Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on November 03, 2020, 10:15:26 am
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1321802739320500224
Only just seen this.
Christ up above, this is gold plated horse shite. This so badly misrepresents the relationship between Govt and money, it would fail any university economics exam. It's the equivalent of an aeronautical engineer saying a plane can only stay in the sky if it flaps its wings like a bird.
I HOPE he is deliberately and knowingly misleading people here. The alternative, that he actually thinks what he saying here is the truth, is too frightening to process. If the Chancellor genuinely doesn't know that the Govt, through the Bank of England, can create money at will, and if he doesn't know that we have barely paid back a penny of debt since WWII, then there's not much hope for the economic future.
But it IS one or the other. He's either deliberately lying, or as thick as a bucket of monkey spunk on this topic. There's no other alternative.
-
Of course, you could be wrong, but then again that's not an option, is it?
-
He’s obviously playing on peoples ignorance of how Money works in a Country with its own central bank
-
Of course, you could be wrong, but then again that's not an option, is it?
Generally, yes of course I could be wrong about anything. But I'm not in this case. Go read up a bit about basic economics, then come back and tell me what you think.
-
I imagine even if I became an expert at basic economics I still wouldn't consider myself more knowledgeable than the chancellor of the exchequer!
-
I thought the boe was supposed to operate independently in its decision making on the policy relating to money supply?
-
I imagine even if I became an expert at basic economics I still wouldn't consider myself more knowledgeable than the chancellor of the exchequer!
What are the special qualifications you need to be Chancellor?
In this case the ability to say yes to The Clown or Cummings?
-
I imagine even if I became an expert at basic economics I still wouldn't consider myself more knowledgeable than the chancellor of the exchequer!
Then I assume you are saying that he is straight-faced lying? Because what he's saying is 100% not correct. So, if he's intelligent enough to know that, the only other possibility is that he is deliberately deceiving people.
-
I thought the boe was supposed to operate independently in its decision making on the policy relating to money supply?
The BoE DOES operate independently on a day-to-day basis. But is does so within the context of targets set for them by the Chancellor.
Regarding us having to pay back borrowing, that is such an overly simplistic comment from the Chancellor that is just defies belief.
We paid back borrowing (i.e. ran a Govt surplus) in (I think) only three years between 1945 and 1970. We have done so only 6 times since 1970. We have not paid back more than a tiny fraction of the debt that we ran up to fight WWII. The debt seemed gargantuan at the time. It was £21bn - nearly three times the total of everything we produced in a year.
We managed it, not by paying it off. We did it by making it shrink in importance by massively growing the economy. Now, that debt is equal to less than 1% of everything we produce in a year.
Of course, you have to by pay interest on any debt that you take on. But at the moment, the bond markets are lining up to give money to the UK Govt pretty much for free. Interest rates on 10 year bonds are currently 0.2%. On 30 year bonds they are 0.7%. So we could borrow £1trn if we wanted to and pay back only 1% of GDP in interest. Meanwhile, we could use that £1trn to boost the economy and stoke up growth.
Sunak COULD have said that in his reply. Instead, he chose to tell people a load of piss and wind, to support his position that he doesn't want to borrow. Like I say, I desperately hope that he knows he is deceiving people, because if he really doesn't understand this basic economics...
-
I imagine even if I became an expert at basic economics I still wouldn't consider myself more knowledgeable than the chancellor of the exchequer!
Then I assume you are saying that he is straight-faced lying? Because what he's saying is 100% not correct. So, if he's intelligent enough to know that, the only other possibility is that he is deliberately deceiving people.
You seem to be getting confused here. It's YOU that's saying he's straight-faced lying! It's YOU that's only providing two possibilities. I'm merely suggesting there could be a third possibility if you ever considered the option of you being wrong.
-
BB. I frequently consider the possibility of me being wrong. It's just that I 100% am not on this issue. Sunak's description was simply not accurate in how Govt financing works in the real world. Like I say, if you're really interested in discussing the topic here (as opposed to what you usually do, which is to discuss the topic of arguing) there are plenty of sources which you could read about how Govt finances actually work, and none of them aimed at anyone above primary school level would sound like Sunak's explanation.
If you prefer to argue about arguing instead, I'll leave you to it.
-
Give over! Every post you make is aimed at provoking an argument, and if anyone expresses an unfavourable response you claim they're being argumentative!
THAT'S what I call arguing about arguing!
-
I imagine even if I became an expert at basic economics I still wouldn't consider myself more knowledgeable than the chancellor of the exchequer!
You don't need to. You just have to show yourself more knowledgable than BST, which you seem to think is setting the bar low so it shouldn't be beyond you.
-
Sunak is a public schoolboy, ex-city stockbroker who has twelve houses, married a billionaires daughter and has his own savings in an off-shore trust so he doesn't have to pay tax on them.
To be fair to him, what does he know about paying money back? He only ever spends it, either his own or somebody elses.
-
Give over! Every post you make is aimed at provoking an argument, and if anyone expresses an unfavourable response you claim they're being argumentative!
THAT'S what I call arguing about arguing!
But there's the thing BB. I post about facts and opinions. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with any of that. You can present counter analyses and present other information. I'm happy to discuss (civilly) with anyone who does that.
But you rarely do. You simply try to wind up a fight. This thread is a textbook example.
-
I did give other information, in the form of a third option.
-
Sunak is a public schoolboy, ex-city stockbroker who has twelve houses, married a billionaires daughter and has his own savings in an off-shore trust so he doesn't have to pay tax on them.
To be fair to him, what does he know about paying money back? He only ever spends it, either his own or somebody elses.
......and i reckon most of us would be delighted to be in his position.
Even if it meant being pulled to bits by people on a football forum.
-
I'm no economist by any means but I understand in layman's terms that creating money risks inflation .
Inflation is the Tories , their donors and a good proposition of their voters worst nightmare because inflation kills great wealth .
Sunak is possibly ideology driven , he's a bob or two his self .
-
Doesn't inflation also have an effect on lower-income families and older vulnerable citizens?
-
Doesn't inflation also have an effect on lower-income families and older vulnerable citizens?
Not if Govt takes steps, which it can, to protect their income.
-
I'm no economist by any means but I understand in layman's terms that creating money risks inflation .
Inflation is the Tories , their donors and a good proposition of their voters worst nightmare because inflation kills great wealth .
Sunak is possibly ideology driven , he's a bob or two his self .
It only affects them if their assets are in money form. Most of the rich have their assets in stocks, land and property. Which inflation doesn't affect.
-
Glyn. That's only the case if the value of those assets keeps pace with price inflation. It didn't for the period 1945-1979
-
Another degree in Philosophy
God f**king help us!
Thick t**t!
-
Glyn. That's only the case if the value of those assets keeps pace with price inflation. It didn't for the period 1945-1979
You're confusing price with value. The price will change but the relative value won't.
