The 08-?? Depression

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way Mick. Your bullshit-quotient hasn't changed.

You say that you only quoted Lagarde because you thought that I now took the IMF seriously. But I hadn't mentioned the IMF before you quoted Lagarde.

Pathetic Mick. Really, really pathetic. I thought you might have been practicing while you've been away, but it it the same old shite from you all over again. Obfuscation, dissembling. And when that doesn't work, barefaced lies.

Why do you do it? Why do you insist on making a public idiot of yourself?

[mjdgreg]

Why is it bad for Governments to run up large debts?

I don't agree with your statement and I thought you were of the opinion that it is good for Governments to run up large debts. You have surprised me again by completely changing your mind and weakened all your previous arguments fatally.

'Large' is a very vague term. I do think it can be good for Governments to borrow money if it is spent wisely, for example in infrastructure that helps the economy to grow and generate more money in taxes than what was borrowed. However borrowing for consumption like Labour did is criminal.

Borrowing money to pay for a bloated public sector that ended up bigger than the private sector and to increase welfare dependency is economics of the madhouse. We all know why he did it though don't we. He thought he would eventually have so many people dependent on the state for their income that he would keep on winning election after election. Another one of his many mistakes.

[mjdgreg]

By the way . Your bullshit-quotient hasn't changed.

You say that you only quoted Lagarde because you thought that I now took the IMF seriously. But I hadn't mentioned the IMF before you quoted Lagarde.

Pathetic mjdgreg. Really, really pathetic. I thought you might have been practicing while you've been away, but it it the same old shite from you all over again. Obfuscation, dissembling. And when that doesn't work, barefaced lies.

Why do you do it? Why do you insist on making a public idiot of yourself?

I really can't get my breath. You categorically did mention the IMF before I quoted Lagarde. I won't indulge in abuse and come down to your level. Instead, I'll just refer the readers of this forum to the following link to show why I said what I did about your views on the IMF:

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=235207.0

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.
Stop obfuscating. Why is it bad for Governments to run up large debts? It's a very simple question. Answer it.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg.
Stop obfuscating. Why is it bad for Governments to run up large debts? It's a very simple question. Answer it.

I thought I did answer it. I'll try again. I do not think it is bad for Governments to run up 'large' debts in certain circumstances.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll make it easier for you. Why is it bad for Governments to run up large debts in the current situation?

Simple question. Simple answer will do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way . Your bullshit-quotient hasn't changed.

You say that you only quoted Lagarde because you thought that I now took the IMF seriously. But I hadn't mentioned the IMF before you quoted Lagarde.

Pathetic mjdgreg. Really, really pathetic. I thought you might have been practicing while you've been away, but it it the same old shite from you all over again. Obfuscation, dissembling. And when that doesn't work, barefaced lies.

Why do you do it? Why do you insist on making a public idiot of yourself?

I really can't get my breath. You categorically did mention the IMF before I quoted Lagarde. I won't indulge in abuse and come down to your level. Instead, I'll just refer the readers of this forum to the following link to show why I said what I did about your views on the IMF:

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=235207.0

Ahh. So you WERE paying attention while you were on sabbatical.

Well done.

But unfortunately, you weren't paying attention quite well enough. Again.

You say that you think the IMF are idiots who are always wrong and you only quoted Lagarde to smoke me out.

You say that I quoted Lagarde before you did.

You must have forgotten posting THIS 5 months back.

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233138.msg244408#msg244408

You know they say that liars will always be found out eventually?

Mick. YOU were the very first one on this forum to bring the IMF into discussions. You were delighted because they approved your ideas.

You then decided that you didn't like the IMF because in the small print of their report in May, they were critical.

Then, in this thread, you forgot that, remembered the positive quote by Lagarde and re-posted that.

Then, when it was pointed out to you that the IMF has recently come out strongly against Austerity, you obfuscate, dissemble and finally lie.

