Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on April 16, 2014, 06:31:17 pm
-
After six years, wage rises match inflation. Labour's main fox shot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27047966
-
From the link you provided:
"However, when bonus payments are excluded from the figures, wages rose by 1.4%, still below the rate of inflation."
"Other statistics from the ONS show how inflation has eroded the value of pay over the last six years."
"While earnings rose by 8.6% since July 2008, prices rose by 16.9%."
"Although the figures suggest that people's purchasing power is now improving, it will be several years yet before real wages are back to the level they were before the financial crisis."
"The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has estimated that real incomes will not return to their 2009-10 levels until 2018 at the earliest."
"And since the start of the financial crisis, real pay has fallen by a "colossal" 10%, according to Capital Economics."
Not my views, just quoting from the source you provided. Just goes to show that the devil is in the detail, which doesn't always reflect the headline.
-
Wish my wages had gone up 8.6% since 2008. They've gone up 2% since about 2007.
-
After six years, wage rises match inflation. Labour's main fox shot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27047966
You are joking, aren't you?
Official numbers wage rises barely scrape above official inflation.
The inflation stats are dodgy, for a start it doesn't take into account mortgage costs. Products like massive TVs are cheap while food is not so cheap and products like meat is expensive.
There are question marks about wage rises too. How much of that is at the top end? How much are bonuses? Yes minimum wage has gone up by 2% recently but government pushing that up is hardly indicative if a healthy economy.
We all know this 'recovery' is an artificial government planned mini boom, principally based on housing in London. Help to buy.
How is the defecit looking? How is the national debt going? How is private debt looking?
Christ, this Tory government make me sick.
-
There is still a long way to go to repair the damage Labour wreaked on the economy. All I'm saying is that now that wages are rising faster than inflation the cost of living crisis is going to become yesterday's news. If Labour carry on banging on about it they are going to make themselves look stupid. They should be looking forwards not always backwards.
-
The only thing that really fell in price was petrol and diesel. I doubt that will continue, oil prices have hardly shifted over the year.
Labour created the entire global recession did they?
How is the economy doing in Europe, the States, China? Aren't we entwined with the world economy?
I just don't believe this 'recovery' is built on anything sound. Sorry.
-
Just leave him to it guys. He'll get bored eventually if he stops getting bites.
I'm not sure why he keeps coming on here though considering it's fairly obvious he couldn't give a f**k about Rovers and knows absolutely nothing about football.
-
RD
Leave him be. He has no comprehension of the difference between an instantaneous rate and the overall absolute value. I've said times many that if you sit on your arse for 2 hours at the start of a marathon, then start sprinting like Usain Bolt, you might be the fastest person in the race at that moment, but you've got f*** all chance of winning the race.
That is what has happened to our economy over the past 4 years. We've stagnated due to Austerity. We've seen the longest depression in GDP per capita and productivity since the 1870s. We've let most of the rest of the world run away from us, whilst we wilfully beggared ourselves to the tune of something like £0.5trillion by the loss of economic growth. We then have yet another unsustainable housing boom (timed for an Election) and call it "success".
The idiocy of it is obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about it, but that immediately precludes Mick.
And that is before you factor in your comment on where the pay rises that make up the average are going. We've had 35 years (including, shamefully, the time under New Labour) in which the proceeds of GDP growth have gone disproportionately to the wealthiest 10%. I suspect that this time is no different.
Mind. Labour on 39% and 6% ahead of the Tories in tonight's poll. Looks like we've only got another 13 months of this lot.
-
Just leave him to it guys. He'll get bored eventually if he stops getting bites.
I'm not sure why he keeps coming on here though considering it's fairly obvious he couldn't give a f*** about Rovers and knows absolutely nothing about football.
Red. You're being harsh. He knows enough to pontificate about possession efficiency. I can't for the life of me think why every manager doesn't listen on that score.
Oh aye. I remember now. They don't listen because it's facile bullshit, that's why.
-
Labour created the entire global recession did they?
They didn't. However they over-borrowed like there was no tomorrow and left us with our trousers well and truly down when the global recession hit. They failed to regulate the banks properly as well.
All in all things turned out much worse for us than it should have been due to their mismanagement of the economy. The Tories are putting things right but it's going to take many years. The alleged cost of living crisis that Labour keeps on banging on about was actually caused by them! How they've got the nerve to blame the Tories beggars belief.
As far as extrapolating a current alleged 6% opinion poll lead into Labour winning the next election is laughable. At this stage of the electoral cycle that is nowhere near enough. The smart money is on the Tories winning. Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
-
And if we are seeing payrises whilst productivity isn't improving... Isn't that just a pointer to yet more unwanted inflation?
-
Labour created the entire global recession did they?
They didn't. However they over-borrowed like there was no tomorrow and left us with our trousers well and truly down when the global recession hit. They failed to regulate the banks properly as well.
All in all things turned out much worse for us than it should have been due to their mismanagement of the economy. The Tories are putting things right but it's going to take many years. The alleged cost of living crisis that Labour keeps on banging on about was actually caused by them! How they've got the nerve to blame the Tories beggars belief.
As far as extrapolating a current alleged 6% opinion poll lead into Labour winning the next election is laughable. At this stage of the electoral cycle that is nowhere near enough. The smart money is on the Tories winning. Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
The biggest problem for us. The reason why we were left well and truly exposed is the massive size of our financial sector in relation to GDP. Now we are left nursing all these zombie banks.
When do you think uk interest rates will return to something like normal?
-
And if we are seeing payrises whilst productivity isn't improving... Isn't that just a pointer to yet more unwanted inflation?
Bingo. That's what the textbooks would tell us.
Mind, no. Can't be. We're going to be in deflation by July next year. Or is it this year, I forget now. So it looks like the economic textbooks will have to be re-written.
-
Inflation is not going to happen anytime soon. In fact just the opposite is around the corner - deflation. The demographic time bomb is about to explode and there is nothing the BoE or government can do about it.
Secretly the BoE and government are well pissed off that inflation is falling. They've done their best to keep it high to inflate away some of our debt. Unfortunately the power of demographics is much too great for them to overcome.
The sad thing is that there is only me in the UK that is clued up enough to know what's really going on. Take my advice and pile into gold as soon as possible before it's too late.
-
Oh shut up. They have warned of deflation since 2007, it's never happened, it can't happen. No way will they see their assets devalue. Ever.
They have held interest rates at zero and printed billions, that isn't going to disappear, they have devalued the currency massively.
-
Deflation. That is the appreciation of the value of fiat money. So, obviously, the response to that threat is to get out of fiat money and get into gold.
f*** me, no wonder there's only Mick in the country who understands that logic.
Me, I WOULD get into gold. But I'm now bankrupt as I got into gold in 2012, last time Mick read Peter Schiff's website and told us to do that. I pawned every last copy of Razzle that I owned and put the lot on gold.
And gold has lost 33% of its value since then.
Bugger.
If only if waited and put the lot on Mick's Grand National tips...
-
The biggest problem for us. The reason why we were left well and truly exposed is the massive size of our financial sector in relation to GDP. Now we are left nursing all these zombie banks.
When do you think uk interest rates will return to something like normal?
I totally agree about the zombie banks. They should have been allowed to go bust. We could have then got on with rebuilding a proper economy and a proper banking sector. There are also many zombie companies that should also have gone bust. We should have allowed a much deeper recession to clear out all the dead wood. Instead all this dead wood is proving to be a real drag on productivity.
I can't see interest rates returning to normal for aprox. 10 years. My best guess would be that we will be suffering from deflation by summer 2015. This will devastate the economy and mean a period of low or negative interest rates for many years.
Our birth rate is rising and provided we continue to allow uncontrolled immigration eventually the demographics will start to turn in our favour. I need to look at future projections before I know when this corner will be turned, however we are talking I would say of a period of at least 10 years.
