The case for deflation

[mjdgreg]

Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f***ing idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?

Look, I don't make mistakes. I leave that to you.

[BillyStubbsTears]

mjdgreg.

I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim. I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.

Show us where the original source is and I will 100% retract my accusations.

So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source. You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.

Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.

I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you Mick?

Prove it to us. Show us where the original data  or report is. My apology is waiting for you. I suspect it'll be waiting a while.

You have a very suspicious mind. To all intents and purposes you are calling me a liar. You do it regularly. You try to make out that I'm making it up as I go along.

That graph was published late last year. I first heard about it from a very respected source. One that requires a subscription so I can't post a link. It was another poster on this thread that came up with the right wing nutter website that had the graph so I used the same link for your benefit to show you the graph and the source.

To say I'm lying because you can't find the original source on the internet is laughable. Don't you believe anything you are given second-hand? Is your life so sad that you have to always go back to the original source or you won't believe it? Do you believe everything you can't find the original source for is a lie? How ridiculous.

My life isn't so sad as to want to waste my time checking original sources all the time. Like I said earlier, sometimes all that's needed is a bit of common-sense. Something you clearly don't possess.

Next lie please.

That's a long way of saying, "I can't show you the original data because it doesn't exist."

More bluffing. If you didn't do this every time I ask you to substantiate your claims Mick, I wouldn't call you a liar and serial bullshitter.

But you do, so I do.

Every single time there is an excuse. It really is like dealing with a guilty 6 year old who knows that the grown up has sussed him, but who has to find some bullshit excuse to save face.

You're not saving face Mick. You're making a fool of yourself. Regularly.

You accept as "fact" any bullshit you find on the internet that supports your opinion. You have no ability whatsoever to critically appraise the information you stumble across. Month after month after month of it.

And then you fall back on the final argument of the intellectually stunted. "Don't worry me with your facts and your logic. I'm talking about common sense!" So your common sense trumps all logic and basic ability to critique data. And your common sense leads you to post "facts" that cannot be backed up when they are faced down.

That's the same common sense that told us that football teams had to retain possession to do well. Or was it having lots of shots? Or was it possession efficiency?

You spouted poorly researched bullshit on that topic, and you want us to trust your common sense on macroeconomics?

Some common sense Mick. If it's all the same, I'll pass on your common sense.

But, if you can find that original data, I'll apologise and accept that you know what you are talking about.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Says the man who made an excruciatingly embarrassing mistake last night and still refuses to own up to it. Eh Mick? You still haven't the first f***ing idea what that mistake was, have you? And you think that if you bluff for long enough, I'll tell you what it was and you'll say "Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake" don't you?

Look, I don't make mistakes. I leave that to you.

So you didn't make a mistake in that post last night? No, right. You made a deliberate error in irony. Sure you did.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Look, I don't make mistakes.

All the crap you post is deliberately posted crap.

[mjdgreg]

Right, you asked for it. Prepare to be educated.

Now, I'm not going to bother trying to find the original source of the graph. I trust Billy in that if he says he can't find it on the internet, then his word is good enough for me.

So what can we do in circumstances like this? You can either use your common-sense and assume that it is a valid graph and get on with your life. Surely Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley would have had it removed from the internet or issued a rebuttal saying the graph was a work of fiction. I've not looked but I'll bet a rebuttal has not been issued. You'd expect one would have been as Billy says there are economists out there that disagree with the findings of the graph.

However there is a solution that will hopefully keep even Billy happy. The required information can be found from various sources. This is information that I was aware of but decided not to post it as it would have taken me quite a bit of time and I have got a life to get on with. However due to the serious nature of Billy's accusations I've decided on this occasion to clear my name (not that it needed clearing) and spend some time educating you all. So here goes:

DEBT                             % of GDP       £bn                SOURCE

UK Household Debt       91.6%           1,415             Credit Action bulletin             
(mortgages plus                                                       Nov 2012 
unsecured debt)

Non-financial
Corporation Debt          109%            1,683             McKinsey Global Institute -
                                                                                 Debt and Deleveraging:
                                                                                 Uneven progress on the
                                                                                 path to growth (Jan 2012) 

Financial Institution
Debt                              238.9%         3,688             Bankstats Sept 2012

Government debt           69.2%          1,068            ONS

Financial sector
interventions                  71.1%          1,098            ONS

Unfunded public
sector pensions              306.3%        4,729            ONS

PFI                                  15.7%          242               Treasury 2012   

TOTAL DEBT                901.8%

So there you have it. All the evidence and all the sources. The picture is actually much worse than this because I haven't included future healthcare costs. Also we all know that politicians will do their utmost to 'cook the books' to make things seem better than they really are.