And prices are only used to gauge inflation because it's the least worst method there is. As a measure of inflation it's crap but it's the best method we've got.
-
Not sure I follow you Glyn. Consider this scenario.
I have £1m invested in property in year 1, and current expenses (food, energy, tech, socialising, etc) are, say, £20k per year.
If inflation on current expenses is 5% p.a. but property values stagnate, in 40 years time, my property portfolio has the same monetary value, but current costs are now £140k per year. So the cost of living is far higher as a fraction of my property wealth than it used to be.
Surely it was that mechanism that whittled away at the relative wealth of the richest in society between 1945-79? Because we had high inflation on current costs and very low inflation on capital. And that's flipped over the past 40 years, re-entrenching the relative wealth of the richest few percent. Or am I missing something?
(And yeah, simplistic numbers, but they demonstrate the principle.)
-
Inflation isn't the rise in the cost of living. It's the rate that a currency loses its value, which is a uniform rate across the whole economy That's why using the cost of living is a crap way of measuring it, it's always a subjective measure and not an objective one, and also that the prices of individual things can still go up and down relative to each other within the loss in value of the currency. That's why Mad Mick was talking out of his arse when trying to use property values and the price of gold to prove that a recession was happening.
-
Yes I get that. The currency deflator is ONE measure of inflation. But whatever terminology you use, it is a possibility that current costs can rise faster than capital value. And if they do, the relative wealth of those holding capital assets decreases.
That's my point. How you define the term "inflation" is secondary.
-
Of course Glyn inflation is not uniform and can fluctuate wildly between sectors. Of course you can inflate yourself out of payments inside your own currency but that's very difficult to do outside your own currency given exchange rate movements. I'm not sure how much of our borrowing is Forex related but it could be quite high.
Also on Sunak, again criticism of him for being successful financially. Is that his fault? Why do we criticise those who've done well for themselves?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54824120
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54824120
The only criticism is that this should have come before the lockdown, many thousands lost their job on 31st October when the original furlogh ended
-
BFYP
I have not and would not criticise Sunak for his personal successes. I'm criticising him for deliberately (or ignorantly) misleading people on basic economics, in a way that would, if successful, result in policies which benefit those like him who have significant wealth, to the detriment of those who don't.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54824120
The only criticism is that this should have come before the lockdown, many thousands lost their job on 31st October when the original furlogh ended
Agreed. Very good that it has finally been extended. Very bad that it wasn't done at least a month ago when the writing was on the wall.
While we are weighing up the pros and cons of Sunak, it's worth noting what was widely reported in September. Johnson was talked into the firebreak lockdown by SAGE. Sunak threatened to resign if the firebreak happened.
Result: Another month of rampant spread of the virus. Maybe 25,000 more deaths than there would have been if we had had the firebreak. Followed by a much longer and more damaging lockdown. And the finger pointing at Sunak.
-
Turn sound on 😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1324347826395074565?s=21
-
Turn sound on 😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1324347826395074565?s=21
Very good 🤣
-
Turn sound on 😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1324347826395074565?s=21
Like Marina Hyde said a few months back. Johnson liked the idea that he would be PM and he likes the idea that one day he will have been PM. It's the bit in between that is difficult.
-
Sunak is a public schoolboy, ex-city stockbroker who has twelve houses, married a billionaires daughter and has his own savings in an off-shore trust so he doesn't have to pay tax on them.
To be fair to him, what does he know about paying money back? He only ever spends it, either his own or somebody elses.
......and i reckon most of us would be delighted to be in his position.
Even if it meant being pulled to bits by people on a football forum.
Of course - who can doubt that a multi-millionaire chancellor with links to hedge funds and tax avoidance schemes has the best interests of the ordinary Britsih public at heart. Certainly not you it appears:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/14/new-chancellor-rishi-sunak-challenged-over-hedge-fund-past
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-wealth-investment-blind-trust-b1342418.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pressure-mounts-on-rishi-sunak-to-reveal-contents-of-blind-trust-8zmshbxs9
-
Each to his own eh wilts.
Of course you would like to have his assets.
Like him, you wouldn?t give a monkeys about football forum political ?experts? having a pop.
-
Each to his own eh wilts.
Of course you would like to have his assets.
Like him, you wouldn?t give a monkeys about football forum political ?experts? having a pop.
It must be nice to be like you hound and assume everyone is like yourself. I've travelled a bit and know they are not.
Maybe you should set up your own forum if you don't like this one?
Opinions eh...
-
Each to his own eh wilts.
Of course you would like to have his assets.
Like him, you wouldn?t give a monkeys about football forum political ?experts? having a pop.
It must be nice to be like you hound and assume everyone is like yourself. I've travelled a bit and know they are not.
Maybe you should set up your own forum if you don't like this one?
Opinions eh...
I have travelled wilts, more than you will ever know.
Don?t think I am naive, that would be another mistake you would have made.
As for this forum, I enjoy the football threads and laugh at much of the stuff posted on the political ones.
So many experts who know so much......and yet they express their views on here rather than from a position that their expertise could possibly place them.
Keep up the good work.
-
Strange attitude Hound.
Do you think that, because this is only a web forum of a provincial football club, we should have a low level of informed discussion? Do you want us not to share facts and analyses? Is that us getting a bit too clever?
-
Typically condescending response from you BST.
As for your question, of course people can have an opinion.
-
No Hound. It's not condescending. YOUR post was the condescending one. You clearly think that discussions on here are pointless and smart people are wasting their time on here.
Me, I genuinely have higher ambitions than that. I honestly believe democracy thrives when there are a million well-informed micro-debates going on every day.
-
Who really is being mislead and how does it actually matter to anything at all....the complete irrelevance of current politics is easier to fathom:
Nothing reported is fact
Nothing written is fact
Nothing matters less than blowing smoke to try and make more clouds, ...
I read these little monologues and wonder how bitter some people are becoming with the machine they are living in, this is a game with rules that don?t involve us pawns......we live, we try to progress and achieve our level 1 and then move to level 2
Sleep shit repeat......................
I do hope you guys aren?t like this in real life ( off-forum) 🥰
I think you throw snowballs at the oncoming tanks.....
-
Just to re-emphasis some of the points in this thread, here are figures from the OBR on debt interest costs.
https://mobile.twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1331597566706933762
Historically low, despite the large debt. And the bond markets are fighting like cars in a sack to lend us more. The Govt can currently borrow for ten years at a fixed rate 0.32% interest.
Anyone who says, in those circumstances, that it is vital that we get the debt down is talking utter bullshit. A sensible Govt would be borrowing more and using it to get the economy coming roaring out of this recession.