Pack it in now Mick. You are dealing with grown-ups here.

[mjdgreg]

I'll make it easier for you. Why is it bad for Governments to run up large debts in the current situation?

Simple question. Simple answer will do.

Look, we're already up to our eyeballs in debt. The money hasn't been invested wisely and we've ended up having to borrow even more. When the Government runs up huge debts and produces nothing to show for it, we're the ones and future generations that shoulder the burden.

In 2012 the interest on the national debt will cost £44.8 billion a year. That's more than we spend on defence, and not much less than the entire education budget. This debt interest payment is a real drag on the economy so it is bad to add to it and make matters even worse. We've gone past the tipping point. It's doubtful that our current debt will ever be repaid.

If the bond markets lose faith in Britain there could be profound consequences for our currency, our country and our lives.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If the bond markets lose faith in Britain there could be profound consequences for our currency, our country and our lives.

Right. Mick. We got there at last. THAT is your concern isn't it Mick. IF, IF the bond markets lose faith.

Now. Let's get back to evidence. Over the last 5 years, our Govt debt has tripled. What has happened to our bond rates Mick?

[mjdgreg]

You say that you think the IMF are idiots who are always wrong and you only quoted Lagarde to smoke me out.

I have categorically not said that. All I've said is that I don't think they have got a clue. This doesn't mean that I can't agree with the odd thing that I think they get right.

You say that I quoted Lagarde before you did.

I have categorically not said that. I have never said that you have quoted Lagarde. Context is the key. In the context of this debate it is obvious my comments were made about what you had said about the IMF only a few weeks ago in a thread you started! Going back 5 months to try and justify your outburst has left me pissing my pants laughing at your vain attempt to clutch at straws.

You know they say that liars will always be found out eventually?

I agree. I'll let the readers of the forum decide who is the liar.

mjdgreg. YOU were the very first one on this forum to bring the IMF into discussions. You were delighted because they approved your ideas.

Wrong. They don't approve my ideas and never have done. I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative.

You then decided that you didn't like the IMF because in the small print of their report in May, they were critical.

Wrong. I've never liked them. This doesn't mean I disagree with everything they say, just most of it.

Then, in this thread, you forgot that, remembered the positive quote by Lagarde and re-posted that.

Then, when it was pointed out to you that the IMF has recently come out strongly against Austerity, you obfuscate, dissemble and finally lie.

I posted that quote because it is one that I agree with and because you now appeared to be an IMF convert. It is your opinion that I obfuscate and dissemble. I suspect you resort to abuse when you feel you are losing the argument. I can handle these terms but would respectfully ask you to stop calling me a liar. Everything I post is in good faith and I do not lie intentionally. We are all human and do make mistakes from time to time but I am not a liar.

Pack it in now mjdgreg. You are dealing with grown-ups here.

I'm beginning to wonder.

[mjdgreg]

Right. mjdgreg. We got there at last. THAT is your concern isn't it Mick. IF, IF the bond markets lose faith.

Now. Let's get back to evidence. Over the last 5 years, our Govt debt has tripled. What has happened to our bond rates mjdgreg?

This is the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what bond rates have been in the past. What matters is what they will be in the future. No-one can predict that. Not even you. So for you to assume they will always stay low is one hell of a gamble with the future of the UK.

Has it not occurred to you that our current low rates might have something to do with the current Government's policies? There are many factors that determine bond rates and these factors can quickly change. If we followed your policies we could quite easily get caught with our pants down. Better to live within our means and not take the risk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

We really ARE at the core of the debate now. It all boils down to whether you think that Govt spending is inherently inefficient or whether you think it can help boost the economy.

Now, the argument on the Right has been that Govt spending MUST be reduced. This is because, if it isn't the bond markets will hammer us. The theory on the right is that bond rates are closely linked to Govt borrowing. Because bond rates are effectively a measure of how risky the lenders think it is to lend to Government. So if Govt borrowing is too high, then of course bond rates will go up. But if that argument is incorrect, then the strongest argument about why Govt spending should be reduced goes out of the window.