I await your abject apology post haste. Don't worry, I will accept it in full as I don't like to bear a grudge (unlike some others around here that I could mention).

Next lie please.

[mjdgreg]

All the crap you post is deliberately posted crap.

What evidence do you have for this? I would be grateful if you could also include the original sources because until you do I won't believe a word you say.

[mjdgreg]

Then please correct it for us thickos.

Look, I've got better things to do. At least you have admitted what is your fundamental problem. I respectfully suggest that you are way out of your depth on this thread. In fact I'm beginning to think that I am the only one around here who knows what he's on about.

[mjdgreg]

It would appear your hero disagrees with you (and agrees with Billy)

He (George Osbourne) is expected to announce an increase in capital infrastructure spending, including roads and housing, as well as a package of help for further education.

He is certainly not my hero. I just think he is ten times better than Ed Balls. I would make a much better Chancellor. I've no problem with investing in capital infrastructure if it is done properly. What I do have a problem with is government borrowing for consumption and the huge size of the welfare state.

[wilts rover]

UK household debt

Households, as a group, have a lot of debt. But they also have a lot of assets - in fact, a lot more. (see chart 6).

Households' total wealth, including housing, was worth eight-times annual disposable income at the end of 2010. That's above the 25-year average, despite everything that happened in 2008-10.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014

If you have the money to pay off your debt - are you really in debt? Selective use of statistics.....and also tax avoidance.

[attachment deleted by cleanup process]

[mjdgreg]

That doesn't affect mjdgreg he's got his Betterware round and Gold Mine

You're forgetting about my landlord, property development, teaching and gambling businesses as well. You are right though. Whatever happens to the economy I won't be affected. I have made sure that I have got no debt and have put in place an investment strategy that does not rely on the government looking after me.

If only you lefties could do the same and stop believing it is the government's job to look after you from cradle to grave. My tax bill would be lower and the less fortunate in society could be better looked after.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Fascinating that you spent all that time finding the information from various sources Mick. You could have found it all here:

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/uk/the-end-of-britain-sources

Hey! It's even got the same formatting! Cool eh?

Anyway, now we get to the nub of the issue. The vast majority of the difference between what most economists take as the national debt and that 900%figure that you quote comes from "unfunded" pension commitments.

Two questions:

1) Do you know what an "unfunded" pension commitment is Mick?
2) Do you know wht the ONS said about lumping unfunded pension commitments into aggregate figures of public debt? (Course you do - you got the data from the ONS didn't you, so you must have checked what they said.)

[mjdgreg]

One question. Where is my abject apology?

Next lie please.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

We haven't finished yet. Not by a long chalk. There are some very big outstanding questions about the data you presented.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have you figured out what the big outstanding questions are yet. Not difficult, so I'm sure you have.

[Filo]

Right, you asked for it. Prepare to be educated.

Now, I'm not going to bother trying to find the original source of the graph. I trust Billy in that if he says he can't find it on the internet, then his word is good enough for me.

So what can we do in circumstances like this? You can either use your common-sense and assume that it is a valid graph and get on with your life. Surely Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley would have had it removed from the internet or issued a rebuttal saying the graph was a work of fiction. I've not looked but I'll bet a rebuttal has not been issued. You'd expect one would have been as Billy says there are economists out there that disagree with the findings of the graph.

However there is a solution that will hopefully keep even Billy happy. The required information can be found from various sources. This is information that I was aware of but decided not to post it as it would have taken me quite a bit of time and I have got a life to get on with. However due to the serious nature of Billy's accusations I've decided on this occasion to clear my name (not that it needed clearing) and spend some time educating you all. So here goes:

DEBT                             % of GDP       £bn                SOURCE

UK Household Debt       91.6%           1,415             Credit Action bulletin             
(mortgages plus                                                       Nov 2012 
unsecured debt)

Non-financial
Corporation Debt          109%            1,683             McKinsey Global Institute -
                                                                                 Debt and Deleveraging:
                                                                                 Uneven progress on the
                                                                                 path to growth (Jan 2012) 

Financial Institution
Debt                              238.9%         3,688             Bankstats Sept 2012

Government debt           69.2%          1,068            ONS

Financial sector
interventions                  71.1%          1,098            ONS

Unfunded public
sector pensions              306.3%        4,729            ONS

PFI                                  15.7%          242               Treasury 2012   

TOTAL DEBT                901.8%

So there you have it. All the evidence and all the sources. The picture is actually much worse than this because I haven't included future healthcare costs. Also we all know that politicians will do their utmost to 'cook the books' to make things seem better than they really are.

