October 6th 2009

finchy

teagar wrote:

It's an international recession! Not a UK one.

It's just a storm you have to steer.

I know it's an international recession, but not every major economy had invested such large amounts of money into a bubble.

If the French and Germans could have more sensible regulations on the financial sector, why couldn't we?

teagar

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

It's an international recession! Not a UK one.

It's just a storm you have to steer.

I know it's an international recession, but not every major economy had invested such large amounts of money into a bubble.

If the French and Germans could have more sensible regulations on the financial sector, why couldn't we?

That's finance you're talking. Not macro-economics. It may have been a catalyst or a trigger, but it's not the sole cause.

Spiny_Norman

teagar wrote:

If anything, borrowing when there is rampant inflation ( I don't necessarily agree with you that that is actually the case!!!), which is what you're suggesting makes a lot of sense, since as the value of the currency decreases, so does the real value of the loan you have to service.

This is quite true. It's theoretically possible to inflate your way out of debts. However, historically interest rates have tended to track inflation quite closely (see here for some examples), as they're generally used to control inflationary pressures, so unless you can get a fixed interest rate for a long period of time, you won't benefit all that much from inflation. (Hyperinflation would do the job, but that would mean the economy was a complete basketcase, so even if you were free of debt, you wouldn't be better off.)

This works for the government as well. There's been a lot of talk of inflating the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement down to a more manageable level, but when the government borrows money, just like Joe Public, it has to find someone willing to lend at an agreed rate. Inflation would make everything more expensive, which would make the pound less powerful in purchasing terms, which would cause Sterling to fall in the currency markets, making government debt repayments worth less, in global terms, and making loans to the government less attractive at the current rates. In the end, the government would pay the price for excessive inflation by having to pay more interest on its debt. Inflation can work in the short term, but in the longer term, it