-
Dead wood?
What is this dead wood, since most of our poductivity advances are based on automation?
We need a lot of new machines? Maybe?
But then what of the price of energy?
I have severe doubts about the viability of an economic model based on unlimited growth.
Do we really want to fill our overcrowded island ever more? And yes it is overcrowded particularly in the South East where the problems are becoming acute.
-
Negative interest rates. Now THERE's an idea. Do enlighten us on how that works Mick.
Why do I put my money into a bank that pays me negative interest? Why don't I just put it under the mattress and buy a f**king big stick?
-
Me, I WOULD get into gold. But I'm now bankrupt as I got into gold in 2012, last time Mick read Peter Schiff's website and told us to do that. I pawned every last copy of Razzle that I owned and put the lot on gold.
And gold has lost 33% of its value since then.
I can see why you are financially illiterate. Any sensible investor knows that you shouldn't put absolutely every penny you've got on one asset. Even though this is what you've done you've still got 66.66% of your money as gold has only gone down by 33.33%. So how can you be bankrupt?
Just because gold has gone down in value in the short term doesn't mean it isn't going to rise considerably in the medium to long term. The fact is has gone down in the last 18 months should be seen as a buying opportunity if you had any financial nous.
Gold has gone down because the people that sold it aren't as savvy as me. Trust me. I'll be having the last laugh.
-
Negative interest rates. Now THERE's an idea. Do enlighten us on how that works
Once again you display your financial illiteracy. It's called QE.
-
IC if you're buying gold now you must be expecting... Inflation?
-
Dead wood?
What is this dead wood, since most of our poductivity advances are based on automation?
We need a lot of new machines? Maybe?
But then what of the price of energy?
I have severe doubts about the viability of an economic model based on unlimited growth.
There are many businesses out there that are inefficient and badly managed. They survive because they can still get hold of cheap money. They should be put out of their misery quickly. Then the better more efficient companies would have less competition and they could take up the slack in a more productive manner and our productivity would improve.
Shale gas will sort out our current energy problem but this will take years. We are in for a lot more pain over the next 10 years but eventually (providing Labour are kept out of office) I'm very optimistic for our future.
-
Mick
I was so certain that you were right that house prices would go down and gold prices would go up, that I re-mortgaged my house to get £150k of liquid capital and I put the lot on gold. With the plan that I could handle the increased mortgage payments for a couple of years, then I'd cash the gold in, pay off the mortgage and retire to a life of sybaritic excess. Instead, I have lost £50k and am now unable to keep up the payments on my increased mortgage. I am about to lose my house and I've sold my kids off into private service.
Thanks a f**king million for the advice.
-
Shale gas is a short term plaster.
Ask yourself why Shell and BP are getting out of the oil business, why are they selling off their difficult plays to pay dividends. They are spending more and more just to play catch up.
The oil business is in trouble.
-
IC if you're buying gold now you must be expecting... Inflation?
No. I'm expecting deflation for the foreseeable future. I'm buying gold on a regular basis as a hedge against all kinds of economic uncertainty. As time goes on governments are debasing their currencies with a race to the bottom ensuing. It won't be long before savvy investors realise that gold offers protection against this.
I'm also a long term investor, so unlike Billy I think it's great that gold has fallen in value recently. When I sell it will be many years into the future so the fact it's a bit cheaper now will only add to my wealth. Billy seems to want to buy at the top of the market. What a silly Billy.
-
Governments are debasing their currency? How is this different to inflation?
I'm buying gold too I might add because I think we will see inflation.
-
I was so certain that you were right that house prices would go down and gold prices would go up, that I re-mortgaged my house to get £150k of liquid capital and I put the lot on gold. With the plan that I could handle the increased mortgage payments for a couple of years, then I'd cash the gold in, pay off the mortgage and retire to a life of sybaritic excess. Instead, I have lost £50k and am now unable to keep up the payments on my increased mortgage. I am about to lose my house and I've sold my kids off into private service.
Thanks a f***ing million for the advice.
Like I say, you are demonstrably financially illiterate. Why didn't you use savings to buy gold? Why not consider it a long term investment? Why not downsize to an affordable house instead of letting the bank sell it off for a song? Why have kids when you clearly couldn't afford it?
You really are a silly Billy.
-
I just followed your advice Mick. Just your advice.
I've pauperised my family by following your advice. What should I do now?
-
I am investing into traffic lights as the council love buying them
-
I was so certain that you were right that house prices would go down and gold prices would go up, that I re-mortgaged my house to get £150k of liquid capital and I put the lot on gold. With the plan that I could handle the increased mortgage payments for a couple of years, then I'd cash the gold in, pay off the mortgage and retire to a life of sybaritic excess. Instead, I have lost £50k and am now unable to keep up the payments on my increased mortgage. I am about to lose my house and I've sold my kids off into private service.
Thanks a f***ing million for the advice.
Like I say, you are demonstrably financially illiterate. Why didn't you use savings to buy gold? Why not consider it a long term investment? Why not downsize to an affordable house instead of letting the bank sell it off for a song? Why have kids when you clearly couldn't afford it?
You really are a silly Billy.
Why should I have done that Oh Master Mick? You told us from your very own sacred mouth that house prices would go down and gold would go up.
So it was f**king obvious to us mere mortals to leverage our houses to buy gold. What could have been more obvious, Oh Master Mick?
-
Governments are debasing their currency? How is this different to inflation?
Normally this would cause inflation. However there is one major factor that everyone except me seems to be taking seriously. Demographics. An ageing population means less spending power in the economy and this has a greater effect on keeping inflation down than debasing a currency does on increasing inflation.
-
Tell me, Mick, are you a keen fisherman?
-
Governments are debasing their currency? How is this different to inflation?
Normally this would cause inflation. However there is one major factor that everyone except me seems to be taking seriously. Demographics. An ageing population means less spending power in the economy and this has a greater effect on keeping inflation down than debasing a currency does on increasing inflation.
So why buy gold?
-
Why should I have done that Oh Master Mick? You told us from your very own sacred mouth that house prices would go down and gold would go up.
So it was f***ing obvious to us mere mortals to leverage our houses to buy gold. What could have been more obvious, Oh Master Mick?
Look. You are obviously a short term merchant. I on the other hand am a long term merchant. Just because we have had a blip in house prices doesn't mean that they won't go down in the medium to long term. When deflation hits next year just see what that does to house prices.
I would not advise leveraging your house for short term gain. You were stupid to do that. You should only have used savings (however you strike me as someone that likes to spend every penny he ever gets). The savings should have been money you could afford to lose. Any savvy investor knows there is always a risk with any investment.
So I repeat. Long term house prices will fall and gold will go up. I will be around to benefit whereas I fear for you and your poor unfortunate family as to what the future holds. You sir are a reckless gambler and you need help.
-
Tell me, Mick, are you a keen fisherman?
I see where you are coming from. However as stated on another thread, I view fishing as a barbaric so called 'sport'.
-
Why will gold go up if you expect deflation?
-
So why buy gold?
Because it will be one of only a few asset classes that will have any real value.
-
So why buy gold?
Because it will be one of only a few asset classes that will have any real value.
I agree. Because fiat money is being devalued and we'll see... Inflation?
-
Got you Mick.
So when you last told us to "get into Gold", what you REALLY meant was "just put a sensible, losable amount on gold because it's likely to go tits up over the next two years."
A bit like when you suggested that folk follow you lead by putting £2,000 on Next Week's Dog Meat in the National eh?
Hang on. I've got it! When you told us to buy gold in 2012, it was one of your spiffing jokes, wasn't it?
-
I agree. Because fiat money is being devalued and we'll see... Inflation?
