along with Labour's wild overspending the previous 'housing boom' contributed to our current economic woes.
-
RD.
And talking of housing booms, look what's happening at the top end of the London real estate market. I wonder how much of the increase in overall average house prices is being driven by the investment in luxury pads in London by Russian gangsters?
http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-buying-london-property-2013-10
-
I can't open that link BST but I know what you're getting at. London property is a bolt hole for international investors looking for a safe haven.
Take a walk around the Serpentine on a Sunday, there are throngs of Arabs parading around. They all have new apartments at One Hyde Park.
-
RD
The link has an advert initially but if you wait a few seconds it takes you to the article.
This is the key graph, from a Deutsche Bank survey
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/526e3532eab8ea075ce65a06-789-460/screen%20shot%202013-10-28%20at%205.55.48%20am.png)
The accompanying text in that article goes:
Deutsche Bank is out with a new report on the London housing market, and it includes this fascinating chart, which breaks down origin of purchaser by price range.
As you can see, at the low end, the dominant share of buyers is domestic UK buyers.
But at the high end, UK-based purchasers make up a tiny slice of the pie. A massive swath of the buyers is Eastern European or Russian. Chinese and Middle Eastern buyers are also quite significant. Chinese buyers actually make up a bigger purchase of the slightly cheaper ranges.
So basically, tons of Chinese buyers at the expensive levels, and then at the ultra-rich level it's a lot of Russian and Eastern European money.
-
And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....
You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html
In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.
Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?
I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.
-
Always nice when newspapers start commenting on the salaries that people receive.
For the record, here's is what Paul Dacre earns by shovelling lies down the throats of gullible fools.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/10/daily-mail-editor-paul-dacre-earns
-
Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?
I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.
I'm not just referring to that link, but to the general tenor of your posts. If you have a problem with people paying tax you should direct your ire at the politicians who are incapable of drafting legislation properly so loopholes can't be exploited. That's where the real problem lies.
Anyone who pays tax when it is avoidable is a fool. If you were running a business you'd soon be at a disadvantage to your competitors if you didn't play the game as well as if not better than them.
-
And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....
You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html
In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.
In my union Unite, the GS salary package is agreed by the Executive Committee, a committee made up entirely of ordinary members democratically elected. If the EC want to cut the GS salary by 90% then that is what would happen, so where is the problem? Compare £122k against the salary of a CEO of a large national business and its peanuts in reality.
Nice article though, picture of Brendon Barber, narrative underneath says its Len McCluskey. Not only misleading b*llocks but incorrect b*llocks.
-
Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?
I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.
I'm not just referring to that link, but to the general tenor of your posts. If you have a problem with people paying tax you should direct your ire at the politicians who are incapable of drafting legislation properly so loopholes can't be exploited. That's where the real problem lies.
Anyone who pays tax when it is avoidable is a fool. If you were running a business you'd soon be at a disadvantage to your competitors if you didn't play the game as well as if not better than them.
Mick
Just as usual, you are open your mouth and pouring out half-baked (scratch that - unbaked) drivel before engaging brain. The issue with people having money stashed in Swiss bank accounts and not paying tax on it is nothing to do with tax AVOIDANCE. It is to do with tax EVASION. The laws HAVE been passed. The people who have illegally put their money into Swiss bank accounts have flouted those laws.
Blaming politicians for that is like blaming politicians for not passing laws to prevent someone breaking into a house.
-
I'll have you know that I am on good terms with a tax inspector and it is common knowledge within HMRC that politicians are useless at drafting proper legislation. It's no use the politicians complaining about tax avoidance if it is done legally due to their own incompetence.
If someone is avoiding tax illegally then they should be pursued and made to pay it. That is not the job of the Tories who seem to be getting the blame from you and your friend. If its not being collected then whoever is supposed to collect it should be getting the blame. Exploiting loopholes is not illegal, its common sense.
-
I'll have you know that I am on good terms with a tax inspector and it is common knowledge within HMRC that politicians are useless at drafting proper legislation. It's no use the politicians complaining about tax avoidance if it is done legally due to their own incompetence.
If someone is avoiding tax illegally then they should be pursued and made to pay it. That is not the job of the Tories who seem to be getting the blame from you and your friend. If its not being collected then whoever is supposed to collect it should be getting the blame. Exploiting loopholes is not illegal, its common sense.
Is there not some contradiction in those two statements dear boy, or do you only place the blame on politicians for their departments and staff inefficiency if they are from one particular colour? Btw, I am not blaming them.....the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet is.
-
It is the Tories who have drastically reduced not only the number of HMRC Officers but also the money and resources available for them to do the job.
And the Minister responsible for running HMRC is David Gauke, who is, surprise surprise, a Tory.
-
Mick
Calm down chuckie egg. I haven't said a word about who is to blame for anything. I merely pointed out that your posts were reaching their usual quality standard.
Although, since you insist on bringing politics into the discussion, I'll merely note that it was...let's say, "convenient" for the Chancellor earlier this year that HMRC assumed it would be able to recover £3.2bn from the swindling crooks. That figure made a big dent in Osborne's deficit numbers and allowed him to reap some significant political capital in claiming that the deficit was coming down. Being the honorable chap that he is, I don't doubt that he'll be revising those figures even as we speak and issuing corrected deficit numbers immediately.
-
Is there not some contradiction in those two statements dear boy, or do you only place the blame on politicians for their departments and staff inefficiency if they are from one particular colour? Btw, I am not blaming them.....the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet is.
There certainly is not a contradiction. I'll spell it out. Politicians make the laws. It is then the responsibility of the authorities to implement those laws. It is not the responsibility of the law makers to implement the laws. You seem to think it is.
I've not said that Labour are any worse or better than the Tories at drafting laws. If you read what I said properly you will see that I referred to 'politicians', the obvious inference being that I meant all politicians, which I do, regardless of party. It just so happens that most of the current tax avoidance is occurring under legislation drafted by the Labour party during their 13 years in power.
It's very simple. Draft proper legislation and you will eliminate tax avoidance. So if you are unhappy about tax avoidance take it up with your MP. In the meantime, I would recommend everyone avoids paying tax if at all possible as long as it is legal. Far better to have the money in your own pocket than to give it to the politicians who will try to bribe what they see as their voter base to get into or to keep power.
I had to laugh at your last statement, 'the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet'. The fact that you believe this statement explains a lot. It's a joke. Most of their "writers" don't have a grasp on basic grammer and are left-wing extremist radicals. Here are some examples from their website today:
Military Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Putting Programs For Women AT Risk.
How does the Tory-led government tackle the housing shortage crisis? Do the listen to housing and business experts and build more homes?
William Is the Royal PR King
Mitchell's Daugther Speaks Out On Plebgate
I could go on. I've highlighted the bad grammer just in case you couldn't spot it.
-
There certainly is not a contradiction. I'll spell it out. Politicians make the laws. It is then the responsibility of the authorities to implement those laws. It is not the responsibility of the law makers to implement the laws. You seem to think it is.
You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?
-
I ask you a question Glyn. On the local authorities;
Do they get the best value for money they could possibly obtain?
In Doncaster, is a political adviser something that should be paid out of public money? I'd argue the new mayor should pay the political aspects out of her part money, not the money the taxpayer provides.
Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.
-
Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.
BFYP
I agree 100%. So do Labour and the Lib Dems. It's the Tories who are set against it, as the following article in the Daily Shit Rag by the Education Minister points out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2401563/Militax-Ed-wants-pick-pockets-fund-party-says-Michael-Gove.html
-
There's people in all areas that agree and disagree in reality though.
Having just read the article posted, I actually can see Gove's points in some ways. There are issues, how do you split the funding, who gets it and is it actually right for taxpayers to pay for politicians and their campaigns etc? In my view it is, to a set limit just because it is worth removing the union influence one side and actually the business influence in others, which clearly does happen in all parties.
However, I think say Labour should be given £xM and then they have to spend that how they wish (and that is not by appointing political advisers from other budgets). I find it scandalous that the labour mayor can spend so much time whinging about cuts (try cutting some of your inefficiencies that I know about) and that people in Doncaster will lose their jobs, yet the local authority pays for her political adviser (when her party should) - that is a clear wasteage yet again, I don't see the value for money in that at all - it's wrong.
-
BFYP
I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.
Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.
As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.
-
You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?
You're missing one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. Throwing more money (that we'd have to borrow) at a problem is not a solution. Labour doubled spending on education and we continue to fall down the international league tables.
Anyone that has anything to do with the public sector knows that a large part of it it is grossly inefficient and populated with layer upon layer of management and quangos that cost a fortune. Instead of stuffing money in the mouths of lazy, useless managers it should be directed to the front-line.
-
I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.
Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.
As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.
You forget to mention that he also took a vastly reduced salary which compensated for his political advisor. Also as an independent not expecting to win he did actually need someone with a bit of political nous. The same shouldn't be the case for a Labour mayor with all the resources of the Labour party behind them.
-
Did he also forgo his large public sector pension from his teaching career?
Easy to do a job at a reduced rate when you already have a comfortable income.
-
I ask you a question Glyn. On the local authorities;
Do they get the best value for money they could possibly obtain?
In Doncaster, is a political adviser something that should be paid out of public money? I'd argue the new mayor should pay the political aspects out of her part money, not the money the taxpayer provides.
Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.
Don't know, I was talking about HMRC as Mick was. Having worked for several years for them myself rather than just having 'a friend' I'm waiting to see what his next line of uninformed hilarity is.
-
You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?
You're missing one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. Throwing more money (that we'd have to borrow) at a problem is not a solution.
It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.
-
No Glyn, you've got it totally wrong. Spending money is NOT the answer. That's why the richest in society don't spend a fortune on sending their kids to top private schools. What's the point? Spending big money on education isn't the answer so there's no point them spending huge sums to send their kids to Eton or Winchester.
Similarly, the very richest don't spend a fortune employing the very best tax accountants to squirrel their money away in places where it can't be found and they don;t have to pay their rightful tax on it. What's the point? A handful of over-worked third-rate HMRC tax officials will be able to find it at the drop of a hat. If they just stop having coffee breaks all the time and releasing prisoners.
Spending money on services is clearly not the right way to go. That's why the richest in society choose not to do it.
Or have I missed something blindingly obvious along the way here?
-
It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Are you seriously saying that for every pound spent on the public sector it generates ten pounds? Sounds to me that you may have been put through the education system on Labour's watch when they dumbed down mathematics.
-
No Glyn, you've got it totally wrong. Spending money is NOT the answer. That's why the richest in society don't spend a fortune on sending their kids to top private schools. What's the point? Spending big money on education isn't the answer so there's no point them spending huge sums to send their kids to Eton or Winchester.
I'm sorry but you've got that one wrong. The richest in society do spend a lot of money educating their kids in private schools because despite spending on education doubling under Labour they still daren't send their kids to state schools because they have got worse not better.
You got one bit right though. Spending money is NOT the answer. Spending money WISELY is the answer as stated in Labour's 1997 manifesto. Shame they didn't act as they preached.
-
Similarly, the very richest don't spend a fortune employing the very best tax accountants to squirrel their money away in places where it can't be found and they don;t have to pay their rightful tax on it. What's the point? A handful of over-worked third-rate HMRC tax officials will be able to find it at the drop of a hat. If they just stop having coffee breaks all the time and releasing prisoners.
Spending money on services is clearly not the right way to go. That's why the richest in society choose not to do it.
Or have I missed something blindingly obvious along the way here?
Yes you have. HMRC officials do not release prisoners.
-
Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.
BFYP
I agree 100%. So do Labour and the Lib Dems. It's the Tories who are set against it, as the following article in the Daily Shit Rag by the Education Minister points out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2401563/Militax-Ed-wants-pick-pockets-fund-party-says-Michael-Gove.html
I'm totally against. Why should the taxpayer fork out to keep in existence a bunch of political parties that have by and large failed this country. And who will set the criteria? No doubt it will be existing "mainstream" parties who will ensure that they continue to receive state funding while new parties will get nothing.
-
It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Are you seriously saying that for every pound spent on the public sector it generates ten pounds? Sounds to me that you may have been put through the education system on Labour's watch when they dumbed down mathematics.
I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.
So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.
So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.
-
I'm totally against. Why should the taxpayer fork out to keep in existence a bunch of political parties that have by and large failed this country. And who will set the criteria? No doubt it will be existing "mainstream" parties who will ensure that they continue to receive state funding while new parties will get nothing.
Totally agree. I'm thinking of starting a party for right-minded, decent, right wing extremists. I'm quite happy to fund the venture myself. If red Ed had his way I'd never get off the ground.
-
I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.
So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.
So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.
I'm glad you've clarified that. I was getting a bit worried. At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment. I still think though that you could make better use of your existing resources. For example if you cut your holidays down to the private sector average you would free up a lot of man hours that are currently going to waste on paid leave.
-
I've been off the forum for a while but I heard Mad Mick was back so thought I'd have a look. Can't find him can any one help.
-
I've been off the forum for a while but I heard Mad Mick was back so thought I'd have a look. Can't find him can any one help.
Try using your other log in then mate. One of em anyway.
-
I have this vision of Chez Mick being like Kenneth Williams' place in Carry On Screaming. Every once in a while a more-or-less human form wakes up, trolls around causing trouble for a while, then goes back into a coma, while the boss of the house screams about his plans for world domination.
Does your missus look like Fenella Fielding Mick?
-
TRB
1) I'm interested that you think that our politicians have failed this country (and Mick: don't answer this. I haven't the slightest interest in your opinion. I'm talking to an intelligent grown up.) We are still the 5th or 6th strongest economy in the world. We have a generally well-educated, well-fed, well cared-for population. Our society is generally robust and tolerant. We don't murder thousands of our fellow citizens or casually mow down several thousand on the roads. The overwhelming majority have a decent roof over their heads and food in the pantry. We don't have sweatshop factories that casually kill or main the workers. We have reasonable levels of equality (albeit that this measure has slipped over the past generation). So I'm genuinely interested in why you think our political class had failed us and what they should have done better. None of which is to say that I think they are perfect. Far from it. As it happens, I think politicians reflect the society that they represent. Ours are generally exceptionally hard-working, well-meaning, decent and principled, albeit human and fallible.
2) I fully take on board your opinions on state funding of parties. But in that case, you have to accept that there will be well-funded pressure groups or individuals who will fund the parties. And expect something in return. To me, THAT is a far bigger problem for a democratic system.
-
It is the lawmakers responsibility to ensure that the law is adhered to, otherwise what's the point of making a law in the first place?
Regarding party funding, I believe there should be one pot of money, possibly taxpayers, that is equily shared between the parties to use for campaigning etc. No outside donation permitted which would negate any outside inlfuence on policies etc
-
I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.
So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.
So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.
I'm glad you've clarified that. I was getting a bit worried. At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment. I still think though that you could make better use of your existing resources. For example if you cut your holidays down to the private sector average you would free up a lot of man hours that are currently going to waste on paid leave.
Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.
Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.
-
It is the lawmakers responsibility to ensure that the law is adhered to, otherwise what's the point of making a law in the first place?
I agree. Which is the point Glyn is making. Laying off hundred of tax inspectors makes it more difficult to enforce tax law. Basic logic really, but it appears to evade many.
-
BFYP
I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.
Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.
As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.
There actually already has been a FOI request. The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request. Here is what the mayor herself had to say on that subject;
"Mayor Ros Jones, said: “Despite these challenges we still need to drive economic growth, create jobs and protect vital services.
“In order to make the right decisions for residents and businesses the support of a political assistant and a strong cabinet is crucial to our success.”
I've an idea for her, how about her political advisers could be her fellow party members or here's a notion, what about her labour majority councillors, perhaps they could do a job to help her out or how about the deputy mayor she has, just a thought though?
-
There actually already has been a FOI request. The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request.
I'm surprised at that. You got a link to the request and response?
-
BST
Yes, I suppose if you compare the UK to a Third-World dictatorship then we're not doing too badly. However, we are falling behind our competitors all the time in terms of education, healthcare and industry. We have huge levels of debt- both public and private- and most of our major companies are owned by foreigners. These problems didn't start yesterday, or even in the last decade. They go back to the aftermath of WW2. And if you compare some of the key measures in this country with Germany, which was on it's back after being defeated and invaded, then we have performed very badly indeed.
Of course the people must take responsibility, but I believe our party system must take a lot of the blame. We have two major parties, one which grew up to represent the landed gentry and the other which represented industrial workers. over the years they've grown into two organisations which are simply two sides of the same coin, and which pursue the same old failed ideas when in Government.
We will not get the radical thinking this country needs until we get rid of two/ three party politics, adopt a genuine form of PR (not that alternative vote nonsense) and fund political parties through mass memberships. That to me is the way forward, not relying on large donations or state funding. Both of these methods entrench the current, failed, system.
-
Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.
Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.
If you think your leave entitlement is comparable to the private sector you are living in fantasy land. Many people in the private sector are lucky to get 20 days a year. Many get a lot less. You on the other hand start off with a minimum of 25 days and then get an extra 5 days after you've been there 10 years.
You also typically work less hours. You also get a final salary pension. You also earn more. You get sick pay at the drop of a hat. Maternity leave, funeral leave, job security, I could go on. You don't know you're born.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2200888/State-workers-enjoy-advantage-private-employees.html
-
Mick's Law.
"As the length of one of Mick's threads increases, the pribabity of him posting a link to MoneyWeek, This is Money or some other source of unrefined right-wing sewage tends towards 1."
-
The article refers to a report from Reform who are an independent charitable, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. Labour MP Frank Field is on the board. Hardly right wing. You always revert to dissing anything you can't argue against as right wing drivel.
You probably don't like the fact that they have published research that shows that the extra spending on public services between 2000 and 2006 has not shifted the trend performance of those services.
You'd do better trying to disprove the excellent points I make. Sounds like you are also from the public sector. I'd keep quiet about all the perks and benefits you enjoy before you are rumbled by the general public who don't realise how badly they are being ripped off.
-
Mick's Law II
As the length of one of Mick's thread increases, the probability of him going off onto an unfocused, unsubstantiated rant about the public sector approaches 1.
-
Billy's Law
When IC1967 continues to show him up for what he is, a hardline leftie that believes that the solution to everything is increased public spending, he reverts to slagging off right wingers, instead of engaging in political debate.
-
You've lost me Mick. How many times have you shown me up as a hardline lefty? Can you point to the posts?
-
Hahaha. That's the best laugh I've had for ages.
-
When you've stopped laughing, you can point to the posts.
-
TRB
If you're comparing us with Germany then in many respects I'm right on board. If we had a political system that would encourage higher taxes, higher social spending, less of an obsession with property ownership, finance that sees long-term collaborations with companies rather than immediate shareholder return as key, legislation for union representatives on company management committees, all like Germany does, then I'd be delighted.
-
Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.
Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.
If you think your leave entitlement is comparable to the private sector you are living in fantasy land. Many people in the private sector are lucky to get 20 days a year. Many get a lot less. You on the other hand start off with a minimum of 25 days and then get an extra 5 days after you've been there 10 years.
You also typically work less hours. You also get a final salary pension. You also earn more. You get sick pay at the drop of a hat. Maternity leave, funeral leave, job security, I could go on. You don't know you're born.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2200888/State-workers-enjoy-advantage-private-employees.html
Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.
-
Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.
I've read everything you've posted and replied to everything in detail and debunked most of what you've said. If there are still any of your comments that you require me to answer then please feel free to post them. I guarantee a response.
Could you do me a favour. You said that I thought you earned the same as you collected in tax. I can't for the life of me work out why you said that. Please clarify.
-
When you've stopped laughing, you can point to the posts.
Stop trying to make me laugh. There is no need to point to the posts. I'd be here all day. All anyone has to do is read anything you say about politics and it's obvious you are from the hard left. I'm surprised you don't seem to agree with that comment. I thought you'd be proud that you are viewed this way.
-
Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.
I've read everything you've posted
Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.