-
Sunak is the typical Tory, interests in business based abroad and not paying Tax, son in law of a billionaire, freezing the pay of public sector workers, getting the poorer people to pay for all this while he continues to coin it in. And on another note, my boss has had not one penny support throughout all this, because his business is based at home, but you can bet your life on it that when the inevitable tax rises come Sunak will expect my boss to pay more tax, even though he has had no support!
-
I would not mind betting, given the very positive news on vaccines that the global economy is likely to bounce back strongly in the late summer. That will change the economic outlook in the UK radically.
-
Just to re-emphasis some of the points in this thread, here are figures from the OBR on debt interest costs.
https://mobile.twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1331597566706933762
Historically low, despite the large debt. And the bond markets are fighting like cars in a sack to lend us more. The Govt can currently borrow for ten years at a fixed rate 0.32% interest.
Anyone who says, in those circumstances, that it is vital that we get the debt down is talking utter bullshit. A sensible Govt would be borrowing more and using it to get the economy coming roaring out of this recession.
Not quite across this but would all existing government debt be renogatiated down to the new lower rates, is this what happens?
-
Pretty much over 5-10 years. The debt is re-financed on a regular basis. A bit like a fixed term mortgage. Actually, more like having lots of fixed term mortgages, each one covering a chunk of the debt with different refinancing dates.
-
Thanks bst, belt tightening is not logical under these circumstances.
-
There is a fine balance though, yes borrow, perhaps earlier than you might have done, but that shouldn't link necessarily to spending on everyday items, that should be linked to capital spends, bring forward the capital projects and get people working on them which boosts GDP as a whole.
I'm not sure on the political points on the overseas aid spend. By definition as it's % of GDP it had already been drastically cut given the proportionate spending, now it gets cut even further. I'm not sure that's the right move.
I do think the policies went further than I would have on low income pay. A large % living wage increase is the wrong thing right now. All those small businesses now facing substantial pay increases for staff will be delighted with that policy.
Sunak is the typical Tory, interests in business based abroad and not paying Tax, son in law of a billionaire, freezing the pay of public sector workers, getting the poorer people to pay for all this while he continues to coin it in. And on another note, my boss has had not one penny support throughout all this, because his business is based at home, but you can bet your life on it that when the inevitable tax rises come Sunak will expect my boss to pay more tax, even though he has had no support!
I would argue the state paying most of his salary, staff salaries and the recent one off payment for taxi drivers is a fairly positive thing for his business (they didn't have to do that). As a home based business he already benefits from not having some of the liabilities a business would have at external premises (EG business rates). Of course he'll also be claiming the home working tax reliefs and as a business owner also would have benefitted from differing remuneration methods that are much more tax efficient than a standard employee's salary.
-
This thread started off with a video of the Chancellor getting basic economics so wrong, it's difficult to comprehend what was in his head.
Here's the BBC's Political Editor similarly showing her ignorance of basic economics, while idly repeating shite soundbites that have come out of the Tory party for over a decade.
Just, awful.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PositiveMoneyUK/status/1332274059460087810
-
The reason why this is so important is that you have there, the BBC Political Editor, basically saying that there is no alternative to the economic policies which the Tory party will CHOOSE to implement.
And that is simply, categorically wrong. There are many alternatives. Due to central bank policies and the chronic lack of global demand, bond markets are queueing up to lend the Govt money effectively for free. It is simply outrageous, in that context, for Kuenssberg to repeat the Tory meme about "maxing out the country's credit card." She's basically acting as a channel to pour out unfiltered Tory policy propaganda.
If she's doing that knowingly, she should be sacked.
If she's too thick to realise she is doing that, she should be sacked.
-
Here's the simple bit about debt that seems to go straight over Kuenssberg's head.
Governments rarely pay back debt.
After WWII, our Govt debt was £21bn. Today it is 100 times higher at £2trn.
But, because the economy has grown even more than that, £2trn debt today is only about a third as big in relation to our GDP than £21bn was in 1945. It's so f**king simple, yet useful idiots like Kuenssberg repeat this "got to pay it back" claptrap.
My example, from a personal standpoint.
When I bought my first house in 1992, I took a 100% mortgage because I had nothing saved for a deposit. So my debt was exactly equal to my assets. Interest payments on that mortgage took nearly a third of my take-home pay.
Today, having moved up the house ladder a couple of times, my outstanding mortgage debt is three times what it was in 1992. But my current house is worth 5 times that debt. And my mortgage interest payments are less than 1/10th of my take home pay, because interest rates have collapsed.
I am far more indebted in terms of mortgage now than I was 28 years ago. But in a far better position overall. Because debt, in and of itself, is not the issue. It's what your debt is like compared to your assets and income. If your assets and income rise faster than your debt, it doesn't matter if your debt continues to get bigger.
-
This is a superbly clinical dissection of the ignorance Kuenssberg shows in those comments.
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/11/maxxed-out.html
Well worth a read.
-
Sunak is the typical Tory, interests in business based abroad and not paying Tax, son in law of a billionaire, freezing the pay of public sector workers, getting the poorer people to pay for all this while he continues to coin it in. And on another note, my boss has had not one penny support throughout all this, because his business is based at home, but you can bet your life on it that when the inevitable tax rises come Sunak will expect my boss to pay more tax, even though he has had no support!
.... and another disobeying the Rules by not declaring family interests that run into billions on the Register of interests as he should
Big new story - and again would normally be enugh for a sacking / resignation
Cue Johnson. He will read the "accusation" or fact depending on which side of the debate you are and proclaim - Ive had a look and am satisfield he has done nothing wrong and (of course) the matter is now closed
-
I know people like Links and here is top one off the pile
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/guardian-probe-finds-chancellor-failed-to-declare-interests-6543042
-
Here's the simple bit about debt that seems to go straight over Kuenssberg's head.
Governments rarely pay back debt.
After WWII, our Govt debt was £21bn. Today it is 100 times higher at £2trn.
But, because the economy has grown even more than that, £2trn debt today is only about a third as big in relation to our GDP than £21bn was in 1945. It's so f**king simple, yet useful idiots like Kuenssberg repeat this "got to pay it back" claptrap.
My example, from a personal standpoint.
When I bought my first house in 1992, I took a 100% mortgage because I had nothing saved for a deposit. So my debt was exactly equal to my assets. Interest payments on that mortgage took nearly a third of my take-home pay.
Today, having moved up the house ladder a couple of times, my outstanding mortgage debt is three times what it was in 1992. But my current house is worth 5 times that debt. And my mortgage interest payments are less than 1/10th of my take home pay, because interest rates have collapsed.
I am far more indebted in terms of mortgage now than I was 28 years ago. But in a far better position overall. Because debt, in and of itself, is not the issue. It's what your debt is like compared to your assets and income. If your assets and income rise faster than your debt, it doesn't matter if your debt continues to get bigger.