I await your abject apology post haste. Don't worry, I will accept it in full as I don't like to bear a grudge (unlike some others around here that I could mention).

Next lie please.

So you struggle with the basics of copy and paste?

With all your experience I thought you might be pretty quick with it by now!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo.

Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

We haven't finished yet. Not by a long chalk. There are some very big outstanding questions about the data you presented.

Look, you said I was a liar. I've categorically proven that this is not the case. By delaying your abject apology you are doing your already tattered reputation no favours at all. Just get on with it and I'll put it behind me. I'm not so sure the rest of the forum will be so forgiving though. 

I'm quite happy to discuss the data but you need to do the honourable thing first.

Next lie please.

[mjdgreg]

Filo.

Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.

I can't remember how many times I've told you all about my photographic memory. How many more times do you need to be told?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

So let's get this straight. The data you have posted today is, to all intents and purposes, the data that was in that graph on swivelledeyedravingf**kingnutter.com?

Is that what you are telling us?

If that is the case then I will apologise unreservedly.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo.

Give him a break. I can perfectly well appreciate why he wasn't able to find time to post this information straightaway. It must have taken him ages to format that data into precisely the same style as it was on that web site that I posted.

I can't remember how many times I've told you all about my photographic memory. How many more times do you need to be told?

Err. Aye. That photographic memory. My apologies.

Mind, I thought you found all those data by your own painstaking research?

I'm confused Mick. Was it your own research, or was it your photographic memory?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

So let's get this straight. The data you have posted today is, to all intents and purposes, the data that was in that graph on swivelledeyedravingf***ingnutter.com?

Is that what you are telling us?

If that is the case then I will apologise unreservedly.

Are you on drugs? No, that is not what I'm telling you. I've already made it clear that I 'trusted' the data. This is because I was already aware that our debt problem was over 900%.

Unlike you I don't feel the need to always go to the original source. We're on an off topic forum with not many views. The way you go on you'd think we were posting on a forum with millions of views. Perspective Billy, perspective.

I've just proved from other sources that the 900% figure was not made up by me and is valid data. You may have points to make about the data and I have no problem with that. However your serious allegation that I lied about it is shown to be ludicrous. Just apologise and I'll happily debate the issues surrounding the data which of course I know all about.

Next lie please.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Right. Thanks for the useful data proving that the graph you posted was correct. Very helpful.

I would now normally apologise unreservedly, but there's just U2,or 3 things still nagging me. I wonder if you could put my mind at rest Mick, because there's still a little voice in the back of my head telling me that you are lying through your teeth again. I'm sure it's wrong.

Anyway, here's where the confusion is.

1) the graph you posted. It said clearly that the Financial Sector debt was about 620% of GDP, and the Govt debt about 70%. But the numbers that you posted say that the Financial Sector debt is 239% of GDP and the Govt debt tots up to 422%. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble about numbers not quite rounding up to the odd £6trillion, but your reputation for honesty is at stake so I thought you might want to comment.

2) See, that leaves me thinking that the graph on swivelleyedravingf***ingnutter.com didn't include the unfunded pension commitments in its totals. But you did. Interesting, that is Mick, because the authors of the latest ONS report on unfunded pension commitments expressly state that they should not simply be added to the overal debt level of the country. Must have slipped your notice when you were reading their data, eh Mick? And of course, we're still left no wiser about where the figures in that graph come from. Which was kind of the point when I accused you of gullibly peddling a lie (not of lying in that occasion Mick).

3) That gets me to thinking. Why is it that YOU chose to add unfunded pension commitments to the total? And isn't it a coincidence that you made exactly the same decision, with exactly the same numbers and the same formatting as a that report on moneyweek.com? Amazing coincidence Mick. But, hey, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you didn't do your own research.




Oh f*** it. Yes I am. I've got you red handed in yet another bare faced lie Mick. Copying and pasting data from a website whose entire raison d'etre is to scare gullible fools into buying its investment tips by telling them that we're going to hell.

Fascinating reading on that site Mick. They have articles saying "The only solution to Britain's debt problem is DEFAULT." And "How can this be Austerity when Cameron and Osborne are spending more than all the previous Govts in the last 100 years combined."

All sounds a bit familiar.

I've finally had enough of this Mick. I actually think that lying is so deeply a part of your personality that you don't even realise you are doing it. If you REALLY think that anyone is going to buy the line that you slaved over a computer to do your own research and it just happened to pop out in exactly the same form as that on a commercial website with a line to peddle; that you just happened to make exactly the same call on unfunded pensions; that you even made the same comment about the numbers not including health costs, then you need professional help.