-
No we wouldn't IC1967. You've only been posting for a few months. You've only posted 180-odd posts and I suspect that fewer than 15% of those have been aimed at me. So you might have 20 or so posts to deal with. And only a small proportion of those would be conclusive argument clinchers.
So there are really not so many posts to trawl through are there IC1967?
What's keeping you?
-
No we wouldn't IC1967. You've only been posting for a few months. You've only posted 180-odd posts and I suspect that fewer than 15% of those have been aimed at me. So you might have 20 or so posts to deal with. And only a small proportion of those would be conclusive argument clinchers.
So there are really not so many posts to trawl through are there IC1967?
What's keeping you?
Stop it. Stop it. My sides are hurting!
-
Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.
Sorry you've got me bang to rights on that one. I apologise for skim reading your posts and not realising you no longer work there. Why you feel it is a big issue is surprising though. It doesn't really change any of the arguments I've put forward whether you're still there or not. If anything it devalues what you say because my source still works there and has done for the last 30 years.
I disagree with you on the debunking claim though. I've got you bang to rights on that one.
-
Could you do me a favour. You said that I thought you earned the same as you collected in tax. I can't for the life of me work out why you said that. Please clarify.
I'm still waiting.
-
Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.
Sorry you've got me bang to rights on that one. I apologise for skim reading your posts and not realising you no longer work there. Why you feel it is a big issue is surprising though. It doesn't really change any of the arguments I've put forward whether you're still there or not. If anything it devalues what you say because my source still works there and has done for the last 30 years.
I disagree with you on the debunking claim though. I've got you bang to rights on that one.
You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.
I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.
-
So IC. When your sides have stopped hurting, you can dig out the two or three posts where you have proved me to be a wild lefty. I've looked and I can see no more than that at the most generous interpretation of the word "proved".
Or do you reckon there are more examples IC?
-
You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.
I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.
You must read my posts more closely. Here's what I said previously, 'At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment.' How you can claim that I haven't addressed your main point is baffling. If there are any more minor points you feel I haven't addressed then please feel free to list them. I guarantee a response. I only wish you'd do me the same courtesy.
He's a senior officer now but has worked in a variety of roles. he's just been promoted so I'm not sure what department he currently works in. He does have experience of chasing 'high flyers' and reclaiming large amounts of tax. Trust me he knows what he is on about just like me.
-
So IC. When your sides have stopped hurting, you can dig out the two or three posts where you have proved me to be a wild lefty. I've looked and I can see no more than that at the most generous interpretation of the word "proved".
Or do you reckon there are more examples IC?
I'm sorry I can't read all your post as my eyes are streaming as well as my sides hurting. Once I've stopped laughing I'll give it another go.
-
Plus le nom change...
-
More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24770896
-
You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.
I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.
You must read my posts more closely. Here's what I said previously, 'At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment.' How you can claim that I haven't addressed your main point is baffling. If there are any more minor points you feel I haven't addressed then please feel free to list them. I guarantee a response. I only wish you'd do me the same courtesy.
He's a senior officer now but has worked in a variety of roles. he's just been promoted so I'm not sure what department he currently works in. He does have experience of chasing 'high flyers' and reclaiming large amounts of tax. Trust me he knows what he is on about just like me.
In other words, you don't know what he does or where he's based. How convenient. Is he in the Doncaster Office?
-
In other words, you don't know what he does or where he's based. How convenient. Is he in the Doncaster Office?
Does it matter what his current role is? I do know which office he works in. Does it matter if I tell you? I get the feeling you think I'm making it up.
What have I said about HMRC that you can take issue with? I'll tell you, nothing. I even agreed with your main point (even though you said I hadn't). I then listed some of the perks of the job which you haven't disputed. I think you are just being pedantic for the sake of it and you still haven't answered my question.
I'll not bother asking you again as I don't want to come across as pedantic like you. Any further points you need clarification on just ask. I guarantee a response (unlike some I could mention).
-
Does it matter what his current role is? I do know which office he works in. Does it matter if I tell you?
..I guarantee a response (unlike some I could mention).
Yes it does matter, I want to know how credible your 'source' is.
-
Back on topic. 'UK to be fastest-growing Western economy, says ICAEW report.' Red Ed and 'Balls Up' Balls must be really pissed off that things are getting better. I'd employ Mystic Meg if I were them before they make any more predictions about the economy. More proof that spend, spend, spend is not the way forward. I look forward to the day when we don't borrow money any-more. For this to happen we must never vote Labour into power ever again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24799507
-
I'm surprised at that. You got a link to the request and response?
There actually already has been a FOI request. The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request.
BFYP
Not sure if you missed this. I'm genuinely interested in the FoI working, and it seems very strange to me that a request like this would be turned down. Do you have any more information on it?
-
Even more good news. Well done Dave and George. Everything is now moving in the right direction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24910587
-
Day after day we get vindication of Plan A.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24926512
-
I wonder why they are trying to hide speeches that they made while they were in opposition
http://www.lbc.co.uk/tories-try-to-remove-speeches-from-internet-81268
Not hiding the promises they couldn't keep per chance?
-
Let's face facts the way the last lot performed when they were in office, would even make a Retarded Chimpanzee look good as chancellor!
-
Let's face facts the way the last lot performed when they were in office, would even make a Retarded Chimpanzee look good as chancellor!
You're right. Labour were that bad. I just hope people won't ever be stupid enough to give them yet another chance to ruin the country,
something they always mange to do when given power.
-
We're doing great aren't we?
Figure 1
http://niesr.ac.uk/about-monthly-gdp-estimates
Our GDP is something like £100bn lower than it would have been if we'd continued growing at the rate we were doing in late 09/early 10.
Celebrating a little bit of very normal growth after 3 years of historically unprecedented flatlining is like puerile. It's like a bloke sunbathing in a beer garden for the first half of a 10k race, then getting applause because, once he starts running, he's running faster than anyone else in the race.
-
Our GDP is something like £100bn lower than it would have been if we'd continued growing at the rate we were doing in late 09/early 10.
Celebrating a little bit of very normal growth after 3 years of historically unprecedented flatlining is like puerile. It's like a bloke sunbathing in a beer garden for the first half of a 10k race, then getting applause because, once he starts running, he's running faster than anyone else in the race.
That's a massive if. We'll never know. Labour left such a humungous mess that I very much doubt things would have transpired as you say. Seems like you've been using that crystal ball of Ed Balls where he predicted another million unemployed if we didn't switch to Plan B. Unfortunately for him unemployment is now falling at it's fastest rate since the 1990's.
-
Might this fall be anything to do with the attempts to reduce the numbers of people eligible to claim unemployment benefit rather than an actual increase in the number previously classed as unemployed that may now be in some kind of work, casual/temporary included and thus claiming some other form of benefit? It's amazing the way that figures can be massaged to support any statement!
-
Is there no end to the good news? Thank goodness we got Plan A and not Plan B.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25030293
-
"The government's target is to keep public sector net borrowing for 2013-14 at £120bn or below, representing about 7.5% of GDP."
In June 2010, the OBR predicted that Govt borrowing for 2013/14 would be £65bn.
If that is Plan A working Mick, I'd love to see your definition of winning on the Popoes. A faller at the first fence is nearly a winner eh?
-
Might this fall be anything to do with the attempts to reduce the numbers of people eligible to claim unemployment benefit rather than an actual increase in the number previously classed as unemployed that may now be in some kind of work, casual/temporary included and thus claiming some other form of benefit? It's amazing the way that figures can be massaged to support any statement!
This is actually true,Iwas made redundant last year aged 61.Iwent to jobcentre and was told not to claim unemployment benefit,but to claim pension credit as i was eligible for that.
-
"The government's target is to keep public sector net borrowing for 2013-14 at £120bn or below, representing about 7.5% of GDP."
In June 2010, the OBR predicted that Govt borrowing for 2013/14 would be £65bn.
If that is Plan A working Mick, I'd love to see your definition of winning on the Popoes. A faller at the first fence is nearly a winner eh?
Look the OBR got it badly wrong. No surprise there. Ed Balls also keeps getting it badly wrong. Earlier this year he said we urgently needed Plan B or there would be another million on the dole. He doesn't mention Plan B any more does he? What a clown.
The reason borrowing is much higher than anticipated is because the mess left by Labour is much worse than anyone anticipated (except me). You can't go around blaming the Tories for our borrowing problems. It is Labour that deserve the blame. They screwed the economy up big time. The Tories are just trying to clear up the mess (like they always have to do when coming into power after a Labour government).
It beggars belief that voters haven't yet worked out that Labour only believe in spend, spend, spend and always without fail knacker up the economy. It's time the penny dropped that they should never be allowed to wreak havoc on our economy ever again.
-
This is actually true,Iwas made redundant last year aged 61.Iwent to jobcentre and was told not to claim unemployment benefit,but to claim pension credit as i was eligible for that.
I think you'll find that it was Labour that brought in that way of fiddling the figures. They also saw a huge increase in other benefits that also were used as a crafty way to stop people claiming unemployment benefit. They also made youngsters stay in education longer to keep them off the figures. Labour and in particular Gordon Brown were masters at presenting figures in the best possible light to suit their chances of re-election.
Unfortunately the true picture bore no resemblance to their 'spin'.
-
Mick
The OBR's predictions in 2010 were nigh on identical to Osborne's. Osborne had said that Austerity would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. Balls told him that this would not happen. So did every Keynesian-leaning economist. We went through all of this when you were Mick v2.0 so there's no point re-hashing the arguments (Paradox of Thrift, Aggregate Demand etc).
The point is that deficit reduction through Govt belt-tightening whilst companies and households were tightening their belts was bound to lead to GDP stagnation which stagnated tax take and kept unemployment (hence benefits) high.
That is what Balls predicted. That is what has happened. We are now not remotely close to eliminating the structural deficit by 2015. Latest predictions are 2018 and even that is likely to slip.
It is a catastrophic policy error. And it is entirely in keeping with your shaky grasp on logic that you call that a success.
-
The OBR's predictions in 2010 were nigh on identical to Osborne's. Osborne had said that Austerity would eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. Balls told him that this would not happen. So did every Keynesian-leaning economist. We went through all of this when you were Mick v2.0 so there's no point re-hashing the arguments (Paradox of Thrift, Aggregate Demand etc).
The point is that deficit reduction through Govt belt-tightening whilst companies and households were tightening their belts was bound to lead to GDP stagnation which stagnated tax take and kept unemployment (hence benefits) high.
That is what Balls predicted. That is what has happened. We are now not remotely close to eliminating the structural deficit by 2015. Latest predictions are 2018 and even that is likely to slip.
Since when did politicians and the OBR ever get a forecast right? Th e Tories have implemented pretty much the same policy Labour were going to according to their manifesto. So what does Balls do? He conveniently forgets this and forecasts that unless his Plan B is adopted there will be a million more on the dole and there will not be a recovery. Got those two predictions spot on didn't he?
You seem to imply that he is a Keynes follower. Not true. He doesn't believe in putting money away during the good times and then using it in the bad times. He believes in over spending in the good times and then over spending in the bad times. This is the fundamental flaw with the Labour party. They think the solution to everything is to borrow and spend no matter what the consequences. It's called bribing the electorate today leaving the bill to be picked up by future generations.
-
More good news. I've been tracking the parties poll ratings since May 2012. Back then Labour were at 44%. By May 2013 just as things started to improve they had dropped to 35%. Thats a 9% drop in 12 months. The way things are going I fully expect another 9% drop by May 2014 which will leave them with no hope of winning the next election.
I'm hoping there will be more good news next September when hopefully the Scots vote for independence. This will mean Labour will lose so many MP's they will never be able to form a government ever again. So come on you Scots, do everyone in England a favour and vote for independence. You know it makes sense.
-
Mick
1) It's well known that Balls argued strongly against Darling's budget plans for the 2010 Labour Manifesto. Balls wanted us to delay deficit reduction until the recovery was well under way. Darling wanted to proceed with cautious deficit reduction immediately (primarily for political, rather than economic reasons, because Osborne had very skillfully won the debate hands down in terms of convincing the public that quick deficit reduction was required - not because there was the slightest economic case for it). Even so, Darling's plans were to reduce Govt spending far less rapidly than Osborne. Precisely because Darling was enough of an economist to know that rapid deficit reduction would be catastrophic on economic growth.
2) That is precisely what happened. Rapid deficit reduction was catastrophic for economic growth. Both here and in the EZ, it has condemned hundred of millions of people to a harder present and a poorer future. Utter, stark madness, dressed up as economic sense. Balls called this one absolutely 100% correct. Economics is a messy subject, but there has rarely been a plainer, more clear-cut real-world experiment, with a plainer, more clear-cut outcome. Extremely simple economic theory says that rapid reduction of Govt spending at a time when businesses and consumers are also cutting back is extremely likely to result in economic stagnation. That is precisely what has happened in the UK and across the EZ. Unarguably. Go and look at that graph that I keep posting and tell me that the economic policy since 2010 has been a success.
3) Balls predicted huge increases in unemployment. You are correct. and the fact that unemployment has not risen massively is something that, with hindsight, he was wrong about. What he didn't take into account was the flexibility of the UK's current labour market. Which, in simple terms that people have been prepared to take on lower-paid, less skilled jobs. A bit like serial entreprenuers having to do Bettaware rounds. What has happened in the UK is that people who should be designing bridges and programming computers are working in bars. That has mitigated the worst of the effects of unemployment, but it is hardly a cause for celebration. It is actually terrifying for the economic future of the country. we are allowing skills to stagnate. We are FAR less productive than we were in 2010, never mind 2008. we are producing less than we did in 2008 with a couple of million more people employed. That isn't a success. it's a f**king economic disaster. And it will take another decade at least to catch up, even IF we saw strong growth starting from now (and we haven't yet - we've had tepid growth compared to what you normally get coming out of a recession).
4) You mention polling. As with most subjects Mick, once you start talking numbers, you actually talk b*llocks.
Here's the ACTUAL state of polling since 2010, from the website of the bloke who runs YouGov's political polling (so he'll probably know better than you or I).
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
As ever Mick, you cherry pick a couple of numbers to make an over-inflated case and make yourself look daft in the process. Polling is inexact, there is a margin of error in every poll. So doing what YOU did, which is taking one result, comparing it to another and saying the difference between them is real is a fundamentally flawed way of dealing with polling data.
The best you can do is to take a running average and compare those values at different times. Even that is not precise, but it is better than taking spot values. Labour were NEVER averaging 44% in May 2012 if you take the running average over 10 polls or so. They were never averaging 35% in May 2013.
In May last year, Labour had 12 polls out of 31 where they scored 44-45%. They also had 8 out of 31 where they scored 41-42%.
In May this year, Labour had 6 polls out of 32 where they were as low as 34-35%. They also had 7 polls where they scored between 40-43%.
The average figures were more like 43% in May 2012 and 38% in May 2013.
Now. Look at that graph. Look at the running average. Labour have varied between ~38-43% for the whole of the last 3 years. They go up and down depending on how the parties are sparring against each other. But they haven't slipped out of that range in 36 months. That is unprecedentedly stable polling.
I've already got a bet of £100 with you that Labour will win most seats in 2015. Want to double it up by putting your money where your mouth is on the polling trend? Another £100 says we don't see Labour's poll average drop to 26% between now and May 2014.
-
Just wait until doing the part time job that is all you can find isn't enough and you are sanctioned because of it. Every one of those massaged figures is a person.. Someone with a family or a kid starting out. Thanks to zero hours contracts there is little security any more, when universal credit finally limps into place it will only get worse.
Splitting full time hours between two employees is a double winner.. For the government and it's slight of hand accountancy and the employers happy to lose the obligation of holiday pay and other accoutrements.
The loser is the poor bugger scrabbling for peanuts not being able to live without top ups and being penalised for the fact.
-
I haven't got time to respond to all of your diatribe. I'd be here forever. I don't know where you get your polling information from but it is clearly at odds with the poll of polls by the BBC. So as you can see I've not based my argument on one poll that suits me best, I've done the honourable thing and used the BBC's poll of polls to get the most objective view of people's voting intentions. Here's the link which shows what I say is absolutely bang on. Scroll through the data and check May 2012 compared to May 2013 and you will see that as usual I am right and have not made anything up.
What matters is not what a party has polled in the past. The best way to view a party's future performance is how the trend is looking going forwards. For Labour it is not a pretty picture, particularly as the good news just keeps on coming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18264385
-
Just wait until doing the part time job that is all you can find isn't enough and you are sanctioned because of it. Every one of those massaged figures is a person.. Someone with a family or a kid starting out. Thanks to zero hours contracts there is little security any more, when universal credit finally limps into place it will only get worse.
Splitting full time hours between two employees is a double winner.. For the government and it's slight of hand accountancy and the employers happy to lose the obligation of holiday pay and other accoutrements.
The loser is the poor bugger scrabbling for peanuts not being able to live without top ups and being penalised for the fact.
You seem to be unaware that unemployment started rising under Labour before the crash. The Tories to their credit have reversed this trend. There are now more people in work than ever before.
I won't be losing sleep about only being able to find a part time job. I am an entrepreneur and make my own job by starting my own businesses. This is something I would encourage more people to do as unfortunately due to Labour's mismanagement of the economy we can no longer afford the safety net that was once in place.
It's a harsh reality now I'm afraid that the welfare state is going to be cut back for many years to come. If by a miracle Labour form the next government I guarantee you they won't reverse what the Tories have done. The money simply isn't there to be able do it. The only way they could do it is to borrow even more money than they have in the past. Unfortunately for them the public have now got wise to that con trick and they won't dare risk doing it again.
-
" There are now more people in work than ever before."
Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.
-
Betterware round?
So is Mick peddling shite as well as talking it?
-
Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.
I agree that the unemployment figures bear no resemblance to the true picture (step forward the Labour party for fiddling them during their 13 years in power). However your comments are irrelevant to my point that there are now more people in employment than ever before. We could have 20 million unemployed today and my point still stands.
-
Betterware round?
What's wrong with having a Betterware round may I ask?
-
More good news. Dave and George are obviously feeling our pain. None of this pie in the sky price freeze nonsense touted by red Ed but action right now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25181676
-
Or put another way there are less people claiming Unemployment Benefit than ever before, mainly due to rule changes and alternative benefits and the fact that many due to their partners income are unable to claim any benefit what so ever so are lost to the propaganda put out by whichever party is in power.
I agree that the unemployment figures bear no resemblance to the true picture (step forward the Labour party for fiddling them during their 13 years in power). However your comments are irrelevant to my point that there are now more people in employment than ever before. We could have 20 million unemployed today and my point still stands.
Sadly it would appear that you are being blinded by the propaganda
-
More good news. Dave and George are obviously feeling our pain. None of this pie in the sky price freeze nonsense touted by red Ed but action right now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25181676
Well now there's a surprise, you support the policy of having the government raise your taxes to support lowering other people's fuel bills, seems I have had you wrong all this time. What other socialist policies do you think the tories should bring in?
-
Well now there's a surprise, you support the policy of having the government raise your taxes to support lowering other people's fuel bills, seems I have had you wrong all this time. What other socialist policies do you think the tories should bring in?
You seem to be under the impression that I support the Tories. I don't vote and never have done. I don't support any political party. They are all useless.
However credit where credit is due. The Tories got this one right so get my praise. I've yet to find anything to praise Labour over.
-
Sadly it would appear that you are being blinded by the propaganda
Not true. If anything you are the one trying to peddle propaganda. You seem very confused. You don't seem to understand that the current rate of unemployment is totally irrelevant to the number of people in work. It doesn't matter how many people are out of work (whether you use the 'true' figures or the fiddled ones. My statement stands regardless. There are now more people in work than ever before. Not exactly what Ed Balls was predicting is it?