This is basically (in simplistic terms) what gearing is, if you put a similar situation into the context of a private sector business. The level of debt as a percentage of what you're raking in is what determines (among other things, obviously) how healthy the business is, not directly the actual amount of debt.
-
Janso.
Precisely. And as that last link I posted shows, private saving has gone up precisely for the same reason that Govt debt has gone up. People aren't spending anywhere near as much as they used to. So Govt both loses tax income, and has to pay out to supplement the incomes of those who aren't earning because of people not spending.
Focussing on Govt debt on its own is just stupid. But that's Kuenssberg for you. We need impartial experts at the BBC informing and educating the public. Instead we has a vacuous chatterbox who knows Dom's phone number but not much else.
-
If government debt is viewed in relation to GDP and the ability to pay it back via taxes, no deal and the increase in cost to the UK will effect this pay-back ability and result in a lower standard of living.
Is this a reasonable assumption?
-
I dunno Syd. You would have thought if it was that big a deal the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer might have mentioned it when delivering his speech on the major spending priorites for the next year.
The OBR when analysing his speech mentioned it 62 times. What did he say about it again...
-
It is odd isn't it Wilts? 5 weeks away from the crowning glory of this Govt's strategic policy, and not a dickie bird about how wonderful it is going to be for the economy.
How refreshingly lacking in boastfulness.
-
Now I don't pretend to understand it all but seems well explained https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1332748907009478666?s=19
-
Turnbull.
That Twitter thread says, in much more correct, technical language, PRECISELY the point I've been trying to make.
And here's a thing. The Economist who wrote that Twitter thread isn't a raving Marxist. He is a Fellow at the Institute for Economic Affairs. That's the free-market supporting think tank that developed the economic policies that Thatcherism was based on.
The point I have been trying to make, and this guy makes better than me are so blindingly obvious that no economist would question them, whatever their political outlook.
Which raises the question. If this is such basic economics, why does Sunak say the opposite?
So, what I said at the start of this thread still applies, despite BB insisting on showing his ignorance. There's only two possibilities. Either he does not understand the economics. Or he understands it and he's choosing to deceive the public.
No possible alternative.
-
By the way BST regarding your Andrew Marr thread yesterday.
What he said was Sheffield, Chesterfield, Mansfield AND those other South Yorkshire areas you cover.
I did not hear it as meaning he thought Chesterfield & Mansfield were in South Yorkshire.
Think you were making something out of nothing to be fair.
Nothing to do with above but i know you are a staunch socialist BST but do you honestly think the Labour Party would have dealt with the Covid Pandemic better than the Conservatives.
It’s so easy when you are in opposition isn’t it. You don’t have to make the big decisions or any decisions.
Whatever the Goverment does isn’t going to keep every one happy. It’s impossible.
The fact is the country was under prepared for such an eventuality and it would have been exactly the same which ever party was in Goverment.
-
Camps, I have had that discussion on here a few times.
Prepare for the backlash.
Good that you made the point in your first sentences in your above post.
-
Campsall do you honestly believe that whoever was Labour leader would have ignored 5 COBRA meetings discussing what appeared to be a deveoping pandemic in China, Italy, Spain - and what was required here to deal with it. Like checking travellers arriving at ports an airports.
There is also a reason the country was under prepared. 10 years of Tory austerity (although to be fair Sunk has grow a magic money tree). Included in which was an exercise into how the country would deal with a pandemic - the results of which have never been offically released but from what we know were all but ignored.
Would the Labour leader have given £'billions of PPE contracts to their mates and relations of mates. Or woul they have given them to companies that actually made PPE?
Would Thatcher have dealt with the crises like Johnson, Gove and their cronies? Or Heath, Major or even Cameron? It's not that they are Tories, it is that they are a particular set of Tories whose main skill is lying rather than governing.
-
Campsall do you honestly believe that whoever was Labour leader would have ignored 5 COBRA meetings discussing what appeared to be a deveoping pandemic in China, Italy, Spain - and what was required here to deal with it. Like checking travellers arriving at ports an airports.
There is also a reason the country was under prepared. 10 years of Tory austerity (although to be fair Sunk has grow a magic money tree). Included in which was an exercise into how the country would deal with a pandemic - the results of which have never been offically released but from what we know were all but ignored.
Would the Labour leader have given £'billions of PPE contracts to their mates and relations of mates. Or woul they have given them to companies that actually made PPE?
Would Thatcher have dealt with the crises like Johnson, Gove and their cronies? Or Heath, Major or even Cameron? It's not that they are Tories, it is that they are a particular set of Tories whose main skill is lying rather than governing.
Spot-on, Wilts. You won't get an answer from them addressing your points of course.
-
Campsall do you honestly believe that whoever was Labour leader would have ignored 5 COBRA meetings discussing what appeared to be a deveoping pandemic in China, Italy, Spain - and what was required here to deal with it. Like checking travellers arriving at ports an airports.
There is also a reason the country was under prepared. 10 years of Tory austerity (although to be fair Sunk has grow a magic money tree). Included in which was an exercise into how the country would deal with a pandemic - the results of which have never been offically released but from what we know were all but ignored.
Would the Labour leader have given £'billions of PPE contracts to their mates and relations of mates. Or woul they have given them to companies that actually made PPE?
Would Thatcher have dealt with the crises like Johnson, Gove and their cronies? Or Heath, Major or even Cameron? It's not that they are Tories, it is that they are a particular set of Tories whose main skill is lying rather than governing.
Spot-on, Wilts. You won't get an answer from them addressing your points of course.
Ok clever. First of all I have no political allegiance and would always vote for the party who I think would do the least damage to the country.
It just happens that has been the Conservatives since I first voted in the 1970’s.
How can you possibly know how Starmer would have dealt with this pandemic. Do you have a crystal ball.
No you do not ONLY BB has one of those.
Anyway Starmer was not leader was he in Jan, Feb & March. We had Corbyn as leader of the opposition.
So do you think he would have dealt with things that would have saved thousands of lives or do you think he would have saved the country billions of pounds. Or maybe both.
Come on please are you living in the real world. No your living in some socialist fantasy world. One that is brilliant on paper but in reality is a disaster.
-
Campsall, thanks for confirming my prediction. I didn't say anything about the Labour party, I just predicted that you wouldn't give an answer addressing any of Wilts' points... and you've done precisely what I said.
And, AND! You've been watching what the Tories have done to the country right from the seventies and have considered right through that nobody could do less harm than them?? Crikey O'Riley!
-
It will be interesting to see how history judges this government and ruling party. It has had very little going positively for it and comes across as distant, uncaring and corrupt on more than one occasion.
Whatever your political persuasion could you have faith in many of the most prominent politicians today?
-
Campsall
If I misheard then I stand corrected.