So. Here goes.
Graph 1 - Govt borrowing over the last 22 years for 4 major developed economies with sovereign currency.



Graph 2 10 year bond rates for those same countries.


See any sign whatsoever over the last generation that bond rates go up as debt goes up?

See any sign that Austerity made a big effect on the bond rates?

And remember that we are talking about TEN YEAR bond rates here. Long term lending rates. So the Markets believe that countries like the UK are a safe bet to lend to for ten years or more.

So Mick. the biggest plank of the Right's economic argument founders when faced with the empirical evidence. There is no correlation whatsoever between Govt debt and bond rates. So the whole argument about why we must cut back Govt spending collapses.

Now, you maight say, "Ah yes, but what if the rates DO increase?" Ok. Fair point. But is that threat (which has not happened in japan by the way, despite their debt being 3 times ours) a sufficient reason to throw out the whole idea of using Govt spending to kick start the economy?

Then you might say, "Yes, but Govt spending can't kick start the economy, because it's not productive." But the IMF themselves (who have been preaching that Govt spending must be cut back) have reviewed the evidence of the last 2-3 years. they have found that every £1 of Govt spending leads to an increas in GDP of £1-1.70. So in fact the EVIDENCE (not theory, not prediction, the facts) are that Govt spending actually IS a very efficient way to get growth going. Or equally, as we have found out over the last 2 years, cutting Govt spending is a very efficient way to knacker an economy.

Every single step of the way over the last 4 years, the Right-wing economic argument has been shown to be incorrect. The predictions it has made have ALL turned out to be wrong. There is only one reason to stick to that now. It's called Faith, rather than Reason.

It's what led the man that you admire so much, Peter Schiff, to say in 2009 that because interest rates were so low, Govt spending was going up and Quantitative Easing was taking place, "You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates."

What happened to Inflation and interest rates since 2009? Both down. Both staying low. What happened to the dollar? Nothing. It's worth today exactly what it was worth in 2009 What does Schiff do know? He says

1) inflation is actually higher than the Govt says and it's all a big conspiracy (Presumably he believes in the Roswell aliens as well and he thinks the Twin Towers were blown up by the CIA).

2) Yeah, well, the huge rise in interest rates and inflation and the collapse of the dollar is coming soon. Just wait. it's coming. I know you've been waiting half a decade already because I've been saying this since the crisis started in 2007, but it's coming. Just wait. Ignore the evidence that says it isn't coming. I know best.

He and the people who think like him are like those nutters who stand at the top of a mountain waiting for the second coming of Christ. When Christ doesn't come, they decide it must be because they didn't believe enough. So they get even more certain that their faith will be proved right next time. Doesn't matter how often the evidence proves them wrong, they just believe even more strongly that they are right.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

To be frank, I am truly sick of discussing anything with you. It is like arguing with a child. I have posted on here simply to try to help disabuse anyone else of the idea that you have a clue what you are talking about. I have no interest whatsoever in trying to convince you, because you have no comprehension of how discussion and idea forming works.

Consider last night. In the space of a couple of hours you wrote:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue."
Then
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So, the IMF don't have a clue, but when their Head criticises Labour, I'll pounce on that as something to support my arguments. Do they have a clue or don't they? And if they don't have a clue, why should we trust the judgement of their Head. Surely she must have got that wrong. Or is it that they don't have a clue when they say things you disagree with, but are correct when they say things that you DO agree with? That is how kids argue Mick. Have some pride in yourself and stop being so childish in your inconsistency.