-
1) It's well known that Balls argued strongly against Darling's budget plans for the 2010 Labour Manifesto. Balls wanted us to delay deficit reduction until the recovery was well under way. Darling wanted to proceed with cautious deficit reduction immediately (primarily for political, rather than economic reasons, because Osborne had very skillfully won the debate hands down in terms of convincing the public that quick deficit reduction was required - not because there was the slightest economic case for it). Even so, Darling's plans were to reduce Govt spending far less rapidly than Osborne. Precisely because Darling was enough of an economist to know that rapid deficit reduction would be catastrophic on economic growth.
2) That is precisely what happened. Rapid deficit reduction was catastrophic for economic growth. Both here and in the EZ, it has condemned hundred of millions of people to a harder present and a poorer future. Utter, stark madness, dressed up as economic sense. Balls called this one absolutely 100% correct. Economics is a messy subject, but there has rarely been a plainer, more clear-cut real-world experiment, with a plainer, more clear-cut outcome. Extremely simple economic theory says that rapid reduction of Govt spending at a time when businesses and consumers are also cutting back is extremely likely to result in economic stagnation. That is precisely what has happened in the UK and across the EZ. Unarguably. Go and look at that graph that I keep posting and tell me that the economic policy since 2010 has been a success.
The main flaw in your argument is that you think consumer spending is the solution to our problems. Wrong. Consumers needed to tighten their belts because they were drowning in so much debt (encouraged by Labour). Government was drowning in debt (Labour again). So what's your's and Ed Balls solution? Government should borrow even more money and encourage debt ridden consumers to take on more debt. Haven't you heard of Mr Ponzi? Obviously not.
Rapid deficit reduction? Don't make me laugh. The Tories have barely scratched the surface on that one. They should have gone much deeper and faster and we'd have recovered much more quickly.
-
Oh Mick you are such a bore as well as a boor. You read nothing that other people write. You assume that you know what they think and then base your argument on that. You insist on peddling the same stale garbage month after month despite the logic of your arguments being as dodgy as Brian Stock's back.
But let's have another go at educating you.
1) I do NOT believe that consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. That should be reversed, but the last thing we want is a bubble led by consumer spending on the back of rising house prices. But that seems to be the plan between now and the General Election.
2) As you well know Mick, because we've discussed this before, what I believe the Govt SHOULD have been doing over the last 3 years is investing in capital infrastructure. Roads, fibre optics, houses, schools. All could have been built at historically low costs financed by long-term borrowing at interest rates below inflation. Instead, the first thing this Govt did was to slash capital investment and leave half a million building workers on the dole rather than being involved in updating our infrastructure for the future. Osborne seems to have finally woken up to that one 3 years on.
3) You spout the same bullshit about how deeper cuts would have led to a more rapid recovery. By what mechanism? What would be the process whereby slashing Govt spending still further, at a time when private business was massively tightening its belt would have produced growth?
Last year you trawled the right wing blogs on the Internet and found a couple of swivelled eyed loons who were screaming that Latvia and Estonia had cut Govt spending savagely in 2008, and had economies that were bouncing back strongly. So we should all do the same.
You swallowed that line then. Have you heard many people pushing that line now? Eh?
No you haven't, because over the last 12 months, both countries have stagnated at levels of economic activity way below what they were before they went into their madcap right-wing Govt cutting exercise.
Take Latvia. In 2008 they decided to go balls out on Austerity. Just like you say we should have done.
Result?
GDP collapsed by 20% IN ONE YEAR! (That would be the equivalent of us losing £300bn of economic output in one year.)
Unemployment went up from 5% to 20% IN ONE YEAR! (That would be the equivalent of us losing about 4 million jobs in one year.)
You say that this is acceptable because we would bounce back quickly. So what has happened to Latvia?
GDP improved slightly from the calamity of 2010. But it has flatlined for 2 years at a level 15% lower than 2008 and they are currently sliding back into recession.
Over the last 3 year, their unemployment rate has come down to 12%. That would be the equivalent of us having a top line official unemployment total of about 4.5M. Good eh? But where has this drop come from? The number of EMPLOYED people in Latvia is actually lower now than it was at the depth of the crisis. The reason that unemoyment has come down is that 10% of the population has emigrated - mainly fit, young, qualified, hard working people.
And THAT Mick, is the approach you wanted us to take.
Or if it isn't, tell us what would have been different in Mickonomics. Tell us what magic insight you have to explain the mechanism whereby deeper cuts would lead to stronger growth.
And you might want to go and tell the Govt of Latvia while you're at it. They'd be delighted to know how to solve the nightmare that they have plunged their people into.
-
1) I do NOT believe that consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. That should be reversed.
You DO believe consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. In your next sentence after your denial you state 'I believe that increasing VAT which crippled consumer spending was a monumental, ideologically driven mistake. There you have it, a massive contradiction. Consumers needed to stop borrowing and spending and getting into massive debt. You wanted them to keep spending and get into even more debt. Crazy. A VAT rise encouraged people to be more fiscally prudent and increased the tax take to start to plug the deficit. A win win situation.
-
2) As you well know Mick, because we've discussed this before, what I believe the Govt SHOULD have been doing over the last 3 years is investing in capital infrastructure. Roads, fibre optics, houses, schools. All could have been built at historically low costs financed by long-term borrowing at interest rates below inflation. Instead, the first thing this Govt did was to slash capital investment and leave half a million building workers on the dole rather than being involved in updating our infrastructure for the future. Osborne seems to have finally woken up to that one 3 years on.
Investing in capital infrastructure takes many years to have an impact. This was not the solution. It would also have added massively to our national debt. You seem to have a huge problem with living within our means. If we can't currently afford to update our infrastructure then we have to make do with what we've got. Once we've cut back the state and stopped borrowing money and are actually living within our means and actually lending money to other countries, then we can start updating our infrastructure.
-
3) You spout the same bullshit about how deeper cuts would have led to a more rapid recovery. By what mechanism? What would be the process whereby slashing Govt spending still further, at a time when private business was massively tightening its belt would have produced growth?
Deeper cuts would have got us living within our means a lot quicker. I don't believe the current 'recovery', is a proper recovery. It is once again being fuelled by consumer borrowing and spending. It will all end in tears yet again.
I am a long term strategic thinker. For decades we've been living beyond our means with short term political advantage being prioritised above the long term good of the country. By having faster deeper cuts we would have got our economy back to living within its means a lot quicker and then we could have had a proper recovery based on fiscal prudence. I am for the long term. You are a short term merchant always wanting immediate growth fuelled by debt. This is not sustainable as we all found out in the crash.
Why shouldn't private business tighten its belt? What is the point of private business carrying on as though nothing has happened? If consumers have finally got the message that debt is bad and saving is good then of course this is going to mean private business won't be able to sell as much. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
-
Last year you trawled the right wing blogs on the Internet and found a couple of swivelled eyed loons who were screaming that Latvia and Estonia had cut Govt spending savagely in 2008, and had economies that were bouncing back strongly. So we should all do the same.
I think you must be confusing me with someone else. How you can compare us to Latvia and Estonia is baffling.
-
Christ Mick, you're like a sex starved terrier constantly humping somebody's leg no matter how many times you get kicked off.
1) I said I do not believe that consumer spending is the way OUT of the crisis. However, crippling it undoubtedly did tip us further INTO the crisis. Clear enough for you. Or are you going to go to Word Hippo again the give us an alternative definition of "out " ad "into"?
2) Estonia. You little tinker Mick. This is what you said 15 months ago. http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233536.msg257738#msg257738
3) Private business can do what it wants regarding belt tightening. If it wants to tighten its belt, it can do so. If you actually read anything I wrote before exploding once again, you'd not find anything, anywhere where I have said that private business should not be tightening its belt. The point is that for Government to do so at the same time takes you down the path of Estonia and Latvia. The countries that you and the other swivel-eyed loons were offering as examples of the wonders of Austerity. As with so many other postures of yours Mick, once the facts prove that you were talking b*llocks, you eschew everything you previously said, change your personality and come back for another go.
4) I asked you for the mechanism by which extreme Austerity would lead to economic growth. You said, "By having faster deeper cuts we would have got our economy back to living within its means a lot quicker and then we could have had a proper recovery based on fiscal prudence." Which is the equivalent of saying that growth would come because you believe it will come. So I'll ask again. What is the MECHANISM by which growth will come. If you impose enormous Govt spending cuts whilst consumers and private industry is also cutting, you get 20-odd percent unemployment. We know that because it's been tried and that is the outcome. It happened here and in America and Germany in the 1930s. It happened in Estonia and Latvia, Greece and Spain after the 2008 crash.
So, I'll ask again. Once you've got into that total collapse of your economy, what is the MECHANISM by which you get growth back. And I'll give you a clue. You saying, "Growth will come" is not an acceptable answer. I want to know HOW growth will come. Because if you just say, "Growth will come", I'll say to you, "Then why has it not come in Estonia, Latvia, Greece and Spain, which have followed the medicine that you want for us."
At your leisure Mick. Take your time. You'll be a while Googling for it, because no-one else out there has explained what the mechanism is yet.
-
1) I said I do not believe that consumer spending is the way OUT of the crisis. However, crippling it undoubtedly did tip us further INTO the crisis. Clear enough for you. Or are you going to go to Word Hippo again the give us an alternative definition of "out " ad "into"?
You do believe consumer spending is the way out of the crisis. You think that big infrastructure spending will fill the pockets of construction workers who will then spend this money which will then get us into recovery mode.
You don't think debt laden consumers should save and get their houses in order. You are quite happy for them to take on even more debt. This is very irresponsible, because when interest rates rise, which they will, we'll just have another bust. This time it will be even bigger than before. What a great solution you have come up with.
-
Imust agree with you Mick in that in pure numerical terms there are more people in work than ever before - because there are more people in the country than ever before. Percentage wise there are not more people in work.
The time when we had the most people in work was the 1950's, coincidently when we had the last major debt 'crisis'. What did we do to tackleit then, what major steps did the government take to rebuild Britain after WWII. Why they borrowed extensively, took on huge amounts of debt, followed a policy of full employment, and infrastructure building and look what happened to the debt.....
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upNvhaALFuc/UIo3peot_vI/AAAAAAAAAZg/0We44uFpfnU/s1600/national-debt-percent-1900-12.png)
-
Imust agree with you in that in pure numerical terms there are more people in work than ever before - because there are more people in the country than ever before. Percentage wise there are not more people in work.
The time when we had the most people in work was the 1950's, coincidently when we had the last major debt 'crisis'. What did we do to tackleit then, what major steps did the government take to rebuild Britain after WWII. Why they borrowed extensively, took on huge amounts of debt, followed a policy of full employment, and infrastructure building and look what happened to the debt.....
The main point is that there are more jobs available now than ever before. Forget the 1950's or percentages. Totally irrelevant. What I am saying is that the Tories, despite austerity, have created conditions where we now have more jobs than we've ever had.
Why are there more people in the country than ever before? Because Labour let in one million Poles among other factors. If we'd had a sensible immigration policy and not joined the EU we'd have a lot less unemployment.
It is far too simplistic and naive to say that the solution to a debt crisis is more debt. We would have recovered anyway without having to take on more debt for future generations to pay for. Economics of the madhouse.
-
Mechanism Mick.
Happy Googling.
By the way, your comment on infrastructure spending equating to getting us out of stganation by consumer spending is too laughable for words. By that measure EVERY move that increases employment results in consumer spending increases.
Think about it like this. Government spends money on building a new house. The result is:
a) A new house exists, which is a benefit to the country as a whole
b) The house builders have to buy bricks. So the brick manufacturers can keep people in work, or take on new employees.
c) The new employees or people who have kept their job earn money that they wouldn't otherwise have earned.
d) That money may well be used by these people to pay off their debts. This would be a good thing as it reduces their indebtedness.
e) Some may also be used to pay for other things. Like improvements to their own house for example. Which would provide employment for other people. Which is a good thing as that would put money into their pockets too. Virtuous circle is established, economic performance improves for the country as a whole AND we have a better infrastructure than we had previously.
Alternative. Government DOESN'T spend that money on a new house.
Result.
a) Government borrows less. In itself in isolation, a good thing.
b) The country has one fewer house. Bad thing.
c) The construction workers stay on the dole, and are paid benefits by the Government (using borrowed money...)
d) The brick manufacturers have fewer customers, so they lay off workers or don't hire new ones. So their (potential) employees have less money and therefore spend less or don't pay down their own debts.
Result: Negative spiral AND the country doesn't get the extra house. The Government doesn't borrow as much, but the country as a whole is poorer.
Your approach requires there to be a private sector that is raring to explode into growth if only the Government would get out of the way and pay down its debt. Trouble is, in every case in history in which Governments have tightened their belts at the same time that the private sector has been doing the same, the economy has stagnated for years. That's what has happened to us for three years, and fools like you then crow success when we finally get some tepid growth after three years of stagnation. Fools like you say that this means that we should have cut even faster and harder. They did in Estonia and Latvia. We did in the 1930s. Look at what the results were.
-
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I believe austerity will lead to rapid growth. I don't. In fact the complete opposite will happen (initially anyway). You believe extra government spending is always the solution to debt problems (completely ignoring the fact that it is precisely this that has got us into the current mess). I don't.
I believe that we have been living beyond our means for decades as politicians sought to curry favour and get re-elected by borrowing and spending to buy votes. You want them to carry on doing this. I don't. Its time to cut back the spending and borrowing and for us all to accept a lower standard of living because that is all we can afford. Rapid deep cuts would get us into a position where we will no longer be borrowing to continue our extravagant unsustainable standard of living. This will mean a deep recession for a while but then we will be able to move forward without incurring anymore debt and grow properly. Growth fuelled by government borrowing and consumer spending and indebtedness is not a long term solution. It is not proper growth. In fact it is just the opposite as witnessed in the crash.
Like I say, you are a short term boom and bust merchant where I am a strategic thinker.
-
Mick
Before you open your mouth again have a look at that graph that Wilts posted. (You'll recognise it. I posted something very similar several times when you were Mick v2.0.)
Then consider your comment "I believe that we have been living beyond our means for decades as politicians sought to curry favour and get re-elected by borrowing and spending to buy votes. "
-
You can drone on all you want about graphs and GDP etc but the plain fact of the matter is we are drowning in debt. As one of the richest countries in the world we should be lending money not borrowing it. Currently every man woman and child in the country has to pay around £775 per year just to pay the interest on our current debts. This figure is projected to rise quite considerably in the short term. You want to add to this burden. Crazy.
-
Mick.
Our current interest payments on Govt debt come to about 3% of our GDP (and the figure as a percentage of GDP is of course, all that really matters - that is an indication of our ability to service the debt). There are many millions of people out there who would love to have mortgage interest payments that were only 3% of their income.
Historically, our current interest payments as a percentage of GDP are lower than at any time since WWI. They are about on a par with where they were in the period 1850-1910. We didn't do so badly then as a nation.
So you point is? Win fact what is your point ever?
By the way, I assume you missed that post of mine a couple of weeks ago where I challenged you to double or quits our bet. You being an honorable chap who always sticks by what he says and always replies to posts, that surprised me.
So. We've already got a £100 bet on who is going to have the greatest number of MPs in 2015. Are you going to stick by your predictions and double up on Labour getting an opinion poll figure of 26% between now and May 2014? A simple yes or no will do.
-
There you go banging on about GDP, WW1 etc. You can't see the woods for the trees. This is what matters. This year on average, every household in the country will pay £2000 in tax just to service the interest on our debt. You don't seem to mind this fact. Well I do. That money could be far better spent. The bad news is that this £2000 per year is going to keep rising thanks to all the debt we have previously accumulated. You want to add to this burden. Madness.
-
Mick.
Aye. Because the alternative is what I have explained before. Debt might come down but so will the wealth of the country, and by far, far more. THAT is the bit of logic that you have no comprehension of. That has been the effect of Austerity.
The world ain't as simple as your primary school ideas suggest. You CANNOT quickly reduce debt as an absolute value without causing economic catastrophe. What you should do is to manage the level of debt to ensure that economic growth is not throttled off.
Osborne has realised this the hard way. He's found that in attempting to rein in debt, he caused the economy to flatline for 3 years. Which actually meant that he failed in his attempt to rein in debt.
Very, very simple if you just sit down, shut up and think about it for a few minutes.
-
Aye. Because the alternative is what I have explained before. Debt might come down but so will the wealth of the country, and by far, far more. THAT is the bit of logic that you have no comprehension of. That has been the effect of Austerity.
The world ain't as simple as your primary school ideas suggest. You CANNOT quickly reduce debt as an absolute value without causing economic catastrophe. What you should do is to manage the level of debt to ensure that economic growth is not throttled off.
Osborne has realised this the hard way. He's found that in attempting to rein in debt, he caused the economy to flatline for 3 years. Which actually meant that he failed in his attempt to rein in debt.
Very, very simple if you just sit down, shut up and think about it for a few minutes.
We need a period of deep recession to get the books balanced. We need swingeing cuts to public spending. This period would also get rid of all the dead wood in the economy (zombie businesses). Also house prices would fall dramatically meaning youngsters would have half a chance of buying somewhere to live. This will be an uncomfortable period for a short while but once its over we can grow properly and strongly.
You seem quite happy with an ever increasing debt burden which will eventually lead to what you fear so much anyway. Best to follow my strategy and get the pain over and done with quickly instead of dragging it out like you want.
-
OK Mick. And your source is?
(Groundhog Day alert!)
-
I am the source.
-
Think about it like this. Government spends money on building a new house. The result is:
a) A new house exists, which is a benefit to the country as a whole
b) The house builders have to buy bricks. So the brick manufacturers can keep people in work, or take on new employees.
c) The new employees or people who have kept their job earn money that they wouldn't otherwise have earned.
d) That money may well be used by these people to pay off their debts. This would be a good thing as it reduces their indebtedness.
e) Some may also be used to pay for other things. Like improvements to their own house for example. Which would provide employment for other people. Which is a good thing as that would put money into their pockets too. Virtuous circle is established, economic performance improves for the country as a whole AND we have a better infrastructure than we had previously.
Alternative. Government DOESN'T spend that money on a new house.
Result.
a) Government borrows less. In itself in isolation, a good thing.
b) The country has one fewer house. Bad thing.
c) The construction workers stay on the dole, and are paid benefits by the Government (using borrowed money...)
d) The brick manufacturers have fewer customers, so they lay off workers or don't hire new ones. So their (potential) employees have less money and therefore spend less or don't pay down their own debts.
Result: Negative spiral AND the country doesn't get the extra house. The Government doesn't borrow as much, but the country as a whole is poorer.
This is what you should have written:
Think about it like this. Government borrows more money to build a new house. The result is:
a) A new house exists, which is of no benefit to the country as a whole
b) The house builders have to buy bricks. So the brick manufacturers put up their prices and cream off a tasty profit.
c) The new employees or people who have kept their job earn money that they wouldn't otherwise have earned but unfortunately our national debt has increased to keep these non-jobs on the go.
d) That money will be used by these people to go on a spending spree instead of paying off their debts. This would be a bad thing as it fuels another consumer debt fueled boom which will sadly end in bust again. This increases their indebtedness.
e) Some may also be used to pay for other things. Like improvements to their own house for example. Which would provide employment for other people. Which is a bad thing as that would put money into their pockets too and they can also help fuel a consumer led debt filled boom as well. Vicious circle is established, economic performance improves for the country as a whole for a short while AND we have a better infrastructure than we had previously but unfortunately another bust follows which is much worse than before.
Alternative. Government DOESN'T spend that money on a new house.
Result.
a) Government borrows less, a good thing.
b) The country has one fewer house that it couldn't afford. Good thing.
c) The construction workers change trades and start up their own businesses (not using government borrowed money...)
d) The brick manufacturers have fewer customers, so they lay off workers who find employment elsewhere as there are many new jobs being created. So their (potential) employees have more money and therefore can pay down their own debts.
Result: Country doesn't get the extra house. The Government doesn't borrow as much, and we start to live within our means. Eventually the country becomes much richer.
-
Mick
Latvia and Estonia followed exactly the path that you are describing. I await their wonderful re-birth with barely concealed anticipation.