Regarding management of the crisis, I have said many times that the massive policy error was delaying the first lockdown in March. Given that the virus cases were doubling every 3-4 days at the time, the delay of 7-10 days between being told how bad things were by SAGE around 13-16 March, and actually starting the lockdown on 24 March was a catastrophic error. It meant the number of cases increased 4-8 fold. And apart from that resulting in 4-8 times more deaths than there should have been, it also meant it took far longer to get the numbers down. So the lockdown event in longer than in other countries. And was lifted when the virus was still at higher levels than other countries. Meaning we had less leeway to stop the 2nd wave.
Would Labour have done better? I suspect so, for a basic philosophical reason. The Tories, ideologically, are in favour of individual freedoms and as little state intervention as possible. Labour, philosophically believe more in societal responsibilities and state intervention.
I've no idea why this Govt lost that crucial week. But it fits in with a political philosophy that prefers Govt not to intervene to limit personal freedoms. Whatever the reason, it was a shocking mistake. Made at a time when other countries were looking at us incredulously and asking why we weren't acting. I don't think Labour would have made that mistake.
Everything else, in terms of management of the crisis is secondary to that decision.
-
If there is nobody that can truly run the country better than this collection of egomaniacs, spivs and pure incompetents then we're definitely in the shit.
-
Campsall do you honestly believe that whoever was Labour leader would have ignored 5 COBRA meetings discussing what appeared to be a deveoping pandemic in China, Italy, Spain - and what was required here to deal with it. Like checking travellers arriving at ports an airports.
There is also a reason the country was under prepared. 10 years of Tory austerity (although to be fair Sunk has grow a magic money tree). Included in which was an exercise into how the country would deal with a pandemic - the results of which have never been offically released but from what we know were all but ignored.
Would the Labour leader have given £'billions of PPE contracts to their mates and relations of mates. Or woul they have given them to companies that actually made PPE?
Would Thatcher have dealt with the crises like Johnson, Gove and their cronies? Or Heath, Major or even Cameron? It's not that they are Tories, it is that they are a particular set of Tories whose main skill is lying rather than governing.
Spot-on, Wilts. You won't get an answer from them addressing your points of course.
Ok clever. First of all I have no political allegiance and would always vote for the party who I think would do the least damage to the country.
It just happens that has been the Conservatives since I first voted in the 1970’s.
How can you possibly know how Starmer would have dealt with this pandemic. Do you have a crystal ball.
No you do not ONLY BB has one of those.
Anyway Starmer was not leader was he in Jan, Feb & March. We had Corbyn as leader of the opposition.
So do you think he would have dealt with things that would have saved thousands of lives or do you think he would have saved the country billions of pounds. Or maybe both.
Come on please are you living in the real world. No your living in some socialist fantasy world. One that is brilliant on paper but in reality is a disaster.
Is it just a coincidence that the countries that have dealt worst with the pandemic are right wing or authoratian ones: us, USA, Brazil, Iran.
And the countries that have done best are liberal or left-wing; New Zealand, Vietnam, Cuba
-
And the population of New Zealand is about 5 million.
We have 66 million in the UK and are much more densely populated.
-
If there is nobody that can truly run the country better than this collection of egomaniacs, spivs and pure incompetents then we're definitely in the shit.
Strange how so many traditional Labour voters rejected them at the last election then.
Just shows how incompetent the British public thought they would be at running the country.
-
Campsall
If I misheard then I stand corrected.
Regarding management of the crisis, I have said many times that the massive policy error was delaying the first lockdown in March. Given that the virus cases were doubling every 3-4 days at the time, the delay of 7-10 days between being told how bad things were by SAGE around 13-16 March, and actually starting the lockdown on 24 March was a catastrophic error. It meant the number of cases increased 4-8 fold. And apart from that resulting in 4-8 times more deaths than there should have been, it also meant it took far longer to get the numbers down. So the lockdown event in longer than in other countries. And was lifted when the virus was still at higher levels than other countries. Meaning we had less leeway to stop the 2nd wave.
Would Labour have done better? I suspect so, for a basic philosophical reason. The Tories, ideologically, are in favour of individual freedoms and as little state intervention as possible. Labour, philosophically believe more in societal responsibilities and state intervention.
I've no idea why this Govt lost that crucial week. But it fits in with a political philosophy that prefers Govt not to intervene to limit personal freedoms. Whatever the reason, it was a shocking mistake. Made at a time when other countries were looking at us incredulously and asking why we weren't acting. I don't think Labour would have made that mistake.
Everything else, in terms of management of the crisis is secondary to that decision.
I agree we were a week late in lockdown in March. Hindsight eh. They were going on the science presented to them were they not.
How do you know BST that Labour would not have made the same mistake. You don’t.
-
Campsall.
1) No, it's not hindsight. In this very forum we were discussing it. On the TV every night, they were discussing it. We were saying "our epidemic numbers are two weeks behind Italy's. Italy locked down late because they were caught unawares. So they have had a shockingly bad outcome. Why are we not locking down sooner than they did." It is simply too easy to let the Govt off the hook by saying "hindsight."
2) We don't yet know WHY the Govt chose to delay the lockdown and instead were still talking about Herd Immunity in mid March. That will hopefully come out in the eventual public inquiry. It may be that they got bad scientific advice. But as Maggie Thatcher herself said: advisers advise, ministers decide.
We know for a fact, from SAGE minutes, that by 15-16 March, SAGE was telling Govt that the virus cases were doubling every 3-4 days, and that fatality rates were liklely to be around 1% of all people infected. Simple maths tells you then that if you delay action for a week, you will end up with four times as many cases to deal with and four times as many deaths. Now, maybe SAGE DID advise that we should not lockdown but instead still keep allowing the virus to spread and go for Herd Immunity. But any competent Govt should then fire back the question "Is there nothing else we can do? How come other countries all round the world have locked down by the time there epidemics were getting this bad? Are you REALLY saying we just have to ride this out?" People in HERE were asking those questions, so it would have been staggeringly incompetent of the Govt not to have done. And not to have been speaking with their opposite numbers in France and Italy and Spain whose epidemics were chronologically ahead of ours.
Yet we still chose to delay our lockdown for another week. And it s no exaggeration to say that probably killed 30,000 people. (We had 40k deaths in the first wave, and a week delay led to a four-fold increase in the spread of the virus, so locking down a week earlier would have reduced the peak numbers to just 1/4th of what they turned out to be.
3) Of course I don't know that Labour would not have made the same mistake. I gave you reasons why I don't THINK they would have done. I very clearly said "think" not "know". Please don't put words into my mouth.
4) There is another reason why I think this specific Govt got it so badly wrong. Back in February, Johnson had vanished off the scene, sorting out the messy divorce (the one from his wife who he left for a younger woman after she was diagnosed with cancer). Dominic Cummings was running COVID strategy. If you've ever read his ramblings over the years, he's had a long fascination with advanced data modelling, including the concept of how Herd Immunity is developed. It was reported in the Sunday Times that, as of early March, Cummings's Govt policy was "Herd Immunity. Protect the economy and if a few old people die, too bad." Cummings has never once complained about that being a misrepresentation of his views, and he usually goes off like a Tasmanian Devil if he thinks he's been wronged. Draw your own conclusions.