There are currently deflationary and inflationary forces at work. I believe that because of the ageing populations of the mature economies that deflation is going to win over inflation. This battle is already being won if you just look at what is happening in Europe. Many countries are already experiencing deflation. In the UK despite loads of QE (which is very inflationary) inflation is falling. Why? Demographics is the reason. It seems I'm the only one that realises it though.
-
I agree. Because fiat money is being devalued and we'll see... Inflation?
There are currently deflationary and inflationary forces at work. I believe that because of the ageing populations of the mature economies that deflation is going to win over inflation. This battle is already being won if you just look at what is happening in Europe. Many countries are already experiencing deflation. In the UK despite loads of QE (which is very inflationary) inflation is falling. Why? Demographics is the reason. It seems I'm the only one that realises it though.
Okay, so why not keep your money in pounds sterling? Why buy gold?
-
So when you last told us to "get into Gold", what you REALLY meant was "just put a sensible, losable amount on gold because it's likely to go tits up over the next two years."
No. Like any sensible investor money should be drip fed into any investment to iron out the peaks and troughs. By doing this, by buying in the troughs as well as at the top of the market you will make long term gains. You seem to think 2 years is a long time. I've got news for you. 10 years is much nearer the mark.
A bit like when you suggested that folk follow you lead by putting £2,000 on Next Week's Dog Meat in the National eh?
No. I said I was going to put that amount on. I advised much smaller stakes for the less affluent.
Hang on. I've got it! When you told us to buy gold in 2012, it was one of your spiffing jokes, wasn't it?
No. It was sound financial advice for the long term.
-
Okay, so why not keep your money in pounds sterling? Why buy gold?
Because when the markets wise up to full horror of the unsustainable size of our national debt, sterling will take a real pounding.
-
Okay, so why not keep your money in pounds sterling? Why buy gold?
Because when the markets wise up to full horror of the unsustainable size of our national debt, sterling will take a real pounding.
How does that balance out against demographics?
Are you expecting inflation or deflation?
Buying gold suggests you're expecting inflation.
-
Governments are debasing their currency? How is this different to inflation?
It isn't different at all. Inflation is the rate at which a currency loses it's value. Price indices are merely a tool to try and measure that rate, and are not inflation itself. But Mick doesn't know that, as he keeps repeatedly showing us.
-
Okay, so why not keep your money in pounds sterling? Why buy gold?
Because when the markets wise up to full horror of the unsustainable size of our national debt, sterling will take a real pounding.
And when that happens the currency will lose it's value, presumably at an alarming rate...ie the very definition of inflation. QED - or as you usually trot out, game set and match.
-
How does that balance out against demographics?
Are you expecting inflation or deflation?
Buying gold suggests you're expecting inflation.
I am a long term investor i.e. 10 years plus. Billy is a speculator. There is a world of difference. Now alhough I consider myself to be a pre-eminent economist I don't have a crystal ball. All I can do is look at what is happening now and use my expertise to reasonably predict the future. It is staring us in the face that we are entering a deflationary spiral. It's a no brainer.
Under the 'old' rules of economics we should be experiencing high inflation given all the QE and debasing of currencies that has gone on over the last few years on an unprecedented scale. You have to ask yourself why hasn't it happened and why is the opposite taking place. The answer is demographics. An ageing population is deflationary and massively trumps any other factor in the economy. Until the populations of the world's mature ageing economies are rebalanced then this will keep inflation down.
Luckily for us we have seen a lot of immigration and a rising birth rate as a consequence. We need to encourage many more young people to come to our country and to have babies. Eventually our ageing population will not be as big a problem and we will then experience inflation again.
So to summarise. I expect deflation/low inflation for about 10 years. I then expect inflation. Gold is my hedge against both scenarios.
-
And when that happens the currency will lose it's value, presumably at an alarming rate...ie the very definition of inflation. QED - or as you usually trot out, game set and match.
You are trotting out the 'old' rules of economics. You really must stop trying to live in the past and come into the present and look to the future. You have your head in the sand and are totally oblivious to the effects of demographics. Under your old rules we should be experiencing high inflation. The opposite is true. You need to explain why. I have already done so. If you disagree then you need to say why, otherwise you have nothing to contribute to the debate other than your usual pedantry.
-
Inflation is the rate at which a currency loses it's value.
I much prefer my definition to yours.
Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.
-
We live on a planet where the population is still rising, and large parts of the population are striving to improve their living standards, we see populations in China and India wishing to motorise, we see them wanting to eat a diet richer in meat for instance. Don't we? This state of affairs is set to remain for a good thirty years.
At the same time our primary resource, oil has seen it's production rate plateau. Not only that but to maintain that output level we seeing old cheaper conventional oil rescources replaced by more expensive sources of oil, deep water drilling, fracking. We are having to burn ever more oil just to extract that hard to find oil. Running ever faster just to stand still. All this makes oil expensive. If oil is expensive, everything else is expensive, particularly food, since food production is highly mechanised.
In a globalised world we see lots of people chasing after increasingly scarce and therefore expensive resources. Inflation.
-
There is logic to your argument however I feel you are talking about how it used to be to some extent. Shale gas in America is a game changer in terms of oil and other fuels. Modern technology will also continue to lessen our dependence on oil. Short term, oil does have an impact but this is going to lessen over time.
However there is one thing that cannot be changed so quickly. Demographics. We have sleep walked into this crisis and it is going to take decades to sort out. That is if our political masters will ever start to think about the long term instead of always concentrating on short term political gain.
It is a fact that emerging economies (with young populations) experience high inflation and mature old economies (with old populations) experience low inflation or even deflation.
Have a look at this league table. By and large it is the countries with young populations that have high inflation and countries with old populations that have low inflation.
http://www.aneki.com/inflation.html?number=all
Have a look at page 22 of this report to see which areas of the world have the youngest populations. You will see that this broadly corresponds to the previous league table in terms of where inflation is high or low.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2009/WPA2009_WorkingPaper.pdf
-
Franking is a short term sticking plaster.
In the old days we could drill a hole in the sand and out would come lots of free oil. Then they would build a pipeline and that oil could be harvested for decades and lots of jumped up little Saudi princelings became fabulously wealthy.
Fracking involves trucking lots of water and stuff all over the place, using lots of oil, then you have to pump that water under pressure, using oil. Then you have to load up your hydrocarbons and truck them somewhere before you can burn them and release energy. And a fracking play only lasts a few short years before it runs dry. Then you start again.
By comparison fracking is very expensive and inefficient. Its use only highlights our desperation.
Oil prices have to be maintained above $100 pb just to keep fracking viable.
Fracking ain't the answer.
-
Looking at your list IC, It's also the poorer nations who experience high inflation, while the more wealthy nations experience lower inflation.
Those with a low GDP per capita like Ethiopia are close to the top of the inflation league. Granted they have a low median age.
But because they are poorer a far larger proportion of their income is spent on essentials. Food and fuel. When those essential commodities become more expensive, they have a much higher exposure to that inflation because they take a much, much higher share of the consumption basket.
This is why we saw uprisings right across North Africa and the middle east when the price of food really started to become highly problematic.
The west has also been exporting it's inflation. All that hot money handed out by the central banks has been invested in emerging markets in a search of higher returns.
-
I agree there are other factors that contribute to inflation. I contend that demographics dwarfs all other factors. My theory even goes back to Roman times.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/04/07/inflation-population-are-key-factors/
-
Mick, that just takes the biscuit.
As Mick v2.0, you used to point us to the rabid ramblings of Peter Schiff.
The Peter Schiff who told us time and time again from 2008 onwards that manic Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation was coming as a result of QE. Just wait. It's coming next year. Or maybe the year after.....or perhaps the one after that.
The Peter Schiff who now tells us that deflation is coming and it will be great.
The Peter Schiff who predicted in December 2011 that American share prices would fall heavily relative to the price of gold in 2012 (They went up by about 25%)
The Peter Schiff who told us to get into gold in 2012 because inflation was coming and the price of gold would go from $1800/oz to $5000/oz in two or three years. (It's currently at about $1200/oz).