As for your debt figures, you are certainly a something beginning with "s" but "source" isn't the word that immediately springs to mind.
-
By the way Mick.
You know the other day when I posted that our Debt interest payments were 3% of GDP? You recall that you posted that they were in fact double that? And you recall that I asked you to substantiate that claim?
Funny thing Mick. That post of yours has vanished.
Int that odd Mick?
See me? When I say things that are palpably and demonstrably wrong, I don;t delete the posts, I apologise and set the record straight.
So, just for the record, are you saying that you DON'T believe that our debt interest payments are more than 3% of GDP?
A simple yes or no will do Mick.
-
There you go banging on about GDP debt ratios again. You must have been dreaming about this thread as I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make. If it makes you happy I agree with your figures.
-
MP's are to get an 11% pay rise. Good. The job might attract a better calibre of politician if the wages go up. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
-
MP's are to get an 11% pay rise. Good. The job might attract a better calibre of politician if the wages go up. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
There is no evidence to support that assertion.
-
. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
I believe thats a betterware policy
-
There is no evidence to support that assertion.
Matthew Paris (journalist and ex MP) sits on many Tory party candidate selection committees. The only people applying are youngsters that have done nothing but politics or others wanting a pay rise because they have reached a dead end in their current job (basically because they weren't good enough to climb the career ladder). All the top potential candidates earn considerably more than MP's so don't bother applying. So we end up with monkeys.
-
There is no evidence to support that assertion.
Matthew Paris (journalist and ex MP) sits on many Tory party candidate selection committees. The only people applying are youngsters that have done nothing but politics or others wanting a pay rise because they have reached a dead end in their current job (basically because they weren't good enough to climb the career ladder). All the top potential candidates earn considerably more than MP's so don't bother applying. So we end up with monkeys.
Is there any discernible difference in performance between our monkeys in Westminster and the considerably better renumerated monkeys in Brussels?
If you seriously want to attract the highest fliers in industry into politics, you would have to many multiples of £74k.
-
If you seriously want to attract the highest fliers in industry into politics, you would have to many multiples of £74k.
Agreed. That said I'm sure there are many people like me that would be happy with the current salary and would be able to do a brilliant job. If only I could become Prime Minister, I'd soon get this country sorted out.
-
Apart from that awarding them 11% while the public sector wage is locked down at 1%, and most of the country are receiving small wage rises below the inflation rate, isn't exactly leading by example is it?
And doing it while the various expenses scandals still smell like fresh manure too.
-
Good points but we've got to look at the bigger picture. The top people (myself excluded) aren't going to do the job for less money than they can get elsewhere.
-
The top people aren't going to do it for £74k either. Except for the principled ones, who still have a sense of public service, and they'll do it for £68k.
We shouldn't go back to the days of unpaid politicians but it's worth remembering there was never a shortage of people who would do it for nothing. It is important anyone from any background should be able to afford to go into politics.
It's also worth remembering they've outsourced three quarters of their legislative responsibilities to the EU. They aren't as important as they were.
For me they should just lock their pay at double the average wage, while members of cabinet and those with much greater responsibility should probably be on higher pay grades than they are now.
-
More good news. Rate of jobs growth at its highest for 15 years. Yes you read it right - 15 years. So much for the doom and gloom merchants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25294524
-
More good news. Rate of jobs growth at its highest for 15 years. Yes you read it right - 15 years. So much for the doom and gloom merchants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25294524
Lots of work for low paid East Europeans?
-
I'm afraid so. The sooner we get out of Europe the better. It's not only that they are prepared to work for low wages but they've also brought down considerably what used to be the going rate for a job. Just ask anyone that works in the construction industry.
-
I'm afraid so. The sooner we get out of Europe the better. It's not only that they are prepared to work for low wages but they've also brought down considerably what used to be the going rate for a job. Just ask anyone that works in the construction industry. There okay claiming benefits while they work here our youngsters have to wait 2yrs before they can claim glad i'm 60yr old other wise Aussey looks good to me
-
I'm afraid so. The sooner we get out of Europe the better. It's not only that they are prepared to work for low wages but they've also brought down considerably what used to be the going rate for a job. Just ask anyone that works in the construction industry.
What are you suggesting? We weigh anchor and sail off into the Pacific?
There okay claiming benefits while they work here our youngsters have to wait 2yrs before they can claim glad i'm 60yr old other wise Aussey looks good to me
I always love it when people whinge about immigration and then say that they want to emigrate to get away from immigrants! :thumbsup:
-
What are you suggesting? We weigh anchor and sail off into the Pacific?
I like your wit. If only there were more around here like me and you.
-
What are you suggesting? We weigh anchor and sail off into the Pacific?
I like your wit. If only there were more around here like me and you.
Well, there seems to be plenty more around here like me...but you seem to be on your own!
-
MP's are to get an 11% pay rise. Good. The job might attract a better calibre of politician if the wages go up. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Absolute b*llocks.
If you go in to politics for the financial reward then you are going in to it for the wrong reasons. If anything they should reduce it by 11% to bring in people who want to enter politics for the right reasons, to serve and represent their communities. And by their communities, I mean what it says, anyone wanting to stand as MP in their community should have lived in their constituency for at least 5 years in my opinion. Then we might actually get politicians who are prepared to represent the interests their constituents instead of that of themselves and those of corporations, lobbyists and bankers.
-
Absolute b*llocks.
If you go in to politics for the financial reward then you are going in to it for the wrong reasons. If anything they should reduce it by 11% to bring in people who want to enter politics for the right reasons, to serve and represent their communities. And by their communities, I mean what it says, anyone wanting to stand as MP in their community should have lived in their constituency for at least 5 years in my opinion. Then we might actually get politicians who are prepared to represent the interests their constituents instead of that of themselves and those of corporations, lobbyists and bankers.
I beg to differ. There aren't many people around like me that could afford to do the job for such a pittance. Its a fact that in my experience the more you earn is a very accurate determinant of ability. No wonder we have such poor MP's when the wages are so low. If you had your way then it would only be the very rich that would be MP's. I agree with you that you should have lived in the constituency before becoming it's MP.
-
Nice one George. He's planning to cut public spending on welfare again. Quite right too. Its time we got rid of the something for nothing culture that pervades our society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25349236
-
There will be good news in 2015 after the election.
-
I agree. Labour are going to get hammered.
-
Austerity not just working in UK but also working in Ireland. More proof that austerity is the way forward.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25362493
-
Classic Mickonomics. Finds a tiny bit of reporting that supports his crackpot, nursery school economics ideas and he crows about how it clinches the argument.
Let's have a look at Ireland over the last 5 years. Yes, it has had some of the toughest Austerity in Europe. What have the results been?
GDP down nearly 20%
Unemployment trebled to 15% (that'd be 5 million on the dole if it was the UK). It has come down a touch, mainly due to emigration.
Deficit still more than 8% of GDP
Govt debt increased four fold.
Wages for the poorest down 20%.
There's a term for conditions like that. It's called a "Great Depression".
Mick reckons that imposing a Great Depression on a country is a sensible approach, and that one bit of incidental good news (which had NOTHING to do with Ireland's economic prospects) justifies the misery.
You get more sense discussing quantum physics with a corpse.
-
My Neighbour told me that the entire Irish Tax take was 22 billion euros and they have borrowed 85 billion!
It will be about 30 years before they get out if that mess!
-
Let's have a look at Ireland over the last 5 years. Yes, it has had some of the toughest Austerity in Europe. What have the results been?
GDP down nearly 20%
Unemployment trebled to 15% (that'd be 5 million on the dole if it was the UK). It has come down a touch, mainly due to emigration.
Deficit still more than 8% of GDP
Govt debt increased four fold.
Wages for the poorest down 20%.
There's a term for conditions like that. It's called a "Great Depression".
Yes, let's have a look shall we.
GDP down nearly 20%. Good. That's more like the level it should have been pre crash. They were borrowing and living well beyond their means which meant GDP was artificially higher than it should have been. Due to austerity it is now back at a realistic more sustainable level.
Unemployment trebled to 15%. Good. That will be a reminder to them not to excessively borrow in the future. It's no good borrowing loads of money to create non jobs that are going to disappear when the bill needs paying. Unemployment is now falling rapidly. If they'd carried on borrowing like you'd have wanted it would eventually have gone much higher than 15%. I think given the amount of debt they've had 15% was pretty good. Just look at Spain, Greece, etc.
Deficit still more than 8%. With your policies it would be even higher. Due to austerity it is falling. If they'd carried on with your spend, borrow, spend policy it would be rising.
Government debt increased four fold. Yes because they followed another one of your madcap policies. They bailed out the banks. They should have just let them go bust.
Wages for the poorest down 20%. Good. They were paying themselves too much. Now they are paying themselves more realistically. As a consequence house prices are much lower. A win win situation.
There's a term for conditions like that. It's called a "Great Depression". No. It's called re-balancing your economy and starting to live within your means.
-
My Neighbour told me that the entire Irish Tax take was 22 billion euros and they have borrowed 85 billion!
It will be about 30 years before they get out if that mess!
And Billy wanted them to borrow even more! Crazy.
-
Sproty.
"My Neighbour told me that the entire Irish Tax take was 22 billion euros and they have borrowed 85 billion!
It will be about 30 years before they get out if that mess!"
Aye. That's is what happenes when you put a common currency and monetary policy together and don't take it to the logical conclusions of having a common fiscal policy. What happened in Ireland (and Spain and Portugal) was that the interest rates were much, MUCH too low for their conditions in the late 90s and 00s. Interest rates were being set to accommodate conditions in Germany, which was (as always) fiscally tight and therefore required monetary stimulus. But the monetary stimulus in countries that were already growing rapidly was madness. And it led to a catastrophic property bubble, with banks' viability depending on ridiculous property valuations.
That could have been averted 10 years ago. The blame is spread right across the EZ -Ireland being irresponsible. Germany, as ever, saying in effect "We will have policy that is suitable for us and f**k the rest of you."
When the collapse came, Ireland could have done what Mick suggests that they, we and America should have done. Let banks go bust. It was the underwriting of the banks that sent Ireland's debt to astronomical levels. And yep, they could have refused to do that. Just like we could have done. What Mick and the swivel-eyed loons never address is what would have happened then.
But we have a clue as to what would have happened then. Because Bush and Hank Paulson let it happen to ONE bank - Lehmans. And what happened when Lehamans went bust was the biggest economic catastrophe in 80 years. Bank lending stopped overnight. Economic activity fell off a cliff overnight. Countries from America, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Italy, to Ireland, Iceland and Greece saw their economies shrink by 5-10% in 6 months. Perfectly viable companies went under because they couldn't get the credit that modern Capitalism is predicated on.
That was the result of ONE bank collapse. Within a month a strategy was in place to stabilise other banks. It meant that (in countries that didn't go for Austerity) something approaching normal economic activity began to return within 9-12 months. But even so, we've seen tens of millions of economically viable people thrown into long-term unemployment. Lives wrecked. Economies hampered for decades.
And that was the result of ONE bank collapse. Multiply that by the 50 or 100 banks that the swivel-eyed loons think should have been allowed to go bust. And think what the consequences would have been.
Anyone with savings losing the lot.
People tootling off the the autobank to find it permanently shut down and no access to their wages.
And then people not getting wages because their employers had no access to credit.
And even the companies that had significant savings would have had no way of accessing these, because they were tied up in frozen accounts of collapsed banks.
You regularly hear this line trotted out by right wing headcases, that if only Brown hadn't bailed out the banks, everything would now be so much better. What would actually have happened is that society as we know it would have collapsed within months in the biggest catastrophe of the entire Capitalist era. Not just here. Across the entire world.
-
My Neighbour told me that the entire Irish Tax take was 22 billion euros and they have borrowed 85 billion!
It will be about 30 years before they get out if that mess!
And Billy wanted them to borrow even more! Crazy.
Mick.
You are so far off the pace, it is almost embarrassing to talk to you. You have no comprehension of the complexity of this situation. And (as ever) you haven't the barest grasp of what I think.
Ireland could not have borrowed more. Have a think why not, then have a think what the answer might have been.
-
You don't half exaggerate. I wish I had such a brilliant crystal ball that could predict the future as well as the one you have. There is no way it would have been as cataclysmic as you are making out.
Things would have been bad for a while but then we'd have recovered strongly and would have hopefully have learnt our lesson that borrowing and spending is not the way to run an economy.
Anyway we have an example of what happens to an economy when it allows its banks to go bust. Its called Iceland. Its about the same size as Ireland so is an excellent country to use for comparison.
Their banks all collapsed at once during 2008. Going in to 2008, Iceland’s three largest banks had accrued a debt of more than eight times of GDP. The Icelandic government, instead of bailing them out, they let them go bust, leaving the the country in turmoil.
The domestic stock market fell by 95% in 2009 compared to 2007, and Iceland’s GDP fell by 14% during the same period. To have its banking system fail was, at the time, considered to be one of the worst things that could happen to an economy by like minded people to Billy.
The Icelandic government did what it could to save the domestic investors, by saying it would guarantee the assets for its own inhabitants. By doing this they left the international investors to share what was left after the domestic ones had their share. The government also refused to pay any insurance to international
banks. In doing this they decreased their credit rating around the world.
Today, 4 years after the catastrophe in Iceland, things are looking much better. GDP has recovered and has grown 6.9% since 2010, which is a significant increase compared to other European countries, and the unemployment rate is also looking better in Iceland than in many other countries around the world.
Looking at these data, it is obvious that allowing failing banks to go into bankruptcy really is not such a devastating option. It is the best option.
Comparing growth between Iceland and Ireland, an economy
of similar size that chose to bail out its banks in the crisis 2009, shows that Iceland is actually doing significantly better.
I suggest that the rest of Europe can learn from Iceland’s way of handling the crisis. The decision to rescue the domestic economy instead of saving the banks is the reason for why Iceland is doing better than other countries today.
Game, set and match.
-
Jesus wept Mick, you are spectacularly, impressively impervious to any common sense.
You honestly think that a collapse of the global banking system would have resulted in a bit of a bumpy ride, then we'd have come out in roaring good health in a few months? You are more stupid than I ever gave you credit for. If the global banking system had gone for anything more than a few months, we would have all gone feral. Social order woukd have gone. There would have been anarchy, revolution and war. The global banking system very nearly DID stop working for 3 weeks in Oct 2008. The result was the worst economic collapse for three generations. You multitask that by, say six or twelve months of total systemic banking collapse and have a think about what the consequences would be.
Now. Give me f**king strength, but you raise Iceland as an example of what we and Anerica should have done.
Iceland's banks going under meant nothing to the global economy. Because, large as they were compared to Iceland's economy, they were tiny by world standards.
Compare that to the effect that allowing mega banks like RBS, HBoS, Lloyds etc would have had. In 2008, Kaupthing, the biggest bank in Iceland, had assets of about £40bn. RBS had assets of about £1.9tr. You reckon letting RBS go under would have had the same effect as Kaupthing? Grow up soft lad. Stop reading your swivel-eyed loon blogs and do some thinking of your own.
Now, onto why Iceland recovered. Because Iceland's banking collapses didn't threaten the systemic survival of the global banking system, they could safely let the banks go without threatening global carnage. We, Ireland and others did not have that luxury. Iceland did, and very hard-headedly, they took that option. They also massively devalued their currency. They imposed draconian currency controls. They introduced a massive policy of Govt-funded debt relief for over-indebted mortgage holders.
The first of those made Iceland's exporters more competitive against the rest of the world. The second stopped Iceland's wealthy from pouring their money into more lucrative currencies overseas. The third is a perfect stimulus policy.
Now. Stick with us Mick, cos we're thinking like grown-ups here.
The first of those policies is what your right-wing nutter friends call "debasing the currency" and "cheating savers". Currency devaluation is a classic way to get out of a country-specific Depression by making your own goods cheaper than everyone else's, and grabbing a bigger share of world trade, thus rapidly kick-starting your own economy. But how could Ireland do that? It doesn't control it's own currency. And what do you think the effect of EVERYONE doing that simultaneously would have been, if UK, USA, The EZ, Japan etc had all let their banks go bust?
Just think about it for a moment.
As for the other two Icelandic policies, they are straight out of the "Socialist Way to Manage Capitalism's Problems" textbook. If you're telling me you agree with those, I'm 100% with you comrade.
Now. What was your point again Mick?
The other two are straight out of the socialist guide
-
Iceland might be the same size as Eire Geographically but the population is about a sixteenth.
When they went bust they merely got put their old fishing boats and started landing Cod again.
The Irish can't do that.
-
Once again Billy you ignore macro economics. You assume that all countries will implement my policy. I've got news for you. They won't. Therefore the UK could let the banks go bust and the world wouldn't grind to a halt because most of the other countries would follow your policy.
You seem to have a very pessimistic nature, always fearing the worst. Take a leaf out of my book and look on the bright side of life for a change.
-
And another thread runs into the buffers with Mick making an arse of himself.
Rack em up and break off again...
-
If we had done as you suggest Mick, your betterware stock would have been looted long before now, your tenants wouldn't have been able to pay the rent on your houses and you would be skint like the rest of us, is that what you wanted Mick?
-
If we had done as you suggest, your betterware stock would have been looted long before now, your tenants wouldn't have been able to pay the rent on your houses and you would be skint like the rest of us, is that what you wanted?
I don't mind a bit of short term pain for long term gain. However I would be able to ride the storm better than most because I am a saver not a spender. I am also a serial entrepreneur and I am sure I would be able to take advantage of the carnage with some new business opportunities.
I also only let top quality tenants live in my houses that also live within their means and save regularly. It's all you borrowers and spendthrifts that would suffer the most and quite rightly so. You need to be taught a lesson.
Hopefully you would then start to live within your means and save up for things first before buying them rather than doing as Billy would want you to and keep borrowing and spending. It's no wonder the British consumer is drowning in debt.
-
Mick, in that scenario your savings would be worth jack shit to you, they'd be gone swallowed up when you let the banks go bust
-
i
n that scenario your savings would be worth jack shit to you, they'd be gone swallowed up when you let the banks go bust
You've been reading too much into what Billy says. He's all doom and gloom and always paints a picture much worse than would actually be the case. Not all banks would go bust, only some of them. The good banks would then take over the the bad banks. If the government followed my advice then depositors would have their savings protected. It would be the big global institutions that would be out of pocket (just like what happened in Iceland).
-
Puddled!
-
Utterly Filo.
I'll be honest, I still don't know if he's a WUM or if he's just as thick as a bucket of pigshit.
A little short-term difficulty if banks like RBS etc had been allowed to go bust on a large scale! Give me f**king strength...
-
The way you talk you'd think everyone loses their money when a bank goes bust. That doesn't happen. It's perfectly simple to look after small depositors that can't afford to lose their money. You need to read the following link to see what actually does happen when a bank goes bust.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7115252.stm
-
Mick
You have convinced us that you are spectacularly thick. You can stop anytime you want.
What you have no f**king comprehension of whatsoever, is why the collapse of Lehman's was so damaging, and what would have happened if an even larger bank had gone under. Not to mention several of them.
So, here's some homework for you Mick. Write us 500 words on what the proximate cause of the intensification of the credit crunch in Sept-Oct 2008 was, and the consequence for the global economy in 2008-09.
A clue
Google "TED Spread". That is a market measure of the confidence that banks have in the creditworthiness of other banks. The entire Capitslist economic system depends upon banks having confidence in each other. If they don't, they refuse to lend funds from establishments with excess savers, to those who have a requirement to pay back creditors.
Without that confidence, the banking system ceases to function and the mechanism for getting money out into the economy collapses.
The TED Spread is the interest charge that banks set when they lend money to each other in this way. It is usually a tiny percentage value. When it goes up, in means banks are getting twitchy and preferring to hold onto their money rather than lend it. But that is the nightmare scenario. Because if confidence goes, the entire economic system seizes up. It's like the oil being drained out of a running engine.