5) May I throw a question back at you. what would your reaction be if Labor had won the 2019 Election, and a Corbyn Govt had presided over one of the worst death tolls in Europe, and the worst economic hit in Europe? Would you be saying, "Well, I can't see how anyone else could have done better"? Honestly?
-
At last some good news. We have not taken the biggest economic hit in the G20 as we are slightly better off than err Argentina. Well done Rishi;
https://twitter.com/pitres/status/1333719389678542849
-
At last some good news. We have not taken the biggest economic hit in the G20 as we are slightly better off than err Argentina. Well done Rishi;
https://twitter.com/pitres/status/1333719389678542849
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
If this government had not helped the working people of this country with the furlough scheme and all the other other financial support it has given you and your fellow socialist supporters would have gone ballistic at the lack of care that this government had for its citizens.
Now that it has cost the country billions in financial support to save millions of jobs you are moaning that we are apparently in massive debt.
What unbelievable hypocrisy. :facepalm:
Gordon Brown managed to put the country into massive debt without a pandemic to blame it on.
In fact he had nothing to blame it on. Just his total incompetence at running the country’s finances.
-
Campsall.
Serious question. Do you TRULY believe what you just wrote? If so, I'm speechless. It's like the GLOBAL Financial Crash never happened. The crash that produced the biggest recession for 30 years and torpedoed Govt finances across the Western world.
Never happened. Brown just f**ked it up on his own.
-
Campsall, you're awfully partisan for someone who doesn't have any political affiliation.
-
For what it's worth, I disagree with blaming Sunak for the financial hit from the first wave. He was just left with the consequences of the dreadful mistake in locking down too late. That meant that we had the worst first wave, the longest, hardest lockdown and consequently, the biggest economic hit in Europe. That wasn't the Treasury's fault.
-
Campsall, you're awfully partisan for someone who doesn't have any political affiliation.
No i do not think this lot in power now are a great Government. Believe me they are a long way off that.
Boris is simply not cut out to be the political leader of this country. I do think he is a genuinely caring person who has the best interests of all the Uk citizens. He is just far too eccentric to be PM.
Lots of mistakes have been made during this pandemic. The worst one as BST quite rightly points out was the initial delay in the lock down in March.
As I said I vote for who I believe will do the least harm to the economy. Which I know is a negative way of voting. I have a great deal of scepticism about politicians in general. There are some good ones of course on both sides of the house.
Many of them have never lived in the real world and that is probably true of more Tories than the other parties.
What I can’t be doing with is all this hypocrisy that is spouted by those on the left. Especially when they are in opposition. Let’s face it when was the last time they balanced the books? It’s so easy to get it right when they don’t have to make policy decisions.
The country has been going through the biggest health crisis for well over 100 years, something no one alive today has had any experience of dealing with and to be honest we really should probably have had a coalition government while this pandemic has been with us.
No Janso I have no allegiance to any political party. I just say it as I see it.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
-
Campsall.
Serious question. Do you TRULY believe what you just wrote? If so, I'm speechless. It's like the GLOBAL Financial Crash never happened. The crash that produced the biggest recession for 30 years and torpedoed Govt finances across the Western world.
Never happened. Brown just f**ked it up on his own.
Billy, Gordon Brown was spending money like it had gone out of fashion. Financial crash or no Financial crash. He was wasting money before the crash. Did I dream that one up, no I don’t think so.
-
Campsall.
That is simply wrong. It's terrifying how people can end up with absolute certainty of something that is so wrong.
In 2007, before the GFC hit, Brown's Govt was presiding over a debt which, as a proportion of GDP, had been lower for only about 10 years in the previous 300.
It's genuinely alarming how wrong you are on this, but you are convinced you are right. Where did you get this idea from?
-
Campsall. Here is the record of Govt spending as a percentage of GDP for the past 30 years.
(https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chart2p12.png)
Can you honestly look at that and say that Brown was spending money recklessly before 2008?
Of course you can't. So how on earth have you picked up that Rick solid certain idea? And are you prepared to revise it, now you can see the evidence?
-
Campsall.
That is simply wrong. It's terrifying how people can end up with absolute certainty of something that is so wrong.
In 2007, before the GFC hit, Brown's Govt was presiding over a debt which, as a proportion of GDP, had been lower for only about 10 years in the previous 300.
It's genuinely alarming how wrong you are on this, but you are convinced you are right. Where did you get this idea from?
If you have the figures to prove that then I will hold my hands up. I do know the majority of the press have a Tory bias but are you saying they were blatantly lying?
-
Yes. I am saying precisely that. There was a concerted effort to hoodwink the population into believing that Brown was a mad spender. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And it's not just me saying that. Here is the country's most eminent macroeconomist, Prof Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford Uni. If you don't want to wade through the detail, jump to the last paragraph in that link.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2012/08/facts-and-spin-about-fiscal-policy.html?m=1
After he posted that, he was savaged online by the Economics Editor of the Telegraph who ridiculed him for saying that Brown wasn't a mad spender when everyone knew he was.
SWL patiently re-explained his argument, with the Telegraph guy getting increasingly arsey. Eventually, the Telegraph guy exploded in a rant online, saying "I'm sick of listening to you about economics. The argument that Brown overspent and that we needed Austerity was never about economics." Or words to that effect.
It was a massive con trick to turf Labour out of power.
-
The evidence is there in that graph by the way. From 1997 to 2007, the Blair/Brown Govt spent no more, as a percentage of GDP than the Major Govt had done before it. Yet the Tory press relentlessly hammered the message that Brown was an out of control spendthrift.
-
And Cameron & Osborne were elected on a promise to bring the debt down. Where upon they (and Hammond) doubled it.
Boris has the best interests of the country at heart - the bloke who refused to provide free school meals (twice) because 'we couldn't afford it', but gave millions to his friends and cronies, and thinks No Deal is better than a bad Deal whatever the cost in jobs!
-
I see that the Labour Party are going to abstain from the vote tomorrow.
I wonder why?
-
I see that the Labour Party are going to abstain from the vote tomorrow.
I wonder why?
Tomorrow?
-
I see that the Labour Party are going to abstain from the vote tomorrow.
I wonder why?
Tomorrow?
Ha, I typed that up last night and can’t have clicked on it until just now.
I have been busy with my loft conversion and am trying to catch up with events on here.
Speed reading lots of it.
Apologies, should have either clicked on it last night or changed it.
Senior moment ?
-
It's very simple Hound.