I have had no intention when arguing with you of doing anything other than demonstrating that your arguments were not worth a bucket of piss. Because you have no comprehension of how to form a cogent thought that's not been placed in your gullible head by some blogger with a line to peddle.
I think I'm finally done.

[wilts rover]

Are you on drugs? No, that is not what I'm telling you. I've already made it clear that I 'trusted' the data. This is because I was already aware that our debt problem was over 900%.

Unlike you I don't feel the need to always go to the original source. We're on an off topic forum with not many views. The way you go on you'd think we were posting on a forum with millions of views. Perspective Billy, perspective.

I've just proved from other sources that the 900% figure was not made up by me and is valid data. You may have points to make about the data and I have no problem with that. However your serious allegation that I lied about it is shown to be ludicrous. Just apologise and I'll happily debate the issues surrounding the data which of course I know all about.

Next lie please.

F**k, so you are telling me I wasted £10k researching my MA when I could have just made things up and not attributed or sourced my 'facts'. I will tell that to History Today when I put in my next article.

To my mind you 'trusting' someone elses' data without checking it is tantamount to lying (particuarly if you dont quote the correct origin), or why do you not trust what BST is telling you when he presents his data? Why is one person more reliable then other - if you do not have access to the raw data or the ability to analysise it for yourself?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels

[Filo]

As a reader of this thread and seeing Micks often quoted saying that he thinks we all think BST is a fool, I think we should have a vote.



I vote the biggest knobhead bullshitter Mick!

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

Right. Thanks for the useful data proving that the graph you posted was correct. Very helpful.

I would now normally apologise unreservedly, but there's just 2,or 3 things still nagging me. I wonder if you could put my mind at rest Mick, because there's still a little voice in the back of my head telling me that you are lying through your teeth again. I'm sure it's wrong.

Anyway, here's where the confusion is.

1) the graph you posted. It said clearly that the Financial Sector debt was about 620% of GDP, and the Govt debt about 70%. But the numbers that you posted say that the Financial Sector debt is 239% of GDP and the Govt debt tots up to 422%. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble about numbers not quite rounding up to the odd £6trillion, but your reputation for honesty is at stake so I thought you might want to comment.

2) See, that leaves me thinking that the graph on swivelleyedravingf***ingnutter.com didn't include the unfunded pension commitments in its totals. But you did. Interesting, that is mjdgreg, because the authors of the latest ONS report on unfunded pension commitments expressly state that they should not simply be added to the overal debt level of the country. Must have slipped your notice when you were reading their data, eh Mick?

3) That gets me to thinking. Why is it that YOU chose to add unfunded pension commitments to the total? And isn't it a coincidence that you made exactly the same decision, with exactly the same numbers and the same formatting as a that report on moneyweek.com? Amazing coincidence mjdgreg. But, hey, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you didn't do your own research.

Oh f*** it. Yes I am. I've got you red handed in yet another bare faced lie mjdgreg. Copying and pasting data from a website whose entire raison d'etre is to scare gullible fools into buying its investment tips by telling them that we're going to hell.

Fascinating reading on that site mjdgreg. They have articles saying "The only solution to Britain's debt problem is DEFAULT." And "How can this be Austerity when Cameron and Osborne are spending more than all the previous Govts in the last 100 years combined."

All sounds a bit familiar.

I've finally had enough of this mjdgreg. I actually think that lying is so deeply a part of your personality that you don't even realise you are doing it. If you REALLY think that anyone is going to buy the line that you slaved over a computer to do your own research and it just happened to pop out in exactly the same form as that on a commercial website with a line to peddle; that you just happened to make exactly the same call on unfunded pensions; that you even made the same comment about the numbers not including health costs, then you need professional help.

I have had no intention when arguing with you of doing anything other than demonstrating that your arguments were not worth a bucket of piss. Because you have no comprehension of how to form a cogent thought that's not been placed in your gullible head by some blogger with a line to peddle.
I think I'm finally done.

You really can't see the woods for the trees can you? You accuse me of lying and I show conclusively that you are wrong. Unbelievable. You then go on to accuse me of further lying. I can't get my breath.

Look, just apologise and we can move on. I'm a big picture sort of person and all I was trying to do was to point out that our debt is out of control. 500% or 900% it doesn't really matter. I've now produced 2 pieces of evidence showing its over 900%. What more do you want?