Now. Toddle along Mick and have a look at what happened to TED Spreads after Paulson did what you suggest, and let Lehman's go bust. Then consider what the global consequences of that decision were.
And then, do us a favour and shut the f**k up with your nursery school-level ramblings.
-
Look its very simple. Lehman's went bust. The world hasn't ended. America has less debt now because they didn't bail them out. They are now recovering more strongly because they have been less burdened by the additional debt that they would have had to take on. Other banks have taken note and have altered their behaviour accordingly. A lesson has been learnt.
We live in a capitalist world. If you screw up up you pay the penalty. If banks screw up, they go bust. Simple. If they know they are always going to be bailed out then they will take crazy risks (which is what they did). They did this because they knew good old Gordon Brown would underwrite all the risk.
I've got news for you. That is not how capitalism works. You need to get real. The solution to every problem is not more and more spending and borrowing. You really are a one trick pony.
-
You can't stop demonstrating your stupidity Mick can you?
The collapse of Lehmans produced an earthquake through the financial system. I suggested that you looked at TED Spreads, which you clearly couldn't be arsed to do. The TED Spread doubled within days of the Lehmans collapse. The financial system ground to a halt as panic swept through the banks and they stopped lending money to each other. The results were catastrophic - the biggest collapse in global economic output for 80 years. Perfectly sound companies, perfectly hard working people thrown on the scrapheap because there was no means of obtaining the credit that makes the capitalist system work.
You, Mick, immersed in your simpleton thought processes, brain addled by too many hours reading RightWingNutJob.com think that that was just a simple price that had to be paid. You say that America was better off for not bailing out Lehmans.
Your ignorance and stupidity have just reached new levels.
The collapse of the financial system post-Lehmans was so dangerous, that within 5 days, America was processing the biggest bank bailout in history. $700bn worth. Done in a mad panic before any more unnecessary damage to the economy was done.
How much of a panic? Thursday 18th Sept, a few days after Lehman went down, Ben Bernanke, the boss of the Fed was telling politicians that if they didn't get the bailout sorted, "we may not have an economy by Monday".
So, letting Lehmans go bust not only didn't stop America having to bail out other banks, it also worsened the worse economic cradsh in three generations. Good work eh?
Of course, you know better though, don't you?
Tell you what Mick. When we're talking about the consequences of bank collapse, should we trust the witterings of a Bettaware salesman and guitar tutor from Donny who spent 3 months last year screeching that Donny were going to get relegated because their possession efficiency was shit, or should we trust the opinion of a man who has studied, taught and practiced economics at the highest level for 40 years, who is an acknowledged expert on the causes of the Great Depression and Japan's 1990s collapse and was in the eye of the storm when all hell broke loose? What do you reckon?
-
The fact that he's trying to argue that a county that ceased to exist in 1996 on another thread is still a thing says it all, BST.
-
The financial system ground to a halt as panic swept through the banks and they stopped lending money to each other. The results were catastrophic - the biggest collapse in global economic output for 80 years. Perfectly sound companies, perfectly hard working people thrown on the scrapheap because there was no means of obtaining the credit that makes the capitalist system work.
Exaggerating again. I don't recall not being able to get hold of my money from the banks. Businesses and people still managed to borrow money. Some companies went bust but that is what is needed when there is a recession. The dead wood is got rid of and new companies spring from the ashes.
-
The collapse of the financial system post-Lehmans was so dangerous, that within 5 days, America was processing the biggest bank bailout in history. $700bn worth. Done in a mad panic before any more unnecessary damage to the economy was done.
You said it 'mad panic'. That is not the best time to make such huge decisions. The USA is now saddled with an extra $700bn worth of debt due to decisions (that you agree with) made in a mad panic. Far better to have let the banks go bust and keep the USA's debt burden down to a more manageable level.
-
should we trust the opinion of a man who has studied, taught and practiced economics at the highest level for 40 years, who is an acknowledged expert on the causes of the Great Depression and Japan's 1990s collapse and was in the eye of the storm when all hell broke loose? What do you reckon?
I didn't know you had such a high opinion of yourself. I don't care if you've studied, taught and practiced economics at the highest level for 40 years, and am an acknowledged expert on the causes of the Great Depression and Japan's 1990s collapse and was in the eye of the storm when all hell broke loose. You still talk utter rubbish.
I repeat, your policy of borrow ,spend, borrow, spend will ultimately lead to disaster. You're like the person buying everything on a credit card. You eventually reach your limit so get another card. Once that reaches its limit you get another one. You don't pay anything off except the interest every month. Eventually you can' t get anyone else to give you a credit card so you stop buying. You also find you are unable to afford the interest anymore and you go bankrupt leaving a load of debt behind you.
So you are no good to the economy as you have no buying power and the poor sods who gave you the credit card in the first place are left to pick up the pieces.
40 years as an economist and you can't work that one out.
-
Mick, quick favour as a fellow member of the Irish diaspora, Billy isn't talking about himself - he is talking about Ben Bernanke as quoted in his post. If you edit your post quickly now, no-one will know and you wont look as ridiculous as you do arguing against him....
-
Wilts.
Fascinating insight into Mick's ego there. He actually thinks someone with 40 years as a professor of economics would swap views with him. Rather than telling him to f**k off and come back once he'd read summat else besides MoneyWeek "The End of Britain" and the collected works of Peter Schiff.
Hey ho...
-
quick favour as a fellow member of the Irish diaspora, Billy isn't talking about himself - he is talking about Ben Bernanke as quoted in his post. If you edit your post quickly now, no-one will know and you wont look as ridiculous as you do arguing against him....
Gotcha! I know Billy isn't an economist (its obvious from the drivel he posts). He's a scientologist.
-
Every one of Mick's threads in a nutshell:
Mick: "Hey look at me look over here I'm being a prick look how much of a prick I am etc etc"
VSC Users: "f**k off, you prick."
Mick: "Joke's on them! I was only pretending!"
There is no joke here, Mick. Acting like a prick so you can chuckle when you goad people into calling you a prick doesn't make you Doncaster's answer to Chris Morris.
-
When I was 8 or 9 at school, the rough lads used to corner kids in the playground and say "Are you a bummer tied up?"
If the kid said "yes", they shouted, "ARRRGGHHH! He's a Bummer!"
If the kind said "no", they shouted, "ARRGGGHHH! He's a bummer on the loose."
I'm reminded of those days in threads like this...
-
More good news. Unemployment at lowest level since 2009 at 7.4% and is below the rate analysts had expected.
The number of people out of work fell by 99,000 to 2.39 million in the three months to October.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in November fell by 36,700 to 1.27 million.
The number of job vacancies is at the highest since 2008.
The vast majority of the rise in the employment total over the last year is accounted for by full time jobs (not part-time jobs as the Labour party would have you believe).
Also, pay excluding bonuses, grew by 0.8% in this quarter showing the cost of living crisis will also soon be a thing of the past.
The number of people aged 16 and over who are in work was at a record high of 30.09 million, up 250,000 compared with the May-to-July period.
The best bit of news was that the percentage of the workforce in the public sector - 18.8% of those in employment, or 5.7 million people - fell to its lowest rate since the current data series began in 1999. It needs to fall much further.
We are seeing the fastest rates of job creation since the late 1990s in recent months, as firms respond to a marked pick up in demand.
So how does Billy and Mr Balls explain this when they said unemployment would rise and their would be a double dip recession unless Plan B was implemented?
-
IC
I'd suggest they'd explain it by pointing out that plan B was initiated when Osbourne stimulated the economy with his housing boom.
-
Possibly. However that is only a small part of the picture. I expect a deafening silence as there is no explanation possible. They've made themselves look a right pair of numpties.
-
RD
If you have the time, have a look at what the Oxford University macroeconomist Prof Simon Wren-Lewis has to say on the subject. In a nutshell, it's that Osborne abandoned Plan A last year, but, being a shameless politician, is insisting that he didn't.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/osbornes-plan-b.html?m=1
The key data is in rows 1 and 3 of SWL's post. Basically, Austerity stopped in 2012 (row 1 - the deficit stopped coming down) and the reason for this is that Govt consumption went up (row 3).
Fair play to Osborne. He's a ruthless politician. He read the tea leaves last year and, looking at these numbers, changed to precisely Plan B. But he was never going to admit that. He is excellent at lying through his teeth and he's been doing it for the last year, claiming that the growth has come BECAUSE OF Austerity. As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.
The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. Which is a perfectly fine ideal if that's what you believe in. But then have the courage and honesty to argue for it on its direct merits, not ram it through mendaciously.
And, on the same topic, Krugman, as ever, cuts right to the chase. Reading his final sentence, I guess he's probably had the pleasure of listening to Mick.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/12/18/the-three-stooges-do-westminster/?from=krugman
-
Amazing. That's the best laugh I've had for ages. Billy now tells us that George has been implementing Plan B for a year and that's why everything in the garden is now rosy. Unbelievable.
Here's what the FT reckons (hardly a right wing paper). They don't seem to believe Billy's drivel. Have a read of this article for a balanced view on Plan A as opposed to Plan B.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03137634-1a13-11e3-93e8-00144feab7de.html#axzz2nryF8gnw
Does anyone seriously believe that George would not have been exposed if what Billy says is true? Are Labour and their many friends in the media incapable of pointing out such an almighty U turn? They must be if you believe Billy.
Why is this the first time that Billy has said Plan B has been on the go for over a year? I'll tell you why. It's the act of a desperate man, who, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Plan A is working has decided that the only possible answer he can come up with is that Plan A is really Plan B. Laughable in the extreme.
If Austerity has been abandoned then why have figures published today shown that the size of the public sector has shrunk to its smallest size since the current data series began in 1999? Why is council funding falling again next year? I could go on.
Trust me Plan A (with minor modifications) is still happening. Plan B is something Ed Balls wishes he'd never mentioned. Funny how he hasn't mentioned it for ages now. He's hoping we'll all forget what he said. So is Billy.
-
Mick
You're confusing me with a macroeconomic world expert for the second time in a week. It's noty argument. It's Prof Wren-Lewis's
It's also Jonathan Portes's argument from Jan this year.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2563344
If you read THAT article (which of course you won't, because you never do...) you'll also see that Fraser Nelson (as right wing as they come) was also saying 12 months ago that Austerity had been ditched. (He said that the result would be disastrous, but there you go). Well done to Portes and Nelson for spotting the change of strategy. The rest of us (including Oxford economics profs) could only see this once the figures were published. Last week.
Anyway Mick, let's have a think here. The FACT (fact - look it up on Word Hippo, cos I know you struggle with the concept) is that Govt consumption spending increased sharply last year - far more sharply than had been planned. That's unarguable. It's in the OBR figures that Wren Lewis discusses. So what exactly is that if it isn't ditching Plan A?
So, what has happened since 2010 is this.
2010: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit and this will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. Growth stops.
2011: Osborne says he will continue to reduce the deficit and this time it really will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. The economy flatlines.
2012: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit even more and this really, really will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. Growth doesn't come back.
2013: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit even more than before and this really, truly, scouts honour will spur growth. He increases Govt spending by several percent more than he planned. Growth comes back. Osborne says this vindicates his policies. Mick says this vindicates his policies.
That just about covers it in a nutshell.
-
The rest of us (including Oxford economics profs) could only see this once the figures were published. Last week.
Just because he's an Oxford economics prof doesn't mean he isn't a leftie. You must be getting desperate if you're now resorting to quoting that ultra left wing Huffington Post. Most of the 'journalists' (I use that term loosely) can't even spell properly or string a coherent sentence together.
Right, so this information has been out there a week now. Why aren't the Labour party and all their left wing friends shouting about it from the roof tops? Surely if the government had made such a monumental U turn it would be all over the media. This would be the U turn to beat all U turns. Please explain why this isn't the case. Also while you're at it could you please show where the leftie FT has got it wrong as well.
-
It is a u turn.
Perhaps because this government have made so many u turns it's gone unnoticed.
-
If it was a U turn then do you not think Ed Balls would be shouting about it from the roof tops? According to you and Billy, George has adopted the very plan that Ed Balls wanted them to. Why is Balls not crowing and saying I told you so? Why does he never mention Plan B any more? Why have Labour decided to pursue the cost of living agenda instead? I'll tell you why. Because they believe (quite rightly) that they have lost the debate and they want to cut their losses.
It is laughable in the extreme to expect people to believe that George has implemented Plan B and nobody has noticed.
-
If it was a U turn then do you not think Ed Balls would be shouting about it from the roof tops? According to you and Billy, George has adopted the very plan that Ed Balls wanted them to. Why is Balls not crowing and saying I told you so? Why does he never mention Plan B any more? Why have Labour decided to pursue the cost of living agenda instead? I'll tell you why. Because they believe (quite rightly) that they have lost the debate and they want to cut their losses.
It is laughable in the extreme to expect people to believe that George has implemented Plan B and nobody has noticed.
Well my own hunch, speaking as someone who isn't an out and out Labour supporter is they do not want to draw attention, to what is on the surface is a short term Tory success.
It is worth remembering plenty of Tory supporters and Liberals including Vince Cable are saying this is the wrong sort of growth, mind.
-
Mick
You don't need to keep showing us your ignorance. We take it as read. You COULD do something about it, by reading up instead of just assuming that anyone who contradicts you is a raving lefty. But you won't.
If you DID read up, you'd find that Wren-Lewis has criticised Brown for running deficits in the good times.
As for your Huffington post comment, do some reading up and have a think about why your comment was stupid and irrelevant.
Go on. Toddle off.
-
Right, so this information has been out there a week now. Why aren't the Labour party and all their left wing friends shouting about it from the roof tops? Surely if the government had made such a monumental U turn it would be all over the media. This would be the U turn to beat all U turns. Please explain why this isn't the case. Also while you're at it could you please show where the leftie FT has got it wrong as well.
Billy I'm still waiting for a credible response. Do me a favour and at least answer just a few of the questions I pose for a change. I always do you the courtesy of answering anything you throw at me. Could it be you're lost for words because you and Mr Balls have been rumbled? Cue deafening silence or an attempt to change the subject.
-
Mick
You don't understand how politics works do you? People aren't interested in the detail. Arguments over points of detail turn into a morass. What people are interested in are simple, easy to digest big picture issues.
So. Onto your question. I assume you are busily researching mine as we speak, to figure out why your comments on that Huffington Post article were so daft.
Labour pushed on the big issue from 2010-2012. That was this: We told you that Austerity would lead to a long term flatlining of the economy. We got Austerity. We got 3 years of virtually zero growth. Just like we told you.
Growth then re-emerges in 2013. It's only retrospectively that we see the underlying reason. That Austerity was put on hold (not MY belief,not some made up lefty plot. Demonstrable from last week's OBR figures).
Meantime, Osborne has played very clever politics. He's kept on insisting that it's full steam ahead on Austerity. He's a very able political operator and he's set the agenda. Without any numbers to contradict him (until last week) it was impossible to contradict him.
So he begins to win the political argument. He says: we told you Austerity would work. We stuck to our word and it HAS worked. It's all lies of course, but that matters not one jot in politics.
So, Labour are on the back foot. They switch their line of attack to a second big, simple picture. Yes the economy is growing, but do YOU feel any better off? Perfectly reasonable question. Perfectly reasonable political manoeuvre.
When the OBR figures came out last week, it's too late. In the public mind, Osborne has win the political argument. Meanwhile. Labour has got significant traction on the living standards issue. So why should Labour drag up what will be seen as a tired argument again?
It's the difference between wanting to win an argument because truth matters, and being politically savvy enough to know when you're not going to win, regardless of the truth.
-
Well my own hunch, speaking as someone who isn't an out and out Labour supporter is they do not want to draw attention, to what is on the surface is a short term Tory success.
It is worth remembering plenty of Tory supporters and Liberals including Vince Cable are saying this is the wrong sort of growth, mind.
I can see your point. However I am totally staggered that if it is true that Plan B has been implemented, Mr Balls would not feel the need to point this out and claim a lot of political kudos. He's had the OBR figures a week now and we've heard nothing from him. Totally amazing. There could be another reason though why he's keeping his mouth shut. Plan B hasn't been implemented! Thats my view and it doesn't sit well with the likes of Billy because it doesn't fit with what they've been saying for the last few years. I accept that there have been some minor modifications to Plan A but there is no way that could be described as a complete shift to Plan B. Balls has lost the argument and he knows it. That's why he never mentions Plan B any more. Unfortunately for him, the public have long memories.
I too have reservations about the type of growth we are experiencing. It's too much like the 'growth' (I use that term loosely) we used to get with Labour. It's too much debt fuelled consumer led for my liking.
-
Thats a very poor answer Billy. If it could be proved that Balls was right all along and that George has implemented Plan B that would be a political earthquake off the Richter Scale and you and everyone else knows it. Why hasn't this earthquake happened? It's very simple. Plan B has not been implemented.
Don't forget, we're waiting for you to show us where the FT got it wrong on their verdict on Plan A v Plan B.
Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521
-
Mick
I'll let Prof Wren-Lewis do the take-down of the FT. Not that it'll be good enough for you, but it'll do for anyone with an open mind.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/austerity-growth-and-being-economical.html
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/osbornes-plan-b.html
By the way. Wren-Lewis is in a profession where being correct and searching for the truth DOES matter. Because you get found out if you're wrong, and you're not able to use the dark arts of political spin to get out of it. So he doesn't care about what is politically helpful. He cares about what is true and what is false or ignorant.
-
You claim that George has abandoned Plan A and switched to Balls Plan B. You then seek to prove this by providing links to a leftie economist in the hope that none of us will read his ramblings. As an expert in this field I am aware of Prof Wren-Lewis. The best he can come up with is the following:
Plan A was temporarily abandoned. Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure
Plan A being modified and 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned' could be construed to have a similar meaning. I've already said Plan A has been modified. 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned' does not mean as you imply that George is now following Plan B. The key word in that phrase is 'temporary'. So even if we accept what the Prof is saying then you cannot claim that Plan A has been abandoned permanently and that George is now following Plan B and that is why things are turning around.
The Prof also says 'Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure.' So unlike you, even he is not claiming that the improvement in the economy is down to this alleged U turn. You on the other hand claim all the improvement in the economy is totally down to Plan B. The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery.
So the reason Balls does not go around saying that George is implementing Plan B is because even when referring to the Prof, he can't back up the argument. The best he could say is that Plan A was temporarily put on hold. A completely different thing as you well know.
So just admit you've been caught bang to rights and Plan A is still George's policy. Plan B is dead. Long live Plan A.
-
Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521
Still waiting.
-
Mick
Phew...the same old treadmill.
You will take whatever information you need to support your pre-conceived ideas and you will admit nothing else into your head. You will decide what you think other people think and you will ignore any evidence to the contrary.
A little example. You have convinced yourself that I believe that Osborne has totally rejected Austerity and been converted to what Keynesian analysts have been saying since 2010. You totally ignore the fact that just up the page I wrote:
"As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.
The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. "
And you also convinced yourself that Plan A HASN'T been abandoned.
Now. Go and have a look at that Table that Wren-Lewis posts (from OBR data, so it doesn't matter if he's a raving pinko or what he is - we are talking about FACTS here, not opinions). Tell me if you see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth.
A further point. You say "The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery." Well, you clearly AREN'T familiar with his opinions, because it is claims like that that he has spent the last couple of years tearing his hair out over.
Let me give you some quotes from him:
February 2012:
"My prediction is that some people will say that growth shows those Keynesian prophets of doom were all wrong. Look, the patient has recovered just fine without the need for any fiscal stimulus medicine. If people do say this, they will be wrong on two counts. " (I'll stop there Mick, although you're welcome to read the two counts that people would be wrong on for yourself http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/when-growth-returns-prediction.html)
How right he was about that...
Sept 2013: "the argument that positive growth proves critics of austerity wrong continues to annoy me...the amazing thing is how the idea that the emergence of growth after years of stagnation proves austerity was just fine could gain a moments traction. Do not get me wrong. There are some arguments in favour of austerity that should be seriously debated. But this is not one of them. Instead the argument is just silly. So how can people get away with making it?"