They agree with the lockdown. But they disagree with the economic support package. So they cannot in good faith vote for the overall package of proposals.
But
If they voted against, the proposals would be voted down and that would be the worst of all worlds.
What do YOU think they should have done?
-
I asked a question, that is all.
-
So I assume you are happy with the answer?
-
So I assume you are happy with the answer?
I will withhold my thoughts on that if you don’t mind.
-
Is this some new style of discussion that I haven't twigged?
You ask a genuine question. You get a genuine answer. You're asked if the answer suffices. You choose not to reply.
Can't see it catching on, myself.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
But, it can lead to inflation which may sound fine but may not be. Imagine 10% inflation the pressure moves to companies to fill that gap in wages which is incredibly difficult. There are also a number of policies aligned to inflation so just saying we will borrow and inflate our way out of massive hole has much more impact than you realise.
-
Ok BST just seen your stats. So I am holding my hands up.
To be honest i do not read the newspapers any more. I just watch the news and political TV programmes and make my own judgments on individual politicians and politics in general.
Starmer comes across as someone who might do a reasonable job if the Labour Party were to be elected next time.
Wilson, Callaghan, Foot & Kinnock were either poor leaders or far too Left wing and they were never going to get my vote. Thought Blair might have been ok but he turned out to be uninspiring and Brown well i never trusted him with the economy when Chancellor or PM. The wrong Milliband was made leader. Our MP Ed Milliband in Don North was too left wing to be elected where as David might have had a chance.
So that left the Conservatives to vote for as i always though they would be marginally better at running the country.
The Liberals were never going to get power and most of the time were unsure what they stood for anyway.
UKIP were far too right wing for me and Farage i would not trust as far as i could throw him.
So there you go. Let us see what Boris and his merry men do with the country post Pandemic. They have a very tough job on.
Maybe I will vote Labour next time. If I think Starmer has a United party to lead and has sensible centre ground policies to offer the country then you never know.
There is always a first time. You never know.
One thing is certain is I have an open mind.
Unlike one or two on this forum.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
Have none of our Chancellors done a degree on economics? Hopefully they have.
Do you have one Glyn? You seem quick to call them bookkeepers. Think they might actually know quite a bit about economics.
-
Thanks for that post Campsall. I'm all for open discussion.
What I've never understood is how the Tories have this reputation for being responsible with the economy. Look at the record over the past 50 years. There have been at least four occasions where Tory Chancellor's implemented policies which were fundamentally in contradiction of basic economic theory, and led to entirely avoidable economic messes.
1972 Anthony Barber massively increased Govt spending in an already vibrant economy. It led to the infamous Barber Boom which resulted in a huge rise in inflation that took years to control.
1981, Geoffrey Howe did the polar opposite. Cut spending and hiked interest rates in the depth of the worst recession since 1930. The economy tanked. Unemployment topped 3 million.
1988, Nigel Lawson gave huge tax cuts in an already booming economy. As with Barber, that resulted in an unsustainable boom, a huge rise in inflation and the inevitable crash and recession of 90/91.
2010 George Osborne's Austerity. The most destructive mistake of them all. Choked off the recovery from the GFC. The economy stagnated for 3 years. Wages had only just got back to 2008 levels when COVID hit.
In all that time, the one Tory Chancellor who did the right thing was Ken Clarke who borrowed and reduced interest rates to get the economy firing again in the early 90s. That set us up for 15 years of decent, solid growth.
Yet the Tories have the reputation for competence.
Regarding Brown, we were the one and only major world economy not to have a recession in 2001/2. We had a decade of sensible growth and a reinvestment in school, health, transport. Then when the GFC struck and the world was pitched into a shocking recession, he led the global effort to coordinate Govt spending to mitigate the worst effects and stop a bad recession becoming a second Great Depression. I've never understood why he is considered a disaster.
-
Campsall.
Sunak has a 1st class degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford.
That makes his comments in the OP all the more indefensible. He MUST know that they are nonsense, as the guy from the (very right wing) IEA said in the link on the previous page. Which means Sunak is deliberately choosing to mislead people.
-
1988 Booming economy. Thatcher was PM through out the 80’s
Whether you like or despise Maggy the fact is she turned this country round after tha disaster of Callaghan and the Unions who were trying to run the country.
Yes I know the Miners suffered, Steel workers etc etc. But some very painful decisions had to be made for the long term benefit of the country. We were on the slippery slope in 1979/80 and we had a leader who had the conviction and determination to turn it round. By the late 80’s as you said yourself the country was in i boom.
Agreed Lawson then made a pigs ear of it.
Question are most people in work better off now than they were 40 years ago.
Most people. Yes those on min wage possibly not. Min wage should be at least £10 per hour.
-
1988 Booming economy. Thatcher was PM through out the 80’s
Whether you like or despise Maggy the fact is she turned this country round after tha disaster of Callaghan and the Unions who were trying to run the country.
Yes I know the Miners suffered, Steel workers etc etc. But some very painful decisions had to be made for the long term benefit of the country. We were on the slippery slope in 1979/80 and we had a leader who had the conviction and determination to turn it round. By the late 80’s as you said yourself the country was in i boom.
Agreed Lawson then made a pigs ear of it.
Question are most people in work better off now than they were 40 years ago.
Most people. Yes those on min wage possibly not. Min wage should be at least £10 per hour.
The problem with making the minimum wage £10 p/h is that you then need to increase the wages of people currently on £10 who deserve more than minimum wage.
-
1988 Booming economy. Thatcher was PM through out the 80’s
Whether you like or despise Maggy the fact is she turned this country round after tha disaster of Callaghan and the Unions who were trying to run the country.
Yes I know the Miners suffered, Steel workers etc etc. But some very painful decisions had to be made for the long term benefit of the country. We were on the slippery slope in 1979/80 and we had a leader who had the conviction and determination to turn it round. By the late 80’s as you said yourself the country was in i boom.
Agreed Lawson then made a pigs ear of it.
Question are most people in work better off now than they were 40 years ago.
Most people. Yes those on min wage possibly not. Min wage should be at least £10 per hour.
Thatcher did change things Campsall but frittered away the oil boom money on tax cuts for the already rich instead of investing it in rebuilding the old industrial areas, retooling etc and a future fund for everyone.
-
1988 Booming economy. Thatcher was PM through out the 80’s
Whether you like or despise Maggy the fact is she turned this country round after tha disaster of Callaghan and the Unions who were trying to run the country.
Yes I know the Miners suffered, Steel workers etc etc. But some very painful decisions had to be made for the long term benefit of the country. We were on the slippery slope in 1979/80 and we had a leader who had the conviction and determination to turn it round. By the late 80’s as you said yourself the country was in i boom.
Agreed Lawson then made a pigs ear of it.
Question are most people in work better off now than they were 40 years ago.
Most people. Yes those on min wage possibly not. Min wage should be at least £10 per hour.