Let's have a look at those quotes from a different angle:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue. I only quoted Christine Lagarde's views as I thought you now took what they said seriously."
Then you wrote.
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So which was it Mick. Did you quote Lagarde because you agreed with her and were delighted with what she said? Or do you not believe that she has a clue, and simply quoted her to try to trip me up. I haven't got any idea which of these mutually incompatible views is really yours Mick, because you claimed to hold both of them within 2 hours last night. Perhaps it might just be that you are a bullshitter who changes his tack every post and is not clever enough to be consistent when he does it.

Now. You are going to accuse me of inconsistency. You said last night "Also you can't have it both ways. You are on record as being very disparaging about the IMF, but when they come up with a report that you think supports your half-baked theories, you suddenly change course and trumpet their views from the roof-tops. Makes you look rather foolish."

I really shouldn't need to explain this to an adult, but clearly I am going to have to do.

I fundamentally disagreed with the IMF's THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS of economic performance from 08/09 onwards. They said that growth would come despite Govt cuts. They said that Govt cuts wouldn't harm economies too much. I disagreed with that PREDICTION.

Three weeks ago, they published a report reflecting back on the EVIDENCE of the last three years. That EVIDENCE says, categorically that their predictions were wrong. The evidence is that Govt spending cuts do harm economic growth very severely. There is nothing to agree or disagree with in this report. It is not a report that gives opinions or theoretical predictions. it is a statement of FACT (I know you have difficulty with that concept Mick but try to cling on) of what has actually been seen to occur. 


There is no inconsistency whatsoever in my approach. I disagreed with their predictions. I welcome their factual, reflective report admitting to their mistakes.

Clear?

[mjdgreg]

Consider last night. In the space of a couple of hours you wrote:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue."
Then
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So, the IMF don't have a clue, but when their Head criticises Labour, I'll pounce on that as something to support my arguments. Do they have a clue or don't they? And if they don't have a clue, why should we trust the judgement of their Head. Surely she must have got that wrong. Or is it that they don't have a clue when they say things you disagree with, but are correct when they say things that you DO agree with? That is how kids argue Mick. Have some pride in yourself and stop being so childish in your inconsistency.

Let's have a look at those quotes from a different angle:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue. I only quoted Christine Lagarde's views as I thought you now took what they said seriously."
Then you wrote.
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So which was it Mick. Did you quote Lagarde because you agreed with her and were delighted with what she said? Or do you not believe that she has a clue, and simply quoted her to try to trip me up. I haven't got any idea which of these mutually incompatible views is really yours Mick, because you claimed to hold both of them within 2 hours last night. Perhaps it might just be that you are a bullshitter who changes his tack every post and is not clever enough to be consistent when he does it.

Talk about trying to twist my words. It's very simple. Saying that an organisation doesn't have a clue is not the same as saying that everything they come up with is wrong. I disagree with most of what they come up with but I am not clueless enough to think everything they say is wrong. I did explain this in my post but you conveniently ignore this. Even you occasionally get some things right but just because I think you are clueless does not mean I think everything you say is wrong. Got it?

[mjdgreg]

There is no inconsistency whatsoever in my approach. I disagreed with their predictions. I welcome their factual, reflective report admitting to their mistakes.

pmsl. You have left yourself wide open with that statement. If I can be bothered, I'll go back over some of your previous posts that prove this statement is inaccurate. I won't call you a liar, I'll just put it down to you having a poor memory and a willingness to change your mind.

[BobG]

Give up Mick. every time you post you make yourself look an even bigger pillock.

You have not quoted, or reasoned, a single fact based argument yet, not one, in support of your theories. Unless and until you come up with some, Billy's viewpoint has won by a knockout.

BobG

[mjdgreg]

It's what led the man that you admire so much, Peter Schiff, to say in 2009 that because interest rates were so low, Govt spending was going up and Quantitative Easing was taking place, "You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates."

What happened to Inflation and interest rates since 2009? Both down. Both staying low. What happened to the dollar? Nothing. It's worth today exactly what it was worth in 2009 What does Schiff do know? He says

1) inflation is actually higher than the Govt says and it's all a big conspiracy (Presumably he believes in the Roswell aliens as well and he thinks the Twin Towers were blown up by the CIA).