That was who Mick v2.0 relied on. A man proven time and time again by the facts to be utterly ignorant of how the economy works. But a man whose ramblings are repeated by a million right wing nut jobs.
But Mick v3.0 has ditched Peter Schiff. Now he's using Martin Armstrong as his adviser. That's the Martin Armstrong who is a convicted felon, having served 5 years for his masterminding of a huge financial fraud. That's the Martin Armstrong who believes that all Governments are evil Marxist conspiracies to enslave and pauperise the people. That's the Martin Armstrong who claims to have discovered a cycle of economic boom and bust with a period of 3141 days. Because 3141 is pi x 1000.
A raving headcase, listened to only by the gullible and the vulnerable.
-
This article is worth reading. I agree with a lot of what Mr Dent says but I think he's got it badly wrong about gold.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article44022.html
-
I agree there are other factors that contribute to inflation. I contend that demographics dwarfs all other factors. My theory even goes back to Roman times.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/04/07/inflation-population-are-key-factors/
There will be an effect when global population starts to fall and age but that still isn't due for a good while yet.
Of more immediate concern are our energy problems. Things are supposed to get cheaper and more plentiful when there is great demand for it. Not in this case I'm afraid.
http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg250913.htm
-
Look Billy, you need to try and be more constructive. When you lose the argument you always go into character assassination mode. No-one is perfect, least of all you, so I think you are being overly harsh on Mr Schiff and Armstrong. If I did a character assassination job on you, I'd be here all day.
-
I'd like to see a character assassination job on BST, have you got the b*llocks to do it Mick?
-
Mick
You're mistaking my pointing out the facts that Schiff has been wrong on everything for 6 years and Armstrong is a criminal fraudster for character assassination.
The character assassination bit is my opinion of people who listen to them. Those people are naive, ignorant idiots.
-
You're mistaking my pointing out the facts that Schiff has been wrong on everything for 6 years and Armstrong is a criminal fraudster for character assassination.
The character assassination bit is my opinion of people who listen to them. Those people are naive, ignorant idiots.
Again you don't argue a case. You rant on about personalities. Seems to me you are resorting to this tactic (yet again) because you know I'm right again and you can't argue sensibly against my point of view (yet again).
-
Mick
I've given you a whole list if things that Schifc has been wrong on for the last 6 years. I could double, treble and quadruple that list. Point me to one major economic issue that he's been right on. That's not character assassination. That's pointing out that the man has been demonstrably wrong on every major issue since the financial crisis hit. Yet for some bizarre reason, naive, ignorant idiots still cling to his every word.
Armstrong has a similar rap sheet of demonstrably wrong predictions. But in his case, it's almost forgivable. After all, the man is a raving lunatic.
-
I've given you a whole list if things that Schifc has been wrong on for the last 6 years. I could double, treble and quadruple that list. Point me to one major economic issue that he's been right on. That's not character assassination. That's pointing out that the man has been demonstrably wrong on every major issue since the financial crisis hit. Yet for some bizarre reason, naive, ignorant idiots still cling to his every word.
Where in this thread have I mentioned Mr Schiff? I'll tell you. Nowhere. Why on earth you are doing a character assassination on him only you seem to know. You are going off at a tangent yet again and failing to argue against what I am saying. We all know why you are doing it. It's because you've nothing useful to contribute to the debate. You know I'm right and you can't disprove it much though you would like to.
-
I'd like to see a character assassination job on BST, have you got the b*llocks to do it
I thought you were his friend. Look, Billy has has many severe batterings off me so I have taken pity on him and don't want to inflict any more pain. I'm amazed the man keeps coming back for more. I'll give it to him, he's a fighter. Unfortunately he is now so punch drunk he just doesn't know when he's beaten.
-
I'm still trying to work out whether we're going to have disastrous deflation or monstrous inflation. We can't have both but Mick's predicted both in this one thread...
-
Glyn
Watching right-wing economic arguments over the last 6 years has been like watching blindfolded war criminals in a vat of acid. Incessant wriggling and squirming as they try to figure out what is going on in an environment that they don't understand. And whilst you know you should feel some humanitarian compassion for them, you get guilty pleasure from watching their discomfort.
They start off from the premise that govt intervention in the economy must be a bad thing. Because...well because it just HAS to be, so there.
So, when they see Govts pumping money into the financial system, they know, they just KNOW that this means we'll get hyper-inflation.
But we don't. Just as the Keynesian analysis predicted. Because when you're at the Zero Lower Bound, monetary policy has lost its grip and loose monetary policy does not lead to inflation.
But the right wingers can't accept that. Because it would mean that Govt intervention might not have disastrous consequences. And they know, just KNOW that that cannot be right. Because...well, just because.
So they develop another crackpot theory. That we are really in the grip of massive historic deflationary pressures, because....yeah, demographics will do. (It is one issue which may produce deflationary pressure, but only one of many. But it'll do for our purposes now.)
So the message becomes: We MUST have deflation. It is what the economy naturally needs. And evil Govt policy through QE is preventing this.
Whatever the empirical evidence, the belief of rightwingnutjob.com is that Govt intervention is evil. And whether the consequences of this evil behaviour are hyper inflation or deflation, the outcome is always the same. Get into gold.
It has all the hallmarks of a millenarian messianic cult. You can see why it appeals to the intellectually stunted, naive and vulnerable.
-
The thing is to me, governments, except perhaps German ones will always favour inflation. Even in the EU now, where they are sliding into deflation QE is on the cards.
But look at the story underlying the money, ignore what's happening with paper/electronic money.
We have a globalised economy. The global population is still rising. Large parts of the global population are consuming more as they industrialise and motorise.
Global oil supply is flat. Americans are driving 20% less than they would have been had the graph held to trend pre 2005. Some of that will be down to using more efficient vehicles, a lot of it is just driving less. It still hasn't affected the price of oil, that missing consumption has gone East.
We see food inflation as people in the east change their habits and eat more meat, have you noticed the price of beef, pork and lamb? And Americans use corn to make bio ethanol. They've just opened a massive new plant near Hull to convert grain into fuel now too.
For the last 6 or 7 years we've seen inflation. We have inflation now, except the government don't like to include inflationary things like housing in the numbers.
There are deflationary signs too, worrying ones, people cutting back, consuming less but overall I think were in for more inflation for the foreseeable future.
-
The thing is to me, governments, except perhaps German ones will always favour inflation. Even in the EU now, where they are sliding into deflation QE is on the cards.
All governments aim for inflation at around 2%, as that's the best rate of inflation for economic growth to occur. And that's O-level stuff, so even Mick might be able to get his head round that one..! If he wasn't too busy throwing the whole textbook out of the window, of course...
-
I'm still trying to work out whether we're going to have disastrous deflation or monstrous inflation. We can't have both but Mick's predicted both in this one thread...
I'd be grateful if you could show us where I've predicted monstrous inflation. Thanking you in anticipation of you not being able to. An abject apology will be instantly accepted.
-
Where in this thread have I mentioned Mr Schiff?
I'd be grateful if you would answer the occasional question. An abject apology will be instantly accepted.
-
But we don't. Just as the Keynesian analysis predicted. Because when you're at the Zero Lower Bound, monetary policy has lost its grip and loose monetary policy does not lead to inflation.
What you leftie nutjobs always do is quote Keynes. You only ever quote the spending money side of his crackpot theories. You never ever mention the fact that during the good times money should have been put to one side to pay for the bad times. No. All you ever bang on about is spend, spend, spend. Mr Keynes would turn in his grave if he could see the way you abuse his theories.
-
S
o the message becomes: We MUST have deflation. It is what the economy naturally needs. And evil Govt policy through QE is preventing this.