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/austerity-growth-and-being-economical.html
As for why no-one has trumpeted it in the media:
Dec 2013: " will see if the myth that Osborne stuck to Plan A survives, and we really do have to live with a post-truth media. "
-
Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521
Still waiting.
There are some questions so spectacularly stupid that you assume the questioner is simply asking them to demonstrate their own spectacular stupidity. But it appears that you actually wanted an answer to this one. Here we go again.
The number of people employed by Govt has no direct correlation with Govt spending.
Consider.
1) Govt sacks 100,000 civil servants, and gives Govt-funded contracts to private sector companies to do the same work. That reduces the number of Govt employees, increases the number of private sector employees, but does not in itself do anything to change Govt expenditure. It MAY reduce Govt expenditure if the private company is highly efficient. Alternatively, if the private company is highly inefficient and/or corrupt (think Serco charging for tagging dead people...), it may even increase Govt expenditure.
2) Govt decides to stimulate the economy by placing more private sector contracts. That increases the private sector employment levels and simultaneously increases Govt expenditure.
A tiny example
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/priority-school-building-programme ...which came on stream this year, 3 years after Gove stopped the schools rebuilding programme...
Others include HS2, increased road spending and of course, the subsidy for the housing bubble that we are now in.
Simple enough for you?
-
A little example. You have convinced yourself that I believe that Osborne has totally rejected Austerity and been converted to what Keynesian analysts have been saying since 2010. You totally ignore the fact that just up the page I wrote:
"As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.
The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. "
I'm confused. You're saying that you don't believe he has abandoned Plan A? You then say that he has and will introduce it again after the 2015 election. A bit contradictory if you don't mind me saying.
And you also convinced yourself that Plan A HASN'T been abandoned.
Correct. At best (if we believe your Prof which I don't) it was temporarily suspended but is now back in full force.
Now. Go and have a look at that Table that Wren-Lewis posts (from OBR data, so it doesn't matter if he's a raving pinko or what he is - we are talking about FACTS here, not opinions). Tell me if you see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth.
No I don't see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth. I see George introducing a bit of flexibility into plan A.
A further point. You say "The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery." Well, you clearly AREN'T familiar with his opinions, because it is claims like that that he has spent the last couple of years tearing his hair out over.
He said 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned. Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure.' By inference he is not saying what you are saying. He implies that maybe Austerity had something to do with it.
-
I give up Mick
You have a peculiar way of ignoring anything anyone actually says and instead answering what you convince yourself that they say. I haven't got time in my life to continue discussing with a person who is incapable of even reading what is set out in front of him. If that convinces you that you are correct, then I'm very happy for you.
Merry Xmas.
-
The growth figures look good but...
UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.
Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.
The good news just keeps on coming.
I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?
-
The growth figures look good but...
UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.
Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.
The good news just keeps on coming.
I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?
It's the sort of recovery that Billy and Labour love. Debt fuelled. At least the Tories are shrinking the state and have a commitment to reduce spending long-term. They are the lesser of the two evils.
-
RD.
There is basically just two things that governs whether a country gets richer or poorer and thereby, whether a recovery is of any real benefit to the country:
1) How many people are economically active.
2) How productive they are.
Of course, it's good news that unemployment is coming down (finally - after the longest spell of >2.5M unemployment in our history) and that more people are working. But what about productivity?
Here's the most frightening set of data of the lot.
(http://oi39.tinypic.com/s18047.jpg)
Something has gone fundamentally wrong with the UK economy and whatever the merits of the recovery, it is not being put right. We have had a more or less constant increase in productivity for more than 50 years. Under MacMillan, Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown our productivity rose. Through Butskellism, the Barber Boom, Stagflation, Monetarism, the Lawson Boom, the ERM disaster, and the Great Moderation, productivity rose more or less constantly.
But now we are in a period of utter stagnation. That is appallingly bad news for the medium and long term future. Whether it is engineering graduates working as barristas because there is no demand for engineers. whether it is companies not being able to invest in the latest productive equipment because they can't get credit, whether it is the 1.5M people who are working part-time who desperately want full-time work; whatever it is, something is badly not working at the core of our economy. The result is that people are having to work harder without seeing any sign of improvements in their living standard. They won't, because without improvements in productivity, the slices of the cake don't increase. That is the Big Point that Labour have caught onto. A recovery that has stagnating productivity at its core is no recovery at all, in terms of what it means to individuals.
-
The growth figures look good but...
UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.
Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.
The good news just keeps on coming.
I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?
It's the sort of recovery that Billy and Labour love. Debt fuelled. At least the Tories are shrinking the state and have a commitment to reduce spending long-term. They are the lesser of the two evils.
Mick.
Stop making a prick of yourself, just for once.
-
I give up
You have a peculiar way of ignoring anything anyone actually says and instead answering what you convince yourself that they say. I haven't got time in my life to continue discussing with a person who is incapable of even reading what is set out in front of him. If that convinces you that you are correct, then I'm very happy for you.
Merry Xmas
.
At last you've seen sense and have admitted defeat. About time. You know you are no match for me.
Merry Xmas
-
Mick. You will defeat anyone who argues with you, on the terms that you set. Anyone who argues from a position whereby they selectively quote, mis-quote and utterly ignore anything else that contradicts their world-view, no matter how clearly it is set out in front of them is absolutely impervious to reasoned argument. Of course people like that will win any argument. On the terms that they set.
There's a name for people like that. I'm sure you can Google it...
-
BST
I know I keep coming back to this but couldn't the lower productivity in part be down to the high cost of energy?
-
The reason productivity has not risen is because we are paying the price for Labour's years of mismanagement. People and companies and the country were left in so much debt after Labour left office that the incoming government felt it couldn't do what it should have done... raise interest rates. A short sharp depression would have got rid of all the zombie companies and cleared out the debt from the economy. Unfortunately the politicians didn't have the balls to do this. We are now paying the price in terms of productivity.
-
RD.
On the "What sort of recovery is this?" theme, there is a very interesting debate starting in upper economic circles about "what sort of ECONOMY is this?"
I don't know if you saw the news about Larry Summers's speech a month or so back, but it was intriguing.
He sets out the following argument. It's based on American data, but it seems to apply exactly to us as well.
1) Economies that are overheated suffer high inflation. Economies that are fundamentally depressed suffer negative inflation.
2) All other things being equal, high levels of borrowing and debt result in higher inflation.
3) From about 1980 to 2008, the levels of debt in the USA grew to unprecedented levels. This graph is US household debt to GDP
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/16/opinion/111613krugman1/111613krugman1-blog480.png)
4) In fact, during that period, there have been three mega-bubbles and crashes in the US economy, fuelled by (private) borrowing: The commercial real estate bubble in the late 80s, the dot com bubble in the late 90s and the sub-prime bubble in the mid 2000s. That is exactly what you would expect if borrowing was too easy and interest rates were too low.
5) But, if borrowing is too easy, inflation is supposed to explode and interest rates are supposed to have to be cranked up to damp down inflation.
6) In fact, during the same period, inflation collapsed. In the 1980 it was ~14%, in 1990, ~6%, in 2000, ~3% and by 2007, when debt was at its highest ever levels, inflation was ~2%.
7) And interest rates dropped steadily: ~15% in 1980, 8% in 1990, 6% in 2000 and between 1-5% from 2001-08.
8) So, America had a long term credit binge, and historically low interest rates. But inflation was historically low too.
9) That is a puzzle. It suggests that if interest rates had been pushed up to throttle off the debt binge, Inflation would have been negative for most of the last 20-odd years. In other words, without the credit binge, America has effectively been in a long-term Depression.
Summers's conclusion is that it might only be repeated bubbles that have been keeping the US economy afloat.
It's a scary thought...
-
RD.
I'm sure energy costs must be a part of the problem, but they cannot be the entire reason. Because there were two far more severe energy price shocks in the 1970s, but the productivity curve hardly blipped.
Mick: Yes dear. Whatever you say dear. Have a nice day dear.
-
Larry Summers needs to look at demographics. That is far and away the biggest reason why things have happened as they have. You'd think he would have considered that wouldn't you.
-
Actually, I cannot help biting...God save me.
Mick:
We should have had a short, sharp Depression eh? To clear out the debt eh?
How in the name of holy f**k does a depression clear out debt?
-
Jesus wept, it really is like being inside a hamster wheel. The same piece of fetid, half-digested lumps coming into view with depressing regularity.
It was only a while before demographics came back onto the scene.
Mick. The argument that Summers sets out is based on what has already happened in America over the last 30 years. The time that the baby boomers were maturing as the driving force of the economy. In that time, the American workforce has increased by over 40%. The employment figures have increased by something like an extra 2million people a year. So what the f**k has demographics got to do with it?
-
It's very simple. An ageing population does not spend anything like younger people do. America (as do we) has an ageing population. This keeps inflation under control. The countries that have inflation are the emerging economies where an ageing population isn't yet a problem.
-
How in the name of holy f*** does a depression clear out debt?
It's very simple. I'll give a couple of examples. A consumer drowning in debt can no longer afford the mortgage. Result he goes bankrupt and is no longer in debt and can start to rebuild his life. Next time around the cost of the next house he buys will be a lot cheaper and so more affordable in the future.
An inefficient business finds the cost of borrowing means he can no longer survive. He goes bankrupt clearing his debt. The more efficient productive companies in the economy take up the slack from the company that has gone bust improving our nation's productivity.
-
How in the name of holy f*** does a depression clear out debt?
It's very simple. I'll give a couple of examples. A consumer drowning in debt can no longer afford the mortgage. Result he goes bankrupt and is no longer in debt and can start to rebuild his life. Next time around the cost of the next house he buys will be a lot cheaper and so more affordable in the future.
An inefficient business finds the cost of borrowing means he can no longer survive. He goes bankrupt clearing his debt. The more efficient productive companies in the economy take up the slack from the company that has gone bust improving our nation's productivity.
f**king hell Mick! The penny has finally dropped for me! You are actually being serious here aren't you? This really and truly IS what you believe! It all makes sense now. I am really, really sorry that I've been abusive. The problem all along wasn't a deliberate obtusiveness. It was just that you haven't got the first f**king idea how the world actually operates!
OK. Let's indulge you. These individuals and companies who throw their hands up and go bankrupt.
Magic! Their debt is wiped out.
What about the people that they owed that debt to? What happens to them? Say it is a bank that lent them money? What happens to the bank when it turns out that a lot of the debtors that they lent money to are unable to pay back their debt?
What happens to that bank then? Well, it may well go bust itself, because the bank actually borrowed money from someone else in the first place. Like individual savers. Or companies investing their profits in bonds. Or other banks, off-loading temporary excess funds.
So...if that bank goes bust. What happens to the creditors of that bank?
Etc....etc...etc...etc...
Got it?
-
RD.
I'm sure energy costs must be a part of the problem, but they cannot be the entire reason. Because there were two far more severe energy price shocks in the 1970s, but the productivity curve hardly blipped.
I'm struggling to find a long term inflation adjusted chart for crude, this will have to do.
(http://www.icis.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/icisweb/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2013/01/09/Brent%20Jan13.png)
Red is inflation adjusted.
The spike in oil prices were are seeing now is more severe than the 70s. The oil price is remaining at elevated levels, since 2007 and the initial dramatic fall it has risen back to around the $110 per barrel level and stayed there. Way above the $30 longterm norm.
-
RD.
I accept that the graph in that link looks scary, but in fact that was a momentary spike (on an admittedly, long-term rise) in oil prices.
These are the figures since then:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
Still high by historic standards, but overall, the last 10 years has been broadly similar to the 1970s, when productivity rises sailed on.
-
I suppose there are lots of variables but it seems to me crude hasn't shifted for the last two or three years from a new high level at somewhere just above $100 pb. In the 70s we saw a similar period just above $80. We'll need a few more years of data to see if this remains a new reality or if it starts to fall back.
Here is another interesting chart showing the price of petrol at the pump, adjusted for inflation.
(http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/AbdelUpload/Petrol%20graph%202.bmp)
We have never had to pay so much for fuel since the 1920s and nobody ran a car or fleet of lorries back then.
Edit: BST the chart you link to is for Illinois crude. Brent crude is a little higher more like $100 rather than $90 and I believe is now seen as the more significant figure for reasons I can't remember.
-
f***ing hell Mick! The penny has finally dropped for me! You are actually being serious here aren't you? This really and truly IS what you believe! It all makes sense now. I am really, really sorry that I've been abusive. The problem all along wasn't a deliberate obtusiveness. It was just that you haven't got the first f***ing idea how the world actually operates!
OK. Let's indulge you. These individuals and companies who throw their hands up and go bankrupt.
Magic! Their debt is wiped out.
What about the people that they owed that debt to? What happens to them? Say it is a bank that lent them money? What happens to the bank when it turns out that a lot of the debtors that they lent money to are unable to pay back their debt?
What happens to that bank then? Well, it may well go bust itself, because the bank actually borrowed money from someone else in the first place. Like individual savers. Or companies investing their profits in bonds. Or other banks, off-loading temporary excess funds.
So...if that bank goes bust. What happens to the creditors of that bank?
Etc....etc...etc...etc...
Got it?
What about the people that they owed that debt to? It's very simple. They get as much of it back as possible. They will probably end up losing out but I've got news for you, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. These lenders will be a bit more cautious in future and will lend more responsibly. Capitalism isn't supposed to be a system where lenders get their money back off the taxpayer because they've made a bad loan. That's how the banks operated under Gordon Brown's watch and it needs to stop.
You do make me laugh. First you apologise for being abusive and then in the next breath dish out some abuse! It's a good job I can take it. It helps knowing I'm running rings around you.
-
This whole argument is futile, there is no right or wrong answer.
The world banking system is a Ponzi scheme. The only way to prevent a global collapse and anarchy is to create more debt by issueing more loans and creating more money.
Basically until there is a worldwide revolution and a paradigm shift, all the powers that be can do is to kick the can down the never ending road.
The Tories have got more control over the can, and manage to tippy tappy it down the road in a Barcelona stylee, where as labour were leathering the can down the road in a sheffield united stylee.
-
You make some good points Boomstick. Eventually though the Ponzi scheme will unravel. Far better to bite the bullet now and have a world wide depression to get things back on an even keel. If we don't, then when the Ponzi scheme unravels things will be a lot worse.
-
A nice analogy Boomstick and it's good that we can drag this thread back to football.
-
Yes Mick dear. Of course Mick dear.
A nice little Depression and everything will be sorted.
You really, truly DO believe this, don't you? God f**king help us.
-
I suppose there are lots of variables but it seems to me crude hasn't shifted for the last two or three years from a new high level at somewhere just above $100 pb. In the 70s we saw a similar period just above $80. We'll need a few more years of data to see if this remains a new reality or if it starts to fall back.
Here is another interesting chart showing the price of petrol at the pump, adjusted for inflation.
(http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/AbdelUpload/Petrol%20graph%202.bmp)
We have never had to pay so much for fuel since the 1920s and nobody ran a car or fleet of lorries back then.
Edit: BST the chart you link to is for Illinois crude. Brent crude is a little higher more like $100 rather than $90 and I believe is now seen as the more significant figure for reasons I can't remember.
RD:
Points taken. There is another issue though. According to figures I've seen (lost the bloody link - will post it when I find it again) the total cost of all the UK's energy expenditure as a proportion of GDP was, in 2012, about 40% of what it was in the mid-70s. Primarily due to energy efficiency and the demise of energy-intensive industries. So, even if oil today is just as expensive as it was in the 70s, that ought to have a proportionately lower effect on our economic activity.
As I say, I'm sure the recent rise in energy prices has an effect on our stagnating productivity, but it seems to me that there is something more fundamental going on. It's astonishing that there is no political debate about this, because it is THE biggest threat to all our future livelihoods.
-
THe UK probably has the most expensive energy in the world. What we used to pay doesn't matter a jot. It's what we currently pay compared to our competitors that counts. 13 years of Labour and they did naff all to sort the problem out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25390456
-
Is there no end to the good news? The UK economy is growing faster than forecast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25461227
-
BST
I'm sure there is something else going on but energy might be a part of it.
Broadly aren't the EU nations following a similar path to the UK, while US productivity is better? I wonder if the US is benefitting from the natural gas boom?
-
RD
True some (certainly not all) other European countries are seeing poor productivity and America isn't. It could be down to energy costs, but there's another couple of aspects that UK and Europe have shared over the last few years, and America hasn't had quite so severely - Austerity and systemic difficulties getting credit out into the real economy.
Mick. You ever seen The Big Lebowski?
-
RD
Actually, I've just realised what it is that's been nagging me about the concept of fuel prices being responsible for poor productivity. You'd expect quite naturally that high fuel prices would adversely affect overall GDP. But that would normally also result in an increase in unemployment. Which would tend to keep productivity constant. So there's not necessarily a link between fuel prices and productivity levels, unless the fuel price is adversely affecting how much productive work can get done per hour worked.
We saw something quite exceptional from 2010-2012. Our GDP utterly stagnated, but emiyment went up by over 1million. I suspect that this is without precedent in recent history for a mature evonomy. But it suggests a large number of people being far less efficient than they were in, say 2007. And, crucially, that the long-term trend of productivity increase (which was more or less constant throughout times of high, low and middling fuel costs) has been broken.
I hope someone knows how to fix it. It'd be a start if anyone in politics even started talking about it.
-
Is there no end to the good news? The UK economy is growing faster than forecast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25461227
Er yes, did you read the 2nd part of that story? The one sub headed 'gloomy reading'?
-
There has to be a link between fuel prices and productivity doesn't there?
I see fuel as cheap labour, I have a better understanding of that recently since I have started cycling. I know how much effort I have to put into lugging me sen four miles on a bike compared with driving it.
If fuel is getting more expensive then labour must be getting more expensive which would adversely affect efficency and productivity, wouldn't it?
-
RD
I know where you are coming from. And yes, cheap, plentiful fuel helps you to do big, hard, heavy things more productively.
But our economy is no longer based on heating, digging, bashing and moving big things. It's predominantly based on ideas. Finance people shuffling money. Architects scribbling out ideas for buildings in Abu Dhabi. Software engineers doing whatever they do. That doesn't require a huge amount of fuel. Take that and the measured fact that our energy usage as a percentage of GDP has halved since the 70s, and it's hard to attribute ALL of the current productivity collapse to energy costs, even if they do play some role.
-
True BST
I do think you have a point when you say something else is going on in the UK.
However with us having very high energy costs in this country (IC is right in that) it might tend to push the metal bashers out and we are seeing the manufacturing base continue to decline. What work replaces it, stockbrokers, architects, IT specialists yes particularly in bloody London but there are a lot of warehouse staff, call centre staff, hotel staff, retail staff and other low paid service sector jobs around here. They would all be becoming less productive, particularly when they're only working 16 hours a week.
You are right though, for instance you might expect China would be feeling this effect more keenly? But then perhaps they are more adept at absorbing the cost of energy because of their lower cost base.
I just can't help but think when something as fundamental as fuel more than trebles in cost, it's got to have an effect.
EDIT: just scanning the web for stories aboutl productivity, I find stuff like this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/global-productivity-growth-slowdown-extends-to-2012-board-says.html
http://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/corporate-governance-strategy/a-global-productivity-slump
http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/
I've no idea how reliable these sources are but they are suggesting there is a global dropping off in productivity. Interesting too that scanning through the articles, none of these economists are mentioning fuel.
-
Er yes, did you read the 2nd part of that story? The one sub headed 'gloomy reading'?
I'm a glass half full sort of person, you are obviously a glass half empty merchant.
-
Er yes, did you read the 2nd part of that story? The one sub headed 'gloomy reading'?
I'm a glass half full sort of person, you are obviously a glass half empty merchant.
Probably, I believe the economy is an energy construct and the globe is now facing an energy crisis. I don't see things improving very much for anyone for very long.