2) Yeah, well, the huge rise in interest rates and inflation and the collapse of the dollar is coming soon. Just wait. it's coming. I know you've been waiting half a decade already because I've been saying this since the crisis started in 2007, but it's coming. Just wait. Ignore the evidence that says it isn't coming. I know best.

Just because I have quoted Mr Schiff previously, doesn't mean he gets everything right. He is human and will get some things wrong. I don't happen to believe he is right about inflation.

The problem is going to be deflation. Trust me I know what I'm talking about. Do you know why deflation will be the problem? I'll wait for your answer but if you don't give a very good one I'll step in and enlighten everyone.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Consider last night. In the space of a couple of hours you wrote:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue."
Then
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So, the IMF don't have a clue, but when their Head criticises Labour, I'll pounce on that as something to support my arguments. Do they have a clue or don't they? And if they don't have a clue, why should we trust the judgement of their Head. Surely she must have got that wrong. Or is it that they don't have a clue when they say things you disagree with, but are correct when they say things that you DO agree with? That is how kids argue Mick. Have some pride in yourself and stop being so childish in your inconsistency.

Let's have a look at those quotes from a different angle:

"My view of the IMF has not changed. They don't have a clue. I only quoted Christine Lagarde's views as I thought you now took what they said seriously."
Then you wrote.
"I was delighted that Lagarde agreed that a Labour Government would have been a disaster for the country and that Dave and George were a much better alternative."


So which was it Mick. Did you quote Lagarde because you agreed with her and were delighted with what she said? Or do you not believe that she has a clue, and simply quoted her to try to trip me up. I haven't got any idea which of these mutually incompatible views is really yours Mick, because you claimed to hold both of them within 2 hours last night. Perhaps it might just be that you are a bullshitter who changes his tack every post and is not clever enough to be consistent when he does it.

Talk about trying to twist my words. It's very simple. Saying that an organisation doesn't have a clue is not the same as saying that everything they come up with is wrong. I disagree with most of what they come up with but I am not clueless enough to think everything they say is wrong. I did explain this in my post but you conveniently ignore this. Even you occasionally get some things right but just because I think you are clueless does not mean I think everything you say is wrong. Got iII

Mick

Perfectly clear. Thank you for clearing that up.

You could have been much more concise by saying that you answered "yes" to my question:
"Or is it that they don't have a clue when they say things you disagree with, but are correct when they say things that you DO agree with?"

Thing is Mick, grown up debate doesn't work like that. You are perfectly at liberty to agree with some things that a person or organisation says and disagree with other things. But you would need to explain your reasoning. Simply choosing to agree with things that you favour and disagree with things that you don't like is not a rational reason. That is the approach that someone takes when they make their mind up first and are then impervious to rational argument.

Now. If you could explain rationally how you determine when the IMF are complete fools who spout horseshit, and when they are wisely calling the decisions correctly, I would have some respect for your opinion.

But you don't. Ever. When someone disagrees with you, you call them cranks, fools or lefties. That is the limit of your preparedness to discuss. That is why discussion with you is pointless.

But hey. At least while you've been concentrating on this thread, we've been spared a rant about today's possession stats.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I truly do not give a shit about your opinion on inflation not being a problem and deflation being the threat.

Want to know why? Because less than 3 months ago, you were saying that inflation was "the biggest risk to all our futures" and saying that interest rates had to be raised to get it under control.

You were wrong 3 months ago Mick. Why should anyone give a shit about what you think now? Especially when what you think now is 180 degrees away from what you thought then?

Enough, enough, enough. You keep on posting. I'm replying to nothing further because it is pointless.

[mjdgreg]

I take it you don't know why we are all going to have a deflation problem. When I've got a bit more time I'll explain all.