If you want to claim it's only 507% then fine (only 507% ffs), I don't have a problem with that. If you want to exclude unfunded liabilities I'm fine with that too. If you want to ignore the fact that governments don't use the correct figures because they want to look as good as possible then that's fine too. The bottom line is that it's still way too big.

You should also realise that I get my information from many different sources. Its not my fault that I am able to reproduce a lot of it almost word for word. Remember, I have a photographic memory.

Now do the decent thing and issue an abject apology.

[mjdgreg]

F**k, so you are telling me I wasted £10k researching my MA when I could have just made things up and not attributed or sourced my 'facts'. I will tell that to History Today when I put in my next article.

To my mind you 'trusting' someone elses' data without checking it is tantamount to lying (particuarly if you dont quote the correct origin), or why do you not trust what BST is telling you when he presents his data? Why is one person more reliable then other - if you do not have access to the raw data or the ability to analysise it for yourself?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels

From what I've seen you post then yes I would say that you've wasted £10k. To say that 'trusting' someone else's data without checking it is tantamount to lying is a right load of baloney. You and Billy might have very suspicious minds and the time to do all this unnecessary research but the rest of us that live in the real world have to get on with our lives.

For example, when the BBC News reports that its been snowing in Scotland do you disbelieve this until you've been on the Met office's website and looked at the evidence to prove its true? Of course you don't. Get a grip man, you're making yourself look as daft as Billy with all this lying nonsense.

[mjdgreg]

As a reader of this thread and seeing mjdgreg often quoted saying that he thinks we all think BST is a fool, I think we should have a vote.

I vote the biggest knobhead bullshitter mjdgreg!

Lol. I'm sure after the embarrassing lying debacle Billy has just got himself embroiled in he will sleep easier in his bed tonight knowing you are on his side. He needs all the support he can get.

[wilts rover]

Yes, good analogy there, 'when the BBC News reports'..... has there not been some sort of controvosy recently about the errors in BBC reporting with facts not being checked and the DG forced to resign? And some sort of official report publishe din the past week about errors and unsatisfactory reporting in the media? It got a brief mention somewhere. I went to hear Nick Robinson speak last Friday and he made a big point of how much background research he does in checking facts and sources.

So yes BBC good analogy - and you are still a lier for presenting someone else's facts/rubbish as your own. Oh btw, is it snowing everywhere in Scotland - or just the places you say it is.

[mjdgreg]

Yes, good analogy there, 'when the BBC News reports'..... has there not been some sort of controvosy recently about the errors in BBC reporting with facts not being checked and the DG forced to resign? And some sort of official report publishe din the past week about errors and unsatisfactory reporting in the media? It got a brief mention somewhere. I went to hear Nick Robinson speak last Friday and he made a big point of how much background research he does in checking facts and sources.

So yes BBC good analogy - and you are still a lier for presenting someone else's facts/rubbish as your own. Oh btw, is it snowing everywhere in Scotland - or just the places you say it is.

You're a fine one to criticise the BBC for errors looking at your appalling grammar. I just hope History Today have someone to proof read the drivel you send them before it is published.

You criticise the BBC then praise Nick Robinson who works for the BBC! Unbelievable. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick. I am caught somewhere between finding you risible and pitiable. If you really, really believe what you type, then you deserve all our pity. Your constant insistence that your cut and paste jobs are the work of your photographic memory is either puerile dissembling bullshit, or the product of instability. I genuinely don't know which it is, but I've finally tired of it.

Whichever it is, you've finally tripped yourself up, because you claim that the same data was both the work of your own painstaking research, that took far too long to allow you to post it instantly, and the result of a photographic memory that allows you to recall what you have read at the drop of a hat.

What I don't understand is why you have to do this. Why you need to pretend to be a great intellect. If your modus operandi had simply been to copy and paste the opinions of others and to state, "I agree with this and here's why", that would have been fine. We could have had a proper discussion.

But you can't do that can you. You have to pass stuff off as your own. And you're so wrapped up in your Walter Mitty world (a world in which you won't even own up to your own alter ego) that you don't even realise that even if you WERE recalling stuff photographically, that is still plagiarism and not your own ideas.

The issue is nothing to do with what the level of the UK debt is. It is to do with that fact that you are unable to understand the basics of an adult discussion. It is to do with your constant approach of posting "facts" that are not facts, refusing to accept when those "facts" are demonstrated not to be facts and posting other people's opinions and swearing blind that they are yours. It's not just on this post Mick. You've been doing this as a standard approach since you started on this board. It is pointless discussing anything with someone with that approach.

As I say, if you TRULY believe that you are in the right on this, you desperately need help.