(http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/global-crude-and-condensate-production.jpg)
-
UK to be biggest economy in Europe. Great, but it will only happen if the electorate cop themselves on and stop voting Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110
-
UK to be biggest economy in Europe. Great, but it will only happen if the electorate cop themselves on and stop voting Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110
So the UK is to become the largest economy, measured by GDP?
That will be a good thing if it means we are all going to become much more productive and living standards are destined to improve...
I suspect it means we're destined to become a far more overcrowded little island with a lot more people in low paid work, in which case it's not such great news.
-
UK to be biggest economy in Europe. Great, but it will only happen if the electorate cop themselves on and stop voting Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110
Would you like to copy and paste that article and highlight the part I have highlighted in your post.
Oh yes it dosn't exist
-
So the UK is to become the largest economy, measured by GDP?
That will be a good thing if it means we are all going to become much more productive and living standards are destined to improve...
I suspect it means we're destined to become a far more overcrowded little island with a lot more people in low paid work, in which case it's not such great news.
You could well be right. We will become more overcrowded but that could be perceived by some as a good thing as we need more young people from other countries to pay the benefits of our ageing population. If we stop immigration then the old will have to get used to a much reduced standard of living. I'd be all for stopping immigration and would be prepared to let the old pay the price. They've had it far too good for too long at the expense of our youngsters. We should be all in it together.
-
Would you like to copy and paste that article and highlight the part I have highlighted in your post.
I can't. The part you highlight is my own personal view (I would have thought that was obvious).
-
Would you like to copy and paste that article and highlight the part I have highlighted in your post.
I can't. The part you highlight is my own personal view (I would have thought that was obvious).
So you "accidentally" forgot the quotation marks :)
-
So you "accidentally" forgot the quotation marks
I wont take grammer lessons from someone who forgets to put a full stop at the end of a sentance
-
So the UK is to become the largest economy, measured by GDP?
That will be a good thing if it means we are all going to become much more productive and living standards are destined to improve...
I suspect it means we're destined to become a far more overcrowded little island with a lot more people in low paid work, in which case it's not such great news.
You could well be right. We will become more overcrowded but that could be perceived by some as a good thing as we need more young people from other countries to pay the benefits of our ageing population. If we stop immigration then the old will have to get used to a much reduced standard of living. I'd be all for stopping immigration and would be prepared to let the old pay the price. They've had it far too good for too long at the expense of our youngsters. We should be all in it together.
I wouldn't advocate stopping immigration at all. I just think we should be discriminating towards people with the skills we need. We do have plenty of skill shortages in this country.
What we aren't in desperate need of are lots more baristas and bar staff.
-
So you "accidentally" forgot the quotation marks
I wont take grammer lessons from someone who forgets to put a full stop at the end of a sentance
You better start using your spellchecker as well as learn where the full stop is on the keyboard. (the . is just for you)
-
I wouldn't advocate stopping immigration at all. I just think we should be discriminating towards people with the skills we need. We do have plenty of skill shortages in this country.
What we aren't in desperate need of are lots more baristas and bar staff.
I can see your point. I wouldn't be totally against very limited immigration for say 10 years until we train the people in this country to do the jobs where we currently have skills shortages. Then I would put the shutters up.
-
Good old George. He's planning to cut another £25bn from the welfare budget if the tories win the next election. About time we had a party that's prepared to cut back the state to a more realistic level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/
-
Good old George. He's planning to cut another £25bn from the welfare budget if the tories win the next election. About time we had a party that's prepared to cut back the state to a more realistic level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/
Interesting that Cameron is making promises about protecting pensions in future, what with pensions being by far the biggest part of the welfare budget.
-
Interesting that Cameron is making promises about protecting pensions in future, what with pensions being by far the biggest part of the welfare budget.
He's being very cynical (as are all the parties). He knows pensioners are the most likely to vote so he doesn't want to alienate them. They should have their pensions and freebies cut. It's not fair for the younger generation to have to pay the bill, especially as when they retire they won't get anywhere near what current pensioners get.
-
I see Osborne's been preening this morning saying how the recent growth shows that his policies have worked.
Brilliant quote this morning. Someone referred to this graph which I've posted a few times before.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slide/adaptive-image/public/slides/gdp1213s.png?itok=g8KSVcE2)
Said Osborne claiming that his policies have worked was like a taxi driver taking you on a ten mile trip, getting lost, taking a 50 mile detour, finally finding your house and then claiming that he had The Knowledge.
Remember, every time you hear Osborne claim success: If our economy had grown since 2010 like it was growing IN 2010 when he took over, and like it has done coming out of every other recession in the last century, our GDP would now be about £150bn bigger than it currently is, and the wealth that we have lost since 2010 amounts to well over £300bn. Because we flatlined for 3 years, we are now poorer to the tune of about £5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
And now he says that because his policies worked, we need another 5 years of them...
-
Good old George. He's planning to cut another £25bn from the welfare budget if the tories win the next election. About time we had a party that's prepared to cut back the state to a more realistic level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/
He's not said that at all. But then, we don't expect you to read anything past a headline before incorrectly regurgitating it.
-
UK new car sales highest since 2007. We are now second only to Germany in Europe. Keep it up Dave and George.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25632668
-
Inflation down to 2% is generally regarded as good news. However I disagree. What with all the loose monetary policy and Labour's alleged 'cost of living crisis' you'd think it would be much higher.
Not if you are an economics expert like me. It's all about demographics. Our ageing population will keep inflation low no matter what the politicians and BOE tries to do.
It won't be inflation they need to worry about. It will be deflation. You heard it here first.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25726621
-
And the good news gets even better! I read recently that George Osborne is planning to restrict the subsidised rental of council houses to those earning less than about £70,000 pa. (Don't know if that figure is 100% accurate, so please correct me if not). That means people such as Bob Crowe, Gen. Sec. RMT - salary £145,00 pa - will soon have to start paying the market rent for his north east London property. Living there since 2001 has saved him about £78,000 in rental costs. Earning £145k pa and insists on paying subsidised rent when he could afford to buy. Talk about hypocrisy of the highest order! :sick:
-
Our ageing population will keep inflation low no matter what the politicians and BOE tries to do.
So they can do as much quantative easing as they like and there's no danger of inflation??
-
So they can do as much quantative easing as they like and there's no danger of inflation??
Of course. As long as they don't go totally ridiculous with it. The thing that the likes of you and Billy don't get is that inflation is caused by growing dynamic young populations. We are the opposite of this so inflation is not a danger.
Unfortunately there is only me and a few other proper economists that realise that deflation is the big threat. It will be too late when people come around to my way of thinking.
-
And the good news gets even better! I read recently that George Osborne is planning to restrict the subsidised rental of council houses to those earning less than about £70,000 pa. (Don't know if that figure is 100% accurate, so please correct me if not). That means people such as Bob Crowe, Gen. Sec. RMT - salary £145,00 pa - will soon have to start paying the market rent for his north east London property. Living there since 2001 has saved him about £78,000 in rental costs. Earning £145k pa and insists on paying subsidised rent when he could afford to buy. Talk about hypocrisy of the highest order!
Good news indeed. You don't need to look much further than trade union leaders for incredible hypocrisy. You also wouldn't believe the nice pensions and expense accounts they have as well.
If I were George though I'd go much further. I'd regionalise the limit. For example in Doncaster anyone earning over £20,000 a year shouldn't be living in a council house. They should be made to rent in the private sector or buy their own house.
-
Buy their own house you say, well the obvious flaw in that plan is RTB, with discounts the average rtb price in Doncaster is way below comparative homes on the open market, so once youve arbitrarily decided that a working family who have made use of say overtime or had a promotion at work can no longer rent the home on the estate where they have built up relationships and have kids settled in school, then they just buy it for probably the same as the rent they were paying and certainly less than you can build / buy an equivalent replacement for.
Possibly an over dramatic term, but what your proposing is basically a financial cleansing of an area, so that kids who do live in the homes where worklessness is a way of life or who will never earn ( officially) £20k a year, dont get to to live in a settled, sustainable area as eventually the only people they will see as an example of how to 'succeed' and have a nice car holidays etc will be those who can work off the books or outside the law.
Think about it, youre a married man with two kids earning 19k a year and you get chance of some extra responsibility at work that will push you over the threshold, out of your house and mean you are no better off if not worse off once youve found and refurnished your new home, of course then the work slows down, the extra work is pulled and you cant afford to pay the new mortgage so you lose everything , and end up back where you started all because you took a 2k rise at work.
I fully accept Council housing is a scarce resource under intense pressure, but to kick people out for trying, seems ridiculous to me
-
We need to get rid of Right To Buy before people realise what a good deal it is at tax payers expense. I can't for the life of me work out why everyone that can afford it (and it is the vast bulk of council house tenants) have not worked out what an incredibly good deal it is. Carrying on paying rent is totally ridiculous.
So we need to stop subsidising rents and we need people to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their lives. It should only be the very poor in Doncaster that get help with their housing needs. The vast bulk of council tenants could afford to pay 'market' rent levels or if they don't like the idea of that they should buy their own house.
We are very lucky in this part of the world that house prices are so low. Why people don't take advantage of this is a complete mystery to me.
-
IMF raises UK growth figures. Good job George didn't listen to their advice before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25823217
-
Global unemployment is still rising, despite economic 'recovery'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10584384/Global-unemployment-on-rise-despite-economic-recovery.html
How long can the UK keep swimming against the tide? Only while Osbourne keeps the sugar rush of debt going for the next election.
Mirage?
-
Mirage? I would say more than likely. However this mirage has released 'animal spirits' to use some jargon that economist types like myself tend to use. These animal spirits could conceivably keep things ticking along quite nicely for a while.
Confidence is a huge factor in achieving growth and whilst I agree it is being generated by debt, for the most part it is a good thing in itself. Inflation is not a risk due to our ageing population so lax monetary policy will not have the usual ramifications. Deflation is the threat so we need to keep this recovery going at all costs or we are all doomed.
I still think we are doomed and it will all end in tears. Unfortunately I don't have the ear of George or Mark Carney and fear they are blissfully unaware of the threat of deflation despite it staring them straight in the face. How on earth can they explain a low inflation rate of 2% when they've been doing all they can to keep it well above this rate to inflate away the National Debt?
In 'normal' economic circumstances inflation would now be much higher than it currently is. Mark my words, it will continue to fall and there is nothing they can do about it until we reverse the trend of an ageing population. Unfortunately this is not something that can be done overnight. It takes many years.
Inadvertently, immigration is helping the cause but that brings many drawbacks with it. On balance for the long term good of the country we need much more immigration. Unfortunately it comes with a very high cost in the short term and as we all know, politicians only concern themselves with the short term.
The public are also very anti immigration now as well so it is very difficult for politicians to allow the kind of immigration we will need. If only Labour had introduced 'controlled' immigration we'd have been alright. Unfortunately their incompetence has led to the killing of the goose that laid the golden eggs.
-
I did not know you're a fully qualified exponent of the dismal science.
Those 'animal spirits' will only remain while the housing Market is being pumped with more debt. So let's keep spending money on foreign tat and putting it on the slate, sounds like a plan!
Personally I doubt inflation is really as low as ONS is telling us, tinkering with statistical tricks like hedonics disguises the true picture.
Inflation has remained high for four years despite the UK staging the weakest recovery of any major economy. And what of all the QE money? At some point that's going to rear its ugly head in the form of inflation.
Anyway, looking further ahead, here's why I think you're wrong about deflation in the longer term. For better or worse we now live in a far more connected, globalised world. It's the rebalancing of the global economy that is currently driving western living standards down. In the wider world we see a growing population, growing more affluent and consuming ever more. However oil supply is under pressure, we aren't able to produce more oil than current levels and as time goes by it only gets ever harder to keep that supply up.
Growing demand and restricted supply can only mean rising prices.
-
Animal spirits Mick? What was it you said about the man who coined the phrase "Animal spirits" when you were Mick v2.0?
Oh aye. You said he was a "crank".
Pointless as ever Mick. Witless witterings.
-
RD you are right to some degree. However what most economists forget about is the power of demographics. It is an all powerful phenomenon. When this part of the equation is against you there is no quick fix and other factors pale into insignificance. Inflation should already be much higher than it currently is according to current economic thinking (which forgets about demographics). It is mainly down to demographics.
It's easy to check my theory. Just do a check of inflation in the world and you will find it is the countries with a young population that has high inflation and countries with an ageing population that have low inflation. Look back over the decades and you will see I'm right.
Until now we have avoided deflation. It is my view that we will not be so lucky this time around.
-
IC1967
The worlds population is still growing at just above 1% I think. Quite a small rate compared with the last century but still growing all the same. Estimates suggest the worlds population will not peak until somewhere between 2050 and 2075, so there is quite a long way to go. At the same time people across the globe are consuming ever more stuff, striving to reach western levels of prosperity.
On the other hand global production of oil has plateaued since about 2004. Every day we use up more of the easily got oil and have to find ever more of the harder to get at and therefore more expensive stuff.
I can only see oil prices rising in the longterm and by extension the price of pretty much everything we consume. That or else prices going absolutely haywire as economies collapse.
-
You could well be right about oil. I'm talking primarily about the UK. We will suffer deflation but that does not mean other countries will. Only the ones with an ageing population.
-
The UK doesn't live in isolation from the rest of the world. If oil prices and by extension commodity prices are rising then the UK won't be protected from that.
Perhaps an ageing population might mitigate some of the effects here in the UK a little but I think not that much. People need fuel and food to live, markets are global.
For the time being oil has dropped back a fraction, food prices have fallen too, Osbournes stimulus is happening at a relatively benign time. I have a feeling the economic news will remain quite positive for a while yet.
Here's an interesting little piece.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-22/britains-recovery-too-good-be-true
-
RD
Please not Tyler Durden. He's been saying the "interest rates to go up NOW" line since the crisis began. Look what that did to the Euro Zone.
-
It just keeps on coming and coming. Unemployment down to 7.1%!!! Labour must be getting seriously worried that things are getting better much faster than anyone anticipated. It's only 5 months ago that the BOE thought unemployment wouldn't hit 7% until 2016. Just shows what they know.
I love it when Ed Balls gets interviewed now about the pickup in the economy and he begrudgingly welcomes the good news. You can tell he is being very insincere and would like nothing better than for the economy to be going down the toilet. The only thing going down the toilet is Labour's chances of winning the next election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25841570
-
Politics eh?
Balls predicts in 2010 that premature Austerity delays recovery. Osborne says it won't.
We have Austerity.
The recovery is delayed for three years, during which time our economy falls 6-8% below the trend it had followed for 60 years, and we have the longer spell of 2+million unemployment.
Then, after 3 years, we get a very modest improvement.
Conclusion?
Obviously Balls was wrong all along and Osborne was right.
-
BST
In this case it isn't really Tyler Duerden, it's one Nick Beecroft, whoever he is. I think the first point is most pertinent.
-
Conclusion?
Obviously Balls was wrong all along and Osborne was right.
At last you've seen the light. About time. The number of things Balls has been wrong about is too long to list.
-
Only quoting the part of the post that suits you, that's not like you Mick.
Sarcasm klaxon.
-
Then, after 3 years, we get a very modest improvement.
What planet are you on? Unemployment falling by a huge amount and the best growth rate of any European country and you say very modest improvement. Laughable.
-
Mick
I really don't expect any better from you, but the worry is that other people who DO have a brain seem to be losing their memory and forgetting the context.
Here, once again, is the context of this wonderful recovery.
http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/gdp0114press.pdf
Three wasted years, in which we had Austerity to get the deficit eliminated by 2015 (and failed). And then we get a consumer spending splurge that lifts the economy modestly and it's called "success".
It is beyond laughable.
As I've said before, the precise analogy is running on the spot for three hours whilst everyone else sets off on a race, then starting to run at a slightly above average pace for 30 minutes and claiming to be the best runner in the race.
Par for the course for Mick's concept of logic. Idiotic to anyone else.
-
RD. Fair point. I hadn't noticed that it wasn't by Tyler Durden. And yes, of course the first point is incontestable.
That said, I generally find that a good working principle is "If Tyler Durden agrees with it, it's probably unreconstituted nonsense." I came to that conclusion after he (or they...whatever) referred approvingly to an article that called JK Galbraith a Marxist. When you're at that Mickist level of debate, intellectual content has left the building.
-
The recovery is delayed for three years, during which time our economy falls 6-8% below the trend it had followed for 60 years, and we have the longer spell of 2+million unemployment.
You missed a few words out of that statement. Here's what you should have (not of) said.
The recovery is delayed for three years, because the Tories are having to clear up the monumental mess left behind by Labour, during which time our economy falls 6-8% below the trend it had followed for 60 years, and we have the longer spell of 2+million unemployment.
-
Mick.
"Clearing up the mess"? Give me strength.
The plan was to
a) eliminate the deficit by 2015. Failed.
b) have consistent growth from 2010 despite the cuts: Failed.
c) transform the economy by encouraging manufacture and exports (anyone remember "March of the Makers?"): Failed.
We have had catastrophic economic performance for three years, predominantly self-inflicted, with the coup de grace applied by Europe's self-immolation (caused by following precisely the same Austerity path).
We then, finally, start to grow, NOT through a transformed economy, NOT through exports, but through a good, old fashioned consumer boom financed by falling personal savings, and we call that a success.
-
"Clearing up the mess"? Give me strength.
You obviously need reminding of what the mess was. I'll explain it for you.
During their time in office they punished wealth-creation and created perverse incentives for welfare dependency. They supported lax regulation of the financial system and built up the largest structural deficit in the developed world. They created an unsustainable boom and steered the economy towards its biggest ever bust.
I could go on but I think that is more than enough to prove my point. You talk as if the coalition came to power with the economy performing normally. You forget the crash and the problems in the Eurozone and the rest of the world. It's no wonder it took longer to get things back to 'normal' as things turned out to be a lot worse than expected.
Just have the good grace to admit Labour badly screwed things up (like they always do) and give the coalition credit for getting us back on track.
-
IC
It's worth remembering the Conservative party pushed and lobbied hard for greater relaxation of regulations of financial institutions throughout that whole period of Gordon Browns government.
-
It's worth remembering the Conservative party pushed and lobbied hard for greater relaxation of regulations of financial institutions throughout that whole period of Gordon Browns government.
It's not that simple. Gordon Brown very foolishly gave the FSA responsibilities that they clearly weren't suited for for or designed for. This meant that the banks weren't properly scrutinised. There is a difference between 'lax' and 'greater relaxation'. They are not the same thing. You can have less regulation of an industry and it can perform better. You can have lax regulation and it can turn into a disaster just as it did.
-
Hindsight eh? Int it great.
Now, who were those people 10 years ago screaming "The problem is that the well-known control freak Gordon Brown has set up a regulatory body that is way too lax, whereas he obviously should be copying the approach of other places in the world that have got regulation right and won't have a systemic banking crisis on a few years time. Like the USA. And the EZ. And Iceland."
Remind me Mick. Who were they?
Hindsight. The comfort of the intellectually bankrupt.
-
You totally miss the point. It was the responsibilities that he gave to the FSA to oversee banking that showed he was totally incompetent. It's not the regulations that were too lax it is the way they were implemented by the FSA that was the main problem. This organisation was not the one that should have (not of) been given responsibility for the banks. Something you obviously seem totally unaware of.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown-i-made-a-big-mistake-when-setting-up-fsa/1029361.article
-
Mick
And the hindsight issue?
-
And when you've finished with hindsight, you might want to think about examples of ANY Prime Minister or major politician who hasn't made a huge mistake.
Blair: Iraq
Major: ERM
Thatcher: Take your pick. Poll Tax will do, but the insane implementation of experimental monetarist policies in 1980-82 is a bigger one.
Callaghan: IMF and Winter of Discontent
Heath: Three Day Week
Wilson: Sterling Devaluation
Eden: Suez
Churchill: Gallipoli
MacMillan didn't make many huge mistakes, but then again he did little actively beneficial - just presided over a gentle decay.