What is so wrong about me changing my mind on inflation? I've come across some astounding evidence about deflation which I have weighed up and this has led to me changing my view. It's not a crime to change your mind you know. As things change and as I become even more knowledgeable about a subject I alter my opinion if the evidence requires it. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

[mjdgreg]

Now. If you could explain rationally how you determine when the IMF are complete fools who spout horseshit, and when they are wisely calling the decisions correctly, I would have some respect for your opinion.

I did this. I thought Lagarde's words about Labour not being elected were very wise. Most of the rest of the time they are clueless.

[mjdgreg]

You have not quoted, or reasoned, a single fact based argument yet, not one, in support of your theories.

I've already done all this in other threads so don't want to bore everyone with going over it all again. If you read the 'Bob Diamond resigns' thread you will see that I have totally dismantled all of Billy's arguments.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's not a crime to change your mind you know. As things change and as I become even more knowledgeable about a subject I alter my opinion if the evidence requires it. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Did you know what you were talking about before you changed your mind, when you admit in black and white that you were less knowledgeable about what you were talking about?

[mjdgreg]

Did you know what you were talking about before you changed your mind, when you admit in black and white that you were less knowledgeable about what you were talking about?

Only a fool doesn't ever change their mind. When new evidence presents itself I always assess it and change my mind if the evidence is strong enough. I have come across new evidence that is so powerful that I have been convinced by it that deflation is now the very likely scenario. I am not pedantic enough to not change my mind just because a few of you will try and use the opportunity to use it as an excuse to have a go. I don't just take a position and defend it regardless of the mounting evidence to the contrary like Billy does.

I am now even more knowledgeable about things than I was before, not less. Every day I increase my knowledge.

When the IMF change their mind Billy sings their praises. When I do, he castigates me. Doesn't take much working out does it. Pathetic really.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Did you know what you were talking about before you changed your mind, when you admit in black and white that you were less knowledgeable about what you were talking about?

Only a fool doesn't ever change their mind. When new evidence presents itself I always assess it and change my mind if the evidence is strong enough. I have come across new evidence that is so powerful that I have been convinced by it that deflation is now the very likely scenario. I am not pedantic enough to not change my mind just because a few of you will try and use the opportunity to use it as an excuse to have a go. I don't just take a position and defend it regardless of the mounting evidence to the contrary like Billy does.

I am now even more knowledgeable about things than I was before, not less. Every day I increase my knowledge.

When the IMF change their mind Billy sings their praises. When I do, he castigates me. Doesn't take much working out does it. Pathetic really.

So, you agree that when you were writing essays and cutting and pasting other websites, and telling everybody about how much you knew about what you were saying, you were wrong.

Yet you continue to say you know more the subject than everybody else when you post. Smart people learn from their mistakes. You haven't.

[mjdgreg]

So, you agree that when you were writing essays and cutting and pasting other websites, and telling everybody about how much you knew about what you were saying, you were wrong.

Yet you continue to say you know more the subject than everybody else when you post. Smart people learn from their mistakes. You haven't.

I agree that I know what I'm talking about. Are you trying to say that because I've changed my mind about one small part of what I was saying then everything I was saying is wrong. How silly. Also, you seem to forget about my photographic memory.

I don't claim to know more about the subject than anyone else but I certainly know far more than Billy. Avid readers of this forum will know that I've given him several batterings over the last 6 months or so.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I agree that I know what I'm talking about.

You can't agree with something no-one's said. Wrong again...you're getting a reputation.

[mjdgreg]

It's obvious. You just  don't like to see your leftie idol Billy made to look daft, so lets just leave it at that that. You obviously have nothing to contribute to the debate.

[Filo]

You obviously have nothing to contribute to the debate.

Neither have you, you just use other peoples material and try to pass it off as your own, BST has given you a right battering over and over again, I`m just surprised that he keeps persevering with an obvious basket case!

[mjdgreg]

BST has given you a right battering over and over again,

If you say so. lol.