My message is that deflation is inevitable, not that we must have it. We're going to have it whether we like it or not. QE will not prevent it. It will merely delay it and when it does happen the consequences will be far worse than they would have been had we not bothered with QE.
-
All governments aim for inflation at around 2%, as that's the best rate of inflation for economic growth to occur. And that's O-level stuff, so even Mick might be able to get his head round that one..! If he wasn't too busy throwing the whole textbook out of the window, of course...
Answer this. Why is inflation falling every month despite the BoE trying to keep it well above 2% to inflate away the debt? They are shocked (in secret) that inflation is falling. They don't want it to fall. There is nothing that they can do though. They've already thrown everything they can at the 'problem' and there is nothing left. Deflation here we come.
-
I'm still trying to work out whether we're going to have disastrous deflation or monstrous inflation. We can't have both but Mick's predicted both in this one thread...
I'd be grateful if you could show us where I've predicted monstrous inflation. Thanking you in anticipation of you not being able to. An abject apology will be instantly accepted.
Because when the markets wise up to full horror of the unsustainable size of our national debt, sterling will take a real pounding.
A currency losing it's value is what inflation IS. There is no other definition, so there's your cast-iron prediction right there. So you can shove an apology up your own abjectness.
-
A currency losing it's value is what inflation IS. There is no other definition, so there's your cast-iron prediction right there. So you can shove an apology up your own abjectness.
So according to you, when a currency loses it's value, monstrous inflation follows. You don't qualify this statement (as usual) by saying how much the currency has to fall before we get monstrous inflation.
Is it 1%? Is it 10%? Is it 20%? Is it 25%? Is it even higher? I have stated that sterling will in the future take a severe pounding. You in your simplistic way have then put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. You say that because I've said this, that I have predicted monstrous inflation. No I haven't. I've predicted deflation.
Assuming we'd all agree that a fall of 25% in the value of sterling would be the equivalent of it taking a severe pounding, then according to you we would see monstrous inflation. Let's be clear, this is what you are attributing to me but in reality it is your view not mine.
Let me clearly state now that you are totally wrong (as usual). Unlike you, I will back up what I say (as usual). We have a very recent historical precedent. In 2007 the pound was worth over 2 dollars. One year later it's trade weighted value against a basket of currencies was down by more than 25%.
Now, I'd call that a severe pounding. What happened? According to you we should have had monstrous inflation. We didn't. Inflation did rise a little, but this could in no way be described as monstrous. Despite the pound still being well below it's 2007 value against the dollar inflation is now falling! We are heading towards deflation!
You really don't have a clue what you are on about. Leave economics to experts like me and stop making yourself look daft. I'd have thought you'd have learned your lesson before after I have totally taken you apart in all other previous debates. But no. Just like Billy, you seem to enjoy a good battering. Well that's up to you. If you can take it, I can dish it out.
http://www.economist.com/node/12814762
-
We have a very recent historical precedent. In 2007 the pound was worth over 2 dollars. One year later it's trade weighted value against a basket of currencies was down by more than 25%.
There you go comparing apples and oranges again. if you're going to start with one factor of measurement, stick to it from start to finish because those two snippets of info can't be directly compared but you seem to think they can.
-
There you go comparing apples and oranges again. if you're going to start with one factor of measurement, stick to it from start to finish because those two snippets of info can't be directly compared but you seem to think they can.
Is that the best you can do? Pathetic. You produce no evidence to back up your argument. I do. Right, here's even more evidence that shows you haven't got a clue what you are on about whereas I consistently prove myself to be the finest economist bar none.
In 2008–09, sterling registered an even larger depreciation against the US dollar than in its 1967 devaluation, the 1976 IMF crisis and its 1992 exit from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. In the empirical academic literature, it has become the accepted custom to define a currency crisis as a year-on-year fall of 25% or more against the US dollar. Using this criterion, there has only been one sterling crisis in the past 50 years and that occurred between March 2008 and March 2009 when the value of the pound fell by nearly 30% against the US dollar. In trade-weighted terms, the decline was the biggest since figures were first calculated in the early 1980s.
This large depreciation was driven partly by concerns about the sustainability of the public finances.
There, is that enough evidence for you that we suffered a 'monstrous' decline in the buying power of sterling but didn't suffer 'monstrous' inflation. If that doesn't totally scupper your argument I don't know what does.
Just get that abject apology written and let's move on. Hopefully other readers of the forum will soon forget what a fool you've made of yourself and you can slowly start to try and rebuild a little bit of credibility.
Be warned. You've done your reputation immeasurable damage and this process is likely to take many years. In future I'd think twice if I were you about going up against me as there is only ever one winner.
-
Glyn
Leave the lad to his fantasy world. The rightwingnutjob world that future historians will despair of. The world that makes its ideological conclusions first, then finds evidence to support them.
As I said yesterday, in rightwingnutjob world, the massive monetary loosening in 2008-10, just HAD to lead to hyper inflation. There was no possible option. Every rightwimgnutjob said so at the time. Mick v2.0 copied and pasted most of them.
Keynesian economics said clearly that monetary loosening (whilst welcome) was not going to stop a prolonged economic slowdown if Govt spending was reined in. The rightwingnutjobs said that couldn't happen.
Well, we had one of the most clear cut natural experiments in economic history in 2010-13. The UK and EZ reined in Govt spending much faster than the USA. The UK and EZ flatlined. The USA grew strongly.
Neither saw hyper inflation.
To any rational being, that is as close to a conclusive test of competing economic theories (not that the rightwingnutjobs actually HAD a theory) as you'll ever see. M
But no. The rightwingnutjobs couldn't possibly be wrong. It couldn't possibly be that reducing Govt was a horrific mistake. There HAD to be something else.
Demographics! Of course, it was demographics. The greeting of the Baby Boomers must be it. That must be leading us naturally and inexorably towards DEflation, not INflation as they had been saying previously. Mick himself found some astonishing evidence about this around 2012 (co-incidentally, just as the better-known rightwingnutjobs were coming up with the same idea). Unfortunately, Mick lost the evidence down the back of the sofa and never managed to ecsin what it was.
But Deflation it is. And deflation caused, irresistibly by demographics. Not in any way whatsoever caused by either fiscal or monetary tightening by rightwingnutjobs in power.
Except...
...well, there's another natural experiment going on. The Swedish Riksbank has been taken over by rightwingnutjobs. They have increased interest rates. They have convinced the Govt to reduce public spending. The result? They have become the first really strong EU economy to go into outright deflation.
And it's got f**k all to do with demographics. The Swedes never had a 50s-60s baby boom. They gave had a steady increase in population and workforce. Their workforce has increased by 15% in the past decade and is forecast to grow strongly for the next 15 years.
But they are in deflation. Now. Not because of some crackpot demographics argument. Because of straightforward text-book economics.
Not that the rightwingnutjobs will listen to it. They have astonishing evidence that normal economic theory no longer applies. If only they could remember where they left it...
-
Glyn
Leave the lad to his fantasy world.
Pathetic. Can't he defend himself? Obviously you don't feel he can so you have waded in by going off at a tangent again and not mentioning the main point of my previous post. That being that a currency devaluing by a monstrous amount does not necessarily lead to monstrous inflation as Mr Wigley asserted.
I produced hard irrefutable facts to back up what I said. Mr Wigley didn't and neither have you (as usual).
-
Keynesian economics said clearly that monetary loosening (whilst welcome) was not going to stop a prolonged economic slowdown if Govt spending was reined in.
All this Keynesian claptrap is really starting to make my piss boil. Keynes was a crank of the highest order and his theories are pounced upon gleefully by leftie nutjobs and politicians that will use any excuse to borrow and spend money to buy votes.