-
If I listed all the mistakes Labour made I'd be here all day.
-
If I listed all the mistakes Labour made I'd be here all day.
Go for it then Mick, you don't appear to have anything else to do with your time....yawn
-
Hindsight eh? Int it great.
Now, who were those people 10 years ago screaming "The problem is that the well-known control freak Gordon Brown has set up a regulatory body that is way too lax, whereas he obviously should be copying the approach of other places in the world that have got regulation right and won't have a systemic banking crisis on a few years time. Like the USA. And the EZ. And Iceland."
Remind me Mick. Who were they?
Hindsight. The comfort of the intellectually bankrupt.
Hindsight? You are spouting your usual drivel and showing that you have a selective memory (or just a very bad one).
Gordon Brown was warned on banking collapse in 1997. He was warned that the changes to the banking system he was bringing in, in particular removing the role of bank regulator from the Bank of England and putting it into the hands of the FSA would lead to a systemic banking failure.
When discussing the bill that passed the changes to the banking system the Conservative Shadow Chancellor, Peter Lilley said:
"With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority--the "super-SIB"--it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse".
He also said, "We have no objection to the objective of trying to bring greater simplicity and one-stop shopping to the business of financial regulation, but we fear that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day".
Now I require you to issue an abject apology immediately for your disproven 'hindsight' jibe. It will be immediately accepted.
-
Mick
Here we go again. You Google something. Find some info that sounds vaguely suitable and post it without a second's thought. How many times have we trotted down this boulevard now Mick? Twenty? Thirty? I've lost count.
You vomit up a comment from a political opponent that is utterly devoid of any content. It is the usual political cut and thrust of "condemn anything my opponent does whether I have anything concrete to offer or not".
Let's look at the one substantive point that Lilley made.
The BoE WAS always responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse that was always clear. And that was precisely what it did in 2008. We didn't have systemic collapse precisely because the BoE provided liquidity to the system when the shit hit the fan. (By the way, YOU have always claimed to be totally against that policy.)
So let's have a think about it. Peter Lilley said that it was unclear whether the BoE would have the responsibility for something. In fact, it was perfectly clear and when we ran into the biggest crisis in 80 years, the BoE played exactly the role it was supposed to. So the criticism was...? No, me neither Mick.
And to cap it all, if Lilley's criticism HAD been correct, it would have meant that Brown had made precisely the sort of change that YOU Mick, tell us with depressing regularity that you would have liked to have seen - allowing banks to go bust.
How old are you by the way? You give every impression of being a moderately precocious 13 year old.
-
Think he mentioned somewhere that he was 26, this of course could be yet another fairy tale....
-
You'd argue black was white if you thought you could get away with it. The greatest regulatory failure that Labour were responsible for is the abject dereliction of duty by the financial regulators. Gordon set up a tripartite system of regulation in which the BoE was deprived of responsibility for banking regulation (which almost precipitated the resignation of the governor) and gave it responsibility for managing inflation. The FSA was given responsibility for supervising financial markets and the Treasury was to design the overall structure of regulation.
This tripartite regulatory model broke so many of the most fundamental rules of management that its eventual failure at a time of stress was easily predictable. For starters the BoE was given the wrong target. It was told to monitor the Consumer Price Index rather than the Retail Price Index. The problem was that the CPI does not include housing costs whereas the RPI does. So year after year the BoE could merrily report that inflation was bumping along around the 2% target while, in fact, there was a massive, unsustainable bubble in house prices, which none of the regulators apparently noticed.
A second concern was that in a crisis you need a single line of command - one person or body must have a clear control and accountability. Yet by spreading responsibility between three quite different organisations in an unclear way, Gordon had designed a three-legged camel.
The most fundamental error Brown made was to give what was essentially a consumer services regulator, the FSA, responsibility for macroeconomic management. The whole ethos, background and skill-set of the FSA was based on regulating the selling of financial products - pensions, savings, investments, unit trusts, mortgages, Ponzi schemes and so on. As mis-selling scandal followed mis-selling scandal with depressing regularity, it seems clear that the FSA was not even up to that job. Worse still, it simply didn't have the knowledge or experience to be given overall responsibility for the regulation of financial markets. This is the monumental mistake Gordon made. He made the FSA responsible for the overall stability of the main players in the financial markets - a role they were clearly not suited for.
The rest is history.
He was warned about the dangers of setting up the FSA as the bill went through parliament (also the BoE governor nearly resigned over the changes to its role). Here is a bigger transcript of what the then shadow chancellor said which proves this point conclusively. No need for hindsight.
"What happens if the needs of the banking system conflict with those of the inflationary target? That has happened in the past in the United States, and it could conceivably be happening in Japan. I understand that there is a suggestion that a committee is to be established to work between the Bank, the FSA and the Treasury to try to cope with that sort of problem. If that is necessary, why is it necessary to hive off powers in the first place?
That brings me to the creation of the FSA as a super-SIB. The Bill is only part of the process, but it will on implementation directly conflict with pre-election statements. More importantly, concerns expressed by the Chief Secretary when in opposition may, although he has disowned them today, prove well founded.
The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all. Its structure will be as complex as those of the organisations that it replaces, if not more so. Practitioner involvement is likely to diminish, and costs are likely to escalate as salaries are equalised upwards.
We have no objection to the objective of trying to bring greater simplicity and one-stop shopping to the business of financial regulation, but we fear that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day. We shall observe closely what is going on in the development of the proposed legislation."
Game set and match.
-
If I listed all the mistakes Labour made I'd be here all day.
Go for it then, you don't appear to have anything else to do with your time....yawn
I accept the challenge. However there is such a long list of mistakes that I will need to break it down into several bite sized chunks over a period of time. I will list the mistakes numerically but not in any particular order. Consider my previous post as number 1. Number 2 will follow shortly followed by many more. Feel free to try and argue against the points I make but be warned your credibility is already at rock bottom and will only sink further if you try.
-
IC1967
You know when you have insisted in the past that you are not mjdgreg or MadMick?
Are you still sticking to that line?
-
I am IC1967.
-
Pay rising by more than inflation. It seems like every day is a good news day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25869001
-
IC.
It's a simple enough question. It requires a one-word answer.
I'll help you out. Unless you correct me, I'll assume that you are NOT mjdgreg or MadMick.
But, see, that'll throw up a conundrum won't it? And you'll know what it is, won't you?
-
IC.
It's a simple enough question. It requires a one-word answer.
I'll help you out. Unless you correct me, I'll assume that you are NOT mjdgreg or MadMick.
But, see, that'll throw up a conundrum won't it? And you'll know what it is, won't you?
I know you want it from the horses mouth, so to speak, but I can confirm all three are the same guitar playing, betterware, landlord, proffesional gambling person
-
I am IC1967.
-
So IC. You are NOT the same person who wrote this?
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233536.msg251071#msg251071
How very strange...
-
I am IC1967
-
Then you are a shameless plagiariser.
-
Number 2.
Government spending more than doubled under Labour. After allowing for inflation, Labour spent £1.35 trillion more than would have been spent if they'd kept public spending at the levels inherited from the Tories. In their 1997 manifesto they claimed the Tories were spending too much and that Labour would be wise spenders not big spenders. They claimed it was not how much that was spent that was important but how wisely the money was spent. Downright, barefaced lies.
-
Number 3.
Labour allowed virtually uncontrolled immigration.
Number 4.
Labour increased the numbers of workers in the public sector by 849,000 (almost half of all jobs created during their time in office).
-
Am I truly the only one who is bored shitless by this continual claptrap masquerading as a party political broadcast (sic). Perhaps if we just refused to feed the troll, he'd get tired if he was just talking to himself. That's me done, I'm out of here, bye Mick x
-
Number 6.
Labour increased state spending from 40% of GDP in 1997 to over 53% by the time they left office. A policy cynically designed to build up and reward a public-sector workforce that could be relied upon to return the favour at election times. Here's an article just before Darling's final budget exposing the horror of this change.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7494248/A-shocking-statistic-that-sums-up-Britains-plight.html
-
You're not the only one RedRover45
The trouble is people keep feeding him. Billy is the worst offender, but we're all guilty of it.
-
Am I truly the only one who is bored shitless by this continual claptrap masquerading as a party political broadcast (sic). Perhaps if we just refused to feed the troll, he'd get tired if he was just talking to himself.
I agree. Billy's views are just one long party political broadcast. However his views need to be exposed for the complete drivel they are. Fortunately I am just the man for the job.
-
Am I truly the only one who is bored shitless by this continual claptrap masquerading as a party political broadcast (sic). Perhaps if we just refused to feed the troll, he'd get tired if he was just talking to himself.
I agree. Billy's views are just one long party political broadcast. However his views need to be exposed for the complete drivel they are. Fortunately I am just the man for the job.
There's a certain level of irony here...
-
Number 7.
Under Labour over £3 trillion of our money was taken from our pockets.
Around half went in an uncontrolled splurge of public spending in the so called 'boom' and the other half evaporated in the bust. That's around £50,000 for every person in Britain.
-
Number 8.
Went crazy using PFI (Public Finance Initiative). Schools and hospitals etc were built using this method of finance. PFI loans typically cost 8 per cent, twice as much as the long-term government gilt rate.
The public purse is now burdened by over 800 PFI contracts with a capital value of £64 billion; at current prices, the repayments will stretch for 50 years at a cost of £267 billion.
As the National Audit Office report on PFI noted in April 2011, echoing similar complaints by the Public Accounts Committee, the system has lacked ‘value for money evaluation by departments of operational PFI projects’.
-
Number 9.
Claimed to have abolished 'boom and bust'. In April 2007 Gordon proclaimed his well-worn mantra: 'We will never return to the old boom and bust.' A few months later there was a deafening bang and you could hardly see Britain's economy for all the crashing debris, smoke and dust.
-
Once again Micky boy demonstrates that he is unable to count to ten without f**king it up.
Dum-de-dum...
-
Haha. I wondered how long it would be before someone spotted my deliberet mistake.
Shame you are unable to provide a coherent response to any of the excellent points I've made. You'll be pleased to know there's plenty more to come.
-
Bye bye Mick.
-
A post saying you're the worst offender and you walk away. Are you a man or a mouse? (squeak, squeak).
Just admit the real reason is you can't argue against the excellent points I've made. There are plenty more to come. By the time I'm finished, no-one with half a brain will ever vote Labour again.
-
What happened to no.5. Just interested.
-
It was one of his oh so hilarious deliberate mistakes.
-
No 8 - PFI was a Thatcher initiative from the early 1990's. Or are you just using/making up your own facts to suit your argument again?
-
Number 14 (why the sudden jump to 14? there were 6 points in my first post listing Labour's miserable record).
Lost over £10 billion on commissioning a computer system for the NHS.
-
No 8 - PFI was a Thatcher initiative from the early 1990's. Or are you just using/making up your own facts to suit your argument again?
Is that the best you can do out of all the points I've made? Pathetic. I didn't say Labour introduced PFI. I said they went crazy with it, which they did.
-
Number 15.
Went to war in Iraq and lied about the real reason for doing so.
-
Economy growing at its fastest rate since 2007. Won't be long before Labour will drop their cost of living charade just as they did with Plan B.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25926648
-
Number 15.
Went to war in Iraq and lied about the real reason for doing so.
Cameron and the tory party backed labour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm
-
Economy growing at its fastest rate since 2007. Won't be long before Labour will drop their cost of living charade just as they did with Plan B.
Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Brilliant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-poorest-pay-the-price-for-austerity-workers-face-biggest-fall-in-living-standards-since-victorian-era-8991842.html
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/06/ifs-living-standards-lower-osborne-autumn-statement
-
Mick.
What did you think of the match tonight mate?
-
You know, it's funny how he never makes a football thread or post until someone mentions it. Then he goes and does a couple just to show them up.
Besides, I thought multiple accounts was a banning offence anyway?
-
Eh there's nothing wrong with PFI initiatives. Well not in my line of work anyway :) Plenty of benefits out of them that's for sure.
-
I have to comend Mick for his persistence and his ability to continue to infuriate people but keep them coming back for more.
I find it astonishing that people just cannot resist replying. Billy the case in point - says "bye bye" then comes back a couple of days later. What on earth is the point.
-
Eh there's nothing wrong with PFI initiatives. Well not in my line of work anyway Plenty of benefits out of them that's for sure.
No doubt you and your company are making a nice fat profit out of PFI. Good luck to you. It's the taxpayer I feel sorry for. Labour didn't care how much things cost in the long run. They were all about short-term political gain. Well unfortunately for them, people like me have a long memory. No doubt there are many more people on this forum who also now have a dim view of what they did in power after reading my eloquent posts.
The good news is my good work will continue.
-
What did you think of the match tonight mate?
Welcome back Billy, even if you are a bit off topic. I understand though. You are obviously unable to refute my excellent points so have resorted to diversionary tactics. As someone who always answers everything that is thrown at him (unlike others I could mention) I will answer your question.
I thought we played very well and were worthy of the 3 points. Its great to have Billy back. He's obviously given the club a big boost. I'm confident we will now stay up.
-
Cameron and the tory party backed labour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm
Is that the best you can do out of all the excellent points I've made? Not good enough. I've not read the link, but I'd be pretty sure that they only backed the war because they thought it was about weapons of mass destruction, which it clearly was not about.
Anyway, you can't absolve Labour of blame even if other parties supported what they were doing. They were the party in power. They take the credit or otherwise for what they did. Unfortunately for them it is almost all 'otherwise'.
-
Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Brilliant.
I have to disagree with you there. It's not brilliant. You are obviously rich.
Given the horrific mess Labour left behind, is it any wonder it's taking time for the poor to feel the full benefit of the upturn in the economy? People just need to be patient and the poor will get their just rewards in time.
-
Number 16.
Abolished MIRAS (mortgage interest relief at source) making it even more difficult for youngsters to be able to afford home ownership.
Number 17.
Failed to build enough houses leading to prices going up exponentially.
-
Linked to Number 17.
UK home building hits highest since 2007.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25982505
-
Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Brilliant.
I have to disagree with you there. It's not brilliant. You are obviously rich.
Given the horrific mess Labour left behind, is it any wonder it's taking time for the poor to feel the full benefit of the upturn in the economy? People just need to be patient and the poor will get their just rewards in time.
The 7 Walmart heirs are worth more than the lowest earning 40% of the American population. I see stats like that and wonder if capitalism works.
-
RD
That's the logical conclusion of the neo-liberal economic model that we all bought into under Thatcher, and that Brown and Blair kept going. We used to have a society that placed limits on how rich the very rich could get. We removed those limits over the past 30 years and we end up with stats like the ones you post.
The Right tell us that we have to let the very rich off the leash, because it's vital to incentivise them to make the economy work. There are two counters to that argument. The moral one is that, at the very top, is it an incentive to have 4 ocean going yachts instead of 3? But the practical argument is the killer. The simple, establish able fact is that economic growth in the UK and USA (the countries who most wholeheartedly embraced the neo-liberal agenda) has been LOWER over the past 30 years than it was in the previous 30 years. The argument that incentivising the rich will make us all richer is demonstrably false.
Some time over this next decade, the pendulum will swing back. We'll start reining in the bastatds who stole our economy in the 80s and 90s. We'll start to move back towards a fairer, more equitable society, where rewards are shared out a little more equally, instead of being obscenely concentrated at the very top.
It'll take ordinary folk like us realising that there was a revolution in the 1980s that gave unprecedented power and wealth to the richest. If Capitalism is going to work for ordinary folk, there needs to be a counter-revolution. It's possible. It happened in the decades after WWII. There is no reason why it cannot happen again.
-
Give me unbridled capitalism over unbridled socialism any day. If you like equality so much why don't you go and live in Russia? Eastern Europe flourished much more than the West under socialism didn't it. Whenever Labour have pursued even the mildest form of socialism they've always ruined the economy.
Anyway we have a more current example of where socialism gets you. It's called France. No doubt you'd rather we were pursuing the policies of their socialist president. Thankfully England is not socialist. It's Wales and Scotland that are and keep dragging us down. Surprise, surprise these countries are Labour leaning rather than Tory.
Anyway, what's wrong with getting fabulously wealthy. You talk as though the rich only spend their money on yachts. What about the likes of Bill Gates who spends a vast amount of his wealth on charitable works, as do the vast majority of the wealthy. Closer to home you only have to look at JR, TB and DW to find wealthy people who put their wealth to good use.
So take my advice, and take off those rose tinted socialist glasses and come into the real world.
http://taylormia.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/wal-mart-heir-leaves-home-to-local-charity/
-
I'm not anti capitalist, I recognise it delivers innovation and generates wealth like no other system we know.
However it's only working if it's raising all boats, so while the rich get fabulously rich the lives of the poorest are improving...
For the last five years that hasn't been the case, only the one percent have been benefitting and much of the reason for that is they have been bailed out by the rest of us. Socialism for the rich.
I wonder if capitalism can only work for the benefit of all in times of growth, what we are facing in the now are times of very minimal growth and probably given the pressure on oil supply a future where growth is a thing of the past. In such a future can capitalism still deliver for the greater benefit of the population or only for the few?
I suspect it won't deliver.
-
Capitalism is far from perfect but it's much better than socialism. The problem with socialism is that it is a system that removes the incentive to work hard. Why would you work hard if others reap the same benefits with little or no effort? Socialism discourages productivity and innovation and works on dragging everybody down to the lowest common denominator. The only people that get rich with socialism are the people running the system.
-
I understand what you are getting at but I not a black or white person. I believe we live in an imperfect world and there is no perfect or pure system. Capitalist or socialist.
As it is we have to balance the two, which is probably the best we can hope for.
My worry is our whole society and political system is built on a notion of endless growth. It is all politicians on both sides offer, the imperative of a return to growth.
The problem is finding new growth is becoming quite a challenge.
-
RD
There's a far bigger story than just the last 5 years. There's been a similar theme for the past 35 years, with median wages rising at a fraction if the rate that the top few percent of earners have seen.
It didn't used to be like that. Between 1945-1975, we had perfectly respectable growth in a culture whereby it was considered unacceptable for the very richest to apportion the majority of the proceeds of that growth to themselves. That was the era of Social Democratic Capitalism in the West.
It worked perfectly well. It wasn't perfect of course. Many complained that Government was too interfering. They complained that entrepreneurialism was hampered by the fact that top tax rates were so high. They complained that unions were too strong.
We changed all of those features of capitalism in the 1980s. The result has been LOWER growth and more damaging recessions than we had in the previous era. But, crucially, those at the very top have seen a spectacular explosion in their wealth. Because they have been encouraged and allowed by the rest of us to keep the proceeds of growth for themselves.
A return to the politico-economic approach of the 1950s or 60s is not impossible. That was hardly "socialism". What it was was a more equitable and controlled form of capitalism. It seems to me to be infinitely preferable to the unchained capitalism of the past 35 years that lined the pockets of the wealthy, encouraged them to take ever wilder risks and left the rest of us to pick up the tab.
It's not impossible for us to change Capitalism. But it is while ever the useful idiots who supported the neo-liberal revolution of the 80s without realising that they themselves were the losers, finally wise up.
-
Come on all you lefties out there. Aren't you at least going to try to argue against the excellent points I've made on Labour's miserable record when in power. So far the effort has been abysmal.
By the way I've got plenty more examples over the coming days and weeks.
-
It just keeps on coming that good news. UK construction sector sees rapid growth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26030086
-
Alleged cost of living crisis to turn around this year, IFS says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26048205
By the time of the next election Labour will have nothing to moan about.
-
Number 18.
Ruined final salary pension schemes.
Number 19.
Sold off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market.
Number 20.
Brought in a target led culture into the NHS which led to the scandals at Mid Staffs NHS Trust and other hospitals.
-
Another one of Labour's foxes has been shot. The UK is seeing the right kind of growth. At the rate the good news keeps on coming Labour are looking set for a devastating defeat at the general election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26128700