The problem with making the minimum wage £10 p/h is that you then need to increase the wages of people currently on £10 who deserve more than minimum wage.
How do you decide who should get £10 and who should get £11 of £12
The fact is people should get a minimum which is enough to feed their families and pay there utility bills without getting into debt or having to go to food banks. I would think in 2020 a 40 hr week should equal £400 a week.
One thing the Tories have been good at is increasing the personal allowance by well above the rate of inflation over the last 10 years. I would go further and give it a significant jump to £15.000.
National insurance does though need to start at a fairly low threshold as it currently is. State pensions need to be fully funded.
Everyone in work should be contributing into a work based pension and that should always imo be transferable to a new employer or even transferable into to a personal pension if they became self employed.
There are still many companies who do not offer the statuary Work based Pension and it amazes me that the Government have not got on top of this very unsatisfactory situation.
The Government have found the money to get through this pandemic and therefore should find he money to give substantial increases to Nurses, who are ridiculously under paid for the work they do.
Teachers too need to feel much more valued as they have one of the most important jobs in any society.
Far too many good teachers are leaving the profession as they are under paid and under valued and also have to work under some ridiculous pressures put on them to achieve targets. Teaching Children should never just be about targets.
Better wages = better living standards = More consumer spending = more Income tax revenue & more VAT revenue.
Surely that’s a win win situation or am i missing something.
-
BST have you not been somewhat contradictory.
You have just said the Tories created a boom in the 1980’s and then they started another 15 year period of sustained economic growth from around 1993 to 2008
which Blair continued in his spell as PM.
That does not sound like too bad a record to me.
Any way i am damn sure you and me could do a better job than the lot of them.
At least we live in the real world & not those Ivory Towers in Central London.
Independence for Yorkshire. What do you say. May as well as Scotland will be getting it very soon.
Population of Yorkshire is slightly higher as well.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
Have none of our Chancellors done a degree on economics? Hopefully they have.
Do you have one Glyn? You seem quick to call them bookkeepers. Think they might actually know quite a bit about economics.
I wasn't referring to any Chancellors, just as Janso wasn't referring to any in the post I replied to.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
Have none of our Chancellors done a degree on economics? Hopefully they have.
Do you have one Glyn? You seem quick to call them bookkeepers. Think they might actually know quite a bit about economics.
I wasn't referring to any Chancellors, just as Janso wasn't referring to any in the post I replied to.
We were talking about the economics of running the country so who were you referring to.
-
Why is there an obsession with "balancing the books" though? what country actually does this? macroeconomics isn't the same thing as a household budget.
It's because idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think that they do) actually think like bookkeepers and not like economists.
Have none of our Chancellors done a degree on economics? Hopefully they have.
Do you have one Glyn? You seem quick to call them bookkeepers. Think they might actually know quite a bit about economics.
I wasn't referring to any Chancellors, just as Janso wasn't referring to any in the post I replied to.
We were talking about the economics of running the country so who were you referring to.
Idiots who don't understand economics (but like to think they do). Just as I said.
-
Campsall.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. An economic boom is not something to crow about. It means the economy is overheating and if it's not controlled, it leads to a crash.
Think of it this way. Company X makes widgets for use in a range of consumer goods. They can make 1000 a day and that covers usual demand.
If the economy starts to boom, more people want to buy the consumer goods. So there's more demand for the widgets. The market would like there to be 1500 widgets a day available.
Company X can do one of two things.
1) Keep on turning out the 1000 widgets. But because demand is so high, they can up their prices and let the company who is prepared to pay the highest price buy the 1000. Say Company Y. But that means that the consumer goods that Company Y make are now more expensive. So they out their prices up. So inflation goes up. So workers want higher wages. But that puts up costs across the economy. And because Company X's workers now want higher salaries, the cost of producing widgets goes up. So the have to put their prices up. Vicious circle starts.
2) Company X chooses to expand capacity to produce 1500 widgets a day. But that's expensive. It means a new factory and more new staff. So they take out a big bank loan. Which is fine as long as the higher demand lasts. But if it falls back again, they are faced with laying staff off, mothballing the factory and still having to pay back the loan.
So you REALLY don't want big booms. Because the consequences of big booms are big slumps, for the reasons given in those examples. Either inflation gets out of control, or companies get highly leveraged and a small reduction in demand becomes massively amplified.
In simple terms, steady growth of 3% per year will give you 12% growth over 4 years. Equally, a mad boom of 10% growth for 2 years followed by a recession of -4% growth for two years would give you the same total growth. But the latter is a far worse situation. Because it is tipping firms from expansion to contraction. It's tipping workers from overtime to redundancy[1].
You can look at the numbers. From 1950 to the mid 90s, we had a string of booms and busts. The worst ones unquestionably were under the Tories, but they happened under Labour too. But under Brown, before the GFC which was a totally different problem, growth was nice and steady for 10 years. Precisely what companies and individuals want, so they can plan ahead.
[1] That happened to the firm I worked for after graduating. In 1989-90, you could do as much OT as you wanted,without squaring it with the Directors. I was putting in 55 hours many weeks. By the middle of 1991, when the crash came, the company shrank by half its staff. A couple of colleagues had overstretched themselves on mortgages in the good times and lost their houses when the crash came. THAT was the Lawson boom and bust.
-
Quick explainer of what the current Tory government have said about reducing National Debt - and what has actually happened.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1334402345610977281
-
I bet the Labour Party Lord Mayor of Liverpool knows F*** all about economics, but it looks like he knows how to skim off the top of those that do.
-
Well Rishi can really count, his wife is worth more than the Queen, and Billy thinks he's thick.
-
I bet the Labour Party Lord Mayor of Liverpool knows F*** all about economics, but it looks like he knows how to skim off the top of those that do.
Immediately suspended from the party, unlike a certain Tory MP arrested for serious sexual offences, and hasn’t said a word in months after previously being very outspoken, and still votes in the HoC
-
I bet the Labour Party Lord Mayor of Liverpool knows F*** all about economics, but it looks like he knows how to skim off the top of those that do.
You should try and to tune your radio in to the real world selby, your mates can't even be arsed to hide it any more.
Want a multimillion PPE payout from the government? Apparently, all you have to do is befriend a Tory MP
The Tories' 'chumocracy' over Covid contracts is destroying public trust
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/covid-ppe-contract-johnson-audit-report-b1749301.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/21/tories-covid-contracts-public-trust-government
-
I bet the Labour Party Lord Mayor of Liverpool knows F*** all about economics, but it looks like he knows how to skim off the top of those that do.
Immediately suspended from the party, unlike a certain Tory MP arrested for serious sexual offences, and hasn’t said a word in months after previously being very outspoken, and still votes in the HoC
You won't get a serious response from the new Minister for Whattabouttery.