Let's have a look at some recent history. The subprime crisis in America. To contrast the blatant differences between proper economics and Keynesian prescriptions, the following two prescriptions were offered early in this century:
Here is what Paul Krugman (Billy's hero) and the most prominent advocate of Keynes 'theory' said in 2002.
'To fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that....Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble'.
Here's what a the so-called rightwingnutjob senator Ron Paul said in 2003.
'Like all artificially created housing bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they otherwise would have been.'
We all know what happened next.
It was proper that one of these men should have won the Nobel Prize in economics. It just happened to be the wrong one.
-
Mick
Old habits die hard eh spadger? When you run out of ideas, paste someone else's
http://www.economicnoise.com/2014/02/28/true-economic-villain/
At least the person whose ideas you've stolen there has the same midis operandi as you. As in, selectively mis-quoting in order to try to score a point, as you regularly do, you pathetic fool.
Go have a look for yourself what was in Krugman's original article. It's well enough known and you can find it easily enough. Go have a look what your cut and paste job hid in the ellipses. And then change the habit of a lifetime and engage what passes for your brain before you post again.
-
A bit annoyed are we that Mr Krugman and Keynes have been found out. Here is more evidence that Krugman did cause the housing bubble in America that eventually devastated the world economy.
http://archive.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/
-
I'm still waiting for that abject apology Mr Wigley. Come on man, get on with it.
-
I could also do with an abject apology off you silly Billy for always extolling the virtues of Mr Krugman when I have conclusively proved he was the one that caused the subprime crisis in America by persuading politicians to follow the half baked ideas of Keynes. Come on man, get on with it.
-
Mick. I have to admit, I am utterly unable to argue with you.
I need to drown my sorrows. Do you have any tips on the horses?
-
I have to admit, I am utterly unable to argue with you.
I need to drown my sorrows. Do you have any tips on the horses?
At last you admit total unequivocal defeat. About time too. Your life will now be much less angst ridden. The grinding of teeth while you sleep will now also be a thing of the past.
As for the horses I can give you and anyone else who wants to know a guaranteed method of making money from them. All you need to do is back a horse at higher odds than you lay it and you will make a profit regardless of whether it wins or loses. It's a technique known as arbing. My fortune has predominantly been made from this system.
-
Fascinating Mick.
I've heard of arbing, but never tried it. You get very small net odds as I understand it. What stakes do you advise using?
-
Look, stop going off at a tangent to try and divert attention away from your total loss of the economic argument.
The way I do my arbing is different to most people. My way is more profitable in the long run. I only collect if the horse wins. If it loses I break even. That way I make a much bigger profit. As for stake size I would imagine I am far wealthier than you so my size of stake would be a total irrelevance to you. I'd have a word with the wife first and see if she'll let you have a go with very small stakes.
From what I've seen of you I don't think you have the iron will power like what I've got to stick to the system. I could see you becoming a compulsive gambler and losing the little that you have.
-
Mick.
That was unnecessarily spiky.
You told me not three posts ago that you would give us a guaranteed method of making money. You didn't seem concerned then about the post going off at a tangent. I'm not trying to divert attention from anything. I've told you that i am unable to argue with you, so you have won.
I'm just asking what your experience is of arbing in practice. So as to make sure that I don't make any mistakes if I try it.
-
That was unnecessarily spiky.
I prefer the word pugnacious.
In the near future I'm going to start an arbing thread so you can all make a bit of extra free money. There is no need to thank me now. I can wait until you've all made a few quid.
-
That'll be grand.
Only thing is, how will we know that you're not just pull our legs, like you did to tittersome effect over the National tips?
And will we make money immediately, or will we lose 33% first and have to be in it for the long run, like when we listened to you about buying gold?
-
Profits will be immediate and the 'system' can be paper traded until you are confident that you can't lose. I will provide verifiable proof.
-
Inflation is not going to happen anytime soon.
And only 1 month later we have this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27483957
Boom!
Come on Mick, you've posted in other threads over half an hour after I posted this, how long was 'anytime Soon' after the 16th April?
-
As usual I answer everything that is thrown at me unlike some I could mention (you all know who he is).
This rise in the rate is "a blip" due to the timing of Easter.
I continue to think that Consumer Price inflation should ease to as low as 1% by the end of this year.
The bigger picture is the Eurozone. Deflation is headed their way with the IMF predicting a 25% probability of it by the end of this year. This will help drag us towards inevitable deflation by next year.
-
As usual I answer everything that is thrown at me unlike some I could mention (you all know who he is).
This rise in the rate is "a blip" due to the timing of Easter.
I continue to think that Consumer Price inflation should ease to as low as 1% by the end of this year.
The bigger picture is the Eurozone. Deflation is headed their way with the IMF predicting a 25% probability of it by the end of this year. This will help drag us towards inevitable deflation by next year.
So when you said that Inflation is not going to happen anytime soon, you really meant that Inflation is not going to happen anytime soon apart from the months when it does happen?
Especially when it happens in the month after your very bold statement :-)
-
I am a big picture sort of person. I work on larger timescales than you obviously do. If inflation is say 2.5% at the start of the year and is 1% by the end of the year then I don't think you can claim inflation is on the rise and I am wrong when one month was a blip to the overriding downward trend. However, because I am so magnanimous, if it makes you happy, I will agree we have had a very temporary rise in inflation.
-
I am a big picture sort of person. I work on larger timescales than you obviously do.
In that case why did you champion the unemployment figures the other week, why didn't you wait until the end of the year?
-
Those figures were for 3 months not 1 month and were part of a longer term trend of falling unemployment. Unemployment won't be going up anytime soon (unless we get much more immigration than we are currently getting) and I fully expect to be congratulating Dave and George at the end of the year.
-
Anyway, back to the alleged cost of living crisis. Mr Milliband showed himself up to be a champagne socialist yesterday who hasn't got a clue about the cost of living for ordinary folk. Yesterday on Good Morning Britain he was asked about how much his family spends on groceries a week. He answered that the budget for him, his wife and their two children was between £70 and £80! Later in the day he tried to correct the blunder by saying ‘Well, I said this morning it was on the basic groceries, the basic fruit and vegetables, about £70 or £80 – the total shopping bill was slightly higher than that, obviously.’
Next Mr Miliband said he was ‘relatively comfortably off’! He said ‘Sure, lots of people are facing real struggles and I’m relatively comfortably off but what l know is that there are deep issues that need to be tackled and we’re determined to tackle them.’ Mr Miliband earns £140,000 a year as leader of the opposition and lives in a £2.5million house in one of the most affluent parts of north London. His wife earns around £200,00 a year. Unbelievably he is so out of touch that he thinks he is only 'relatively comfortably off'!
What an out of touch clown.
-
How much is a loaf of sliced value bread?
"I don't buy the value sliced loaf, I've got a breadmaker at home which I delight in using and it turns out in all sorts of different ways. But you can buy a loaf in the supermarket for well north of a pound."
(Told the true price - 47p)
"I don't buy the...look I'm trying to get my children to eat the sort of granary - and they take it actually, they like my home made bread. A little plug for the flour made in my constituency - Cotswold Crunch - you get some of that, beautifully milled in the Cotswolds, you pop that in your breadmaker. You set the timer overnight so when you wake up there is this wonderful smell wafting through your kitchen. It takes 30 seconds to put in the ingredients. I'd recommend the Panasonic. There you are, that's a shameless plug. Very easy - even Nick Ferrari could work a Panasonic bread maker."
-
Miliband's groceries could come in at around the £70-80 mark, if he shops in Aldi at Scawsby.
-
I doubt he even knows these is an aldi in Scawsby!
-
I doubt he even knows these is an aldi in Scawsby!
Probably not everyone born and raised in Doncaster knows there's an Aldi in Scawsby, your point is?
-
It was in relation to his interview in swindon yesterday. To steal ed's favourite place - out of touch!
-
I doubt he even knows these is an aldi in Scawsby!
Laughs, actually it is just possible he might, I believe he holds a surgery occasionally in the community hall right across the road.
-
I wonder if Winston Churchill or Franklin D Roosevelt knew how much the weekly shopping was, or who the mayor of Swindon was?
-
I wonder if Winston Churchill or Franklin D Roosevelt knew how much the weekly shopping was, or who the mayor of Swindon was?
They probably didn't, but unfortunately they didn't serve in the 21st century. Modern Britain is besotted with image and celebrity.
-
I wonder if Winston Churchill or Franklin D Roosevelt knew how much the weekly shopping was, or who the mayor of Swindon was?
The difference is that they would have admitted they didn't know instead of pretending and hoping to get away with it. Also they never banged on about a cost of living crisis pretending to be in touch with ordinary people.
Regarding the radio interview, Milliband knew he was going to be asked about local issues in Swindon. He was on local radio. He didn't even know who the leader of Labour in Swindon was. He again pretended he did. He guessed that Labour were in charge of the council. He didn't know it was Tory run. Basic schoolboy errors. He made himself look like a right plonker.
So like the cost of living question he again tried to pretend he knew what he was on about. He seems to like to make things up as he goes along. Not the characteristics of someone you want leading the country. I much prefer people like Boris Johnson who when asked if he knew the price of a pint of milk on Newsnight replied 'I don't know what a pint of milk costs - so what?'
Milliband could do with taking a leaf out of his book. It's no surprise Boris is much more popular than Milliband.
-
Oh dear. Looks like Labour needs to find something else to bang on about. If there is a cost of living crisis then I'd like to see them explain this one away - 'UK retail sales growth hits a 10 year high in April.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27498468
-
I wonder if Winston Churchill or Franklin D Roosevelt knew how much the weekly shopping was, or who the mayor of Swindon was?
They wouldn't of course.
But Miliband has been talking about the cost of living so much, it's a bit amateurish for him not to know what his own cost of living is.
I think they are right to talk about a cost of living crisis, I think there are plenty of people who aren't feeling any improvement in their circumstances and figures this week showed inflation is running ahead of wages again.
It was just an unnecessary own goal.
-
It's an irrelevance in the big scheme of things. If I identify that there are macroeconomic policies and drivers that are making people at the bottom end worse off, and I plan to implement policies to improve their situation, what REALLY matters is the efficacy of my proposals and my ability to put them into practice.
I fully accept that in the puerile political environment that we have these days, what appears to matter is how someone's face looks when they are eating a bacon sandwich and whether they know the price of a dozen eggs.
It's an environment that was played consummately by Clegg last time round, looking straight down the camera in the debates, remembering questioners' names and generally appearing like an all round lovely guy. The last four years shows what happens when a quarter of the electorate base their decisions on THOSE criteria.
But yes, there's no point bleating about it. That is the world we live in. One with a complete absence of a political leader of any colour who is capable of bringing intellectual rigour, integrity and a personality strong enough to cut through the inane media w**k.
As I say. We get the leaders we deserve.
-
There is still a long way to go to repair the damage Labour wreaked on the economy. All I'm saying is that now that wages are rising faster than inflation the cost of living crisis is going to become yesterday's news. If Labour carry on banging on about it they are going to make themselves look stupid. They should be looking forwards not always backwards.
The damage Labour wreaked? Investment bankers are Tories, it was them that engineered the crash, but as blue as you are you will never be able to admit it. Lies lies and more lies will never make a recovery.
-
The damage Labour wreaked? Investment bankers are Tories, it was them that engineered the crash, but as blue as you are you will never be able to admit it. Lies lies and more lies will never make a recovery.
You've fallen for the myth that Labour propagate that it was all the bankers fault. Have you any idea how much Labour spent when in power? Do you know how much the National Debt increased under Labour? Do you know who was responsible for the pathetic way the banks were regulated? Do you know unemployment started rising under Labour in 2005? I could go on.
Get a grip man and come into the real world.
-
It's an irrelevance in the big scheme of things. If I identify that there are macroeconomic policies and drivers that are making people at the bottom end worse off, and I plan to implement policies to improve their situation, what REALLY matters is the efficacy of my proposals and my ability to put them into practice.
I fully accept that in the puerile political environment that we have these days, what appears to matter is how someone's face looks when they are eating a bacon sandwich and whether they know the price of a dozen eggs.
It's an environment that was played consummately by Clegg last time round, looking straight down the camera in the debates, remembering questioners' names and generally appearing like an all round lovely guy. The last four years shows what happens when a quarter of the electorate base their decisions on THOSE criteria.
But yes, there's no point bleating about it. That is the world we live in. One with a complete absence of a political leader of any colour who is capable of bringing intellectual rigour, integrity and a personality strong enough to cut through the inane media w**k.
As I say. We get the leaders we deserve.
We have leaders for our times.
-
Oh dear. Looks like Labour needs to find something else to bang on about. If there is a cost of living crisis then I'd like to see them explain this one away - 'UK retail sales growth hits a 10 year high in April.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27498468
It's alright for some:
But averages, as they so often do, disguise a growing divide between winners and losers. Put crudely, public sector workers, bank employees and the self employed are getting a financial slap in the face, while the rest of the Britain's 30 million workforce could well be smiling.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/20/pay-rises-private-workforce-public-sector-2014
-
You can't call public sector workers worse off than private sector employees. They may currently be getting lower pay rises but they are still better paid on average than the private sector. When you add in all the extra perks like, sick pay, holidays, excellent pensions, job security, hours worked etc they are much better off.
-
Could you provide the evidence for your statement please? All I can find is evidence to the contrary.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2559441/IFS-More-one-million-public-sector-jobs-face-axe.html
-
You have not found evidence to the contrary. All you've found is a prediction that more than a million public sector workers face losing their jobs. Bear in mind Labour increased the size of the public sector by 600,000 during their time in office so there is plenty to go at. Despite this, unemployment was higher when Labour left office than when they came into office.
So far the Tories have created more jobs than have been cut from the public sector and this is likely to continue so there is no problem cutting these overpaid inefficient jobs ( I use the term loosely) and getting people where they belong, in the private sector.
-
But can you provide evidence to support your claim? and I mean evidence, not just your opinion or a "look," statement.
-
I've provided it previously on another thread.
-
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem posting the link again.
-
Why can't you just take my word for it. They don't call me BST who makes things up and uses stats in a very selective disingenuous manner. It's a no brainer and blindingly obvious to anyone that being in the public sector is a right cushy number compared to the private sector on the whole. I agree some members of the public sector do work incredibly hard and deserve a lot more than they get but they are in a small minority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643
-
Mick. You're a lucky boy. Wroey had someone in court for lesser slander than you have just committed.
Point out a single instance where I've made something up.
YOU, have a rap sheet the length on the A1 on that score, from
making up your personality three times, and each time insisting that you are nothing to do with the previous one.
inventing figures on debt that turned out to be out by £6trillion, insisting that they were from your own research, then accepting that your photographic memory had copied them from elsewhere before finally arguing that the figure didn't matter when it was proved to be wrong.
Editing a post on your National predictions to make it look as though you were a tipster genius, refusing to answer questions on it for days when confronted, then finally claiming it was a joke.
copying and pasting, claiming it as your own ideas then claiming that it is your photographic memory when the original source is presented (your photographic memory even included the formatting on one occasion).
I could go on, but what's the point. You're either the unfunniest WUM in Internet history, or you are mentally unstable.
But don't you, of all people, start accusing others of making things up. And if you DO, you'd better be able to substantiate it.
-
You're the unfunniest WUM in Internet history.
I thought we'd already established this?
-
Hahaha. You do make laugh. It's a good job I'm not a sensitive soul like you. Some of the stuff you've written about me is very dubious indeed. However you can rest assured I have no intention of taking it any further. So get a grip man. It's only a forum read by a few dozen people.
-
Go on. Point out one thing I've made up. Not an error quickly corrected. A made up thing. An unsubstantiated lie. You've made an allegation. You substantiate it or withdraw it.
You'll recognise a lie if you find one. You're a past master at lying, so you'll find it easy to spots one.
In your own time.
-
Stop it. My sides are hurting. May I suggest you take a chill pill and we'll say no more about the matter.
-
Right. We'll chalk that one up as yet another example of you spouting shite then walking off when confronted.
There's a name for people like you in the off-line world. You are contemptible.
-
Look, just be grateful I've decided to go easy on you. You are obviously punch drunk from all the batterings you've had off me. Hopefully you've taken a chill pill and will feel better in the morning.
-
You're an embarrassment man. An utter embarrassment.
-
You're the unfunniest WUM in Internet history.
Look, just be grateful I've decided to go easy on you. You are obviously punch drunk from all the batterings you've had off me. Hopefully you've taken a chill pill and will feel better in the morning.
Yet more proof.
-
I've provided it previously on another thread.
-
Right, you asked for it. You and your leftie friends just couldn't just let it 'lie' could you.
In the 'Next time you hear' thread where you call right wingers t**ts you said there are no jobs. I proved that there were over 600,000 jobs. You said over the last 5-6 years there have been 8-10 people looking for every 1 job. You were out by a factor of 2. You even admitted that it was a top of the head calculation.
There is plenty more but hopefully that will do for now. Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about the matter.
-
Corrected rapidly.
The figures in 2008-12 were 1 job vacancy for every 7 on the dole depending on exactly which source you use. That came down to one in 6 by mid 2013 and about 4.5 by today.
That was an error of mental arithmetic, in a post late at night, when I was working on a report for a customer. It was corrected rapidly. It didn't change the core of the argument, because in normal times, the figure is 1-2. The point is that for an unprecedentedly long time, there has been an abnormally low number of job vacancies compared to people on the dole.
But I got the number wrong. And I quickly gave precisely correct ones.
Compare and contrast with the multiple examples of you digging your heels in when confronted with the fact that you have lied, and stretching out a tedious argument for days.
There is a world of difference between making a mistake (which we all do) and systematically making things up and defending them to the hilt (which only habitual liars or the mentally unhinged do).
-
And then effectively going "hurr hurr I won because you gave up".
-
I'll let you off over you unemployment mistake if we could just for once have an abject apology.
Another example. You said there had been a conspiracy over Plebgate. You seemed to know more than the CPS. You were shown to be using nothing but your leftie slanted view of things. I completely showed you up over that one. You eventually agreed that there had only been collusion. Very grudgingly I might add.
-
Mick
You accused me of making things up. You have brought up one example of a mistake and one of a matter of semantics and interpretation.
Neither if those comes remotely close to claiming that you bear no relation to previous incarnations of your personality, repeatedly claiming that plagiarised work was your own, claiming that figures you post are from "your own research" when they are plagiarised again, claiming to have predicted the winner of the National and steadfastly refusing to accept your deception when confronted with the evidence.
Etc, etc, etc.
You accuse other people of making things up.
Tell you what. Let's start with you. You grow up and admit that you are the same person as MadMick and mjdgreg. THEN we can have a debate about consistency and making things up. Otherwise, I'm left with the uncomfortable feeling that I'm arguing with someone who has mental health issues.
-
I am IC1967!!!
-
You are beyond caricature and beyond hope.
Mick. We all KNOW that you are the same person as those other two creations. You'd gain a little bit of respect by owning up to it, instead of keeping up this bizarre and unsettling pretence.
-
Not to forget that Marydene Rover and mjg.
-
I am IC1967!!!
-
I am IC1967!!!
Mick, get yourself some help, I just have visions in my head of you giggling away to yourself whilst you keep repeating that, proclaiming the whole world is mad and you are the last bastion of sanity. To keep the wumming up for the length of time you have, in your many usernames has got to be a sign of serious insanity, and for the record I know you're not Marydene Rover, he's a relation of yours that lives in Hull
-
I am IC1967!!!
-
What about this disingenuous use of statistics trying to convince people the Tories had the best of the way MPs are elected.
In England, 25.03 million votes were cast. 9.89million of them were for the Tories(39.5%), 7.0million for Labour(28.1%).
So, in the most perfect conditions that any political strategist could ever dream of, the Tory party managed to get fewer than 2 votes in 5 in the "conservative" England.
But here's another thing. Every fool knows that Labour gets an unfair advantage from the way that the constituencies are set up. Well aye. In England, the Tories got 1 MP for every 33,400 votes. Labour got 1MP for every 36,827 votes.
Anyone reading your above statement might be forgiven for thinking that the electoral system favours the Tories. It does not. The Tories need around 10% more votes than Labour to be on an equal footing regarding the number of MPs each party would get.
-
Still waiting.
-
I'm still waiting. I've got a lot more when you can be bothered to try and wriggle out of this one.
-
Mick
I've told you. I'm replying to nothing until you grow up and admit to your multiple personalities problem. Then we can talk like grown ups.
-
I knew you'd try and wriggle out of being caught bang to rights. Typical.
-
Not in the slightest. You have once again failed to substantiate your accusation that I make things up. You are spouting your usual ill-directed bullshit and veering off point. But I'm simply not prepared to discuss anything with someone who is mentally unstable to the point that they have multiple personalities.
Face up to your multiple personality issues and admit what EVERYONE on here already knows. Then you can be taken seriously. Otherwise you are not up to talking to grown-ups.
-
William - despite having told him you will reply to nothing, you have now replied to him twice.
I often ask myself what does Mick get out of posting on here - and I still don't know. I am increasingly asking myself the same question of you. You seem unable to ignore this berk. As far as I can tell, it's been going on for years.
"...for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you"
-
Thanks BCS.
Does it irk you? That's several times you intervened on this theme.
-
It does irk me slightly as he's a pest. He comes on here and basically talks a load of nonsense.
If no one replied to him, then he would inevitably go away. It appeared this thread was dying a death, until he teased you just enough to elicit another response - saying you wouldn't respond.
-
Then don't read his threads. That is dead easy.
-
That would mean almost all of the Off Topic section was off limits.
-
Then scroll down past his contributions. And mine I guess.
Mountains and molehills pal.
-
Or you could just stop indulging yourself in these perverse psychological exercises?
You've suggested Mick has a personality disorder/mental health issue. And yet you continue to "spar" with him. What could your motivation possibly be? To me, it borders on unethical.
-
I never said I was perfect.
-
Or you could just stop indulging yourself in these perverse psychological exercises?
You've suggested Mick has a personality disorder/mental health issue. And yet you continue to "spar" with him. What could your motivation possibly be? To me, it borders on unethical.
Rather like your selective observations of BST Colin
-
In BST's defence I can confirm I am not mentally unstable. I just happen to think you are all out to get me.
It should be obvious why BST spars with me. He knows I am the greatest intellect he has ever gone up against and he sees me as a real challenge. I too admire BST's intellect and regard him as a bit of a challenge. He also gets to spout his leftie drivel which would be difficult if he didn't have a right winger to bounce off.
I think you'll find many readers of the forum enjoy our sparring. They also learn a lot (especially off me). Without the two of us knocking ten bells out of each other this forum would be a very dull place.
-
Or you could just stop indulging yourself in these perverse psychological exercises?
You've suggested Mick has a personality disorder/mental health issue. And yet you continue to "spar" with him. What could your motivation possibly be? To me, it borders on unethical.
Rather like your selective observations of BST Colin
Filo - I have no idea what that means. It reads as if you are suggesting William also has a mental illness, and I should know better. I suspect that is not what you mean though, as you have now leapt to his defence in two different threads.
-
Colin who exactly am I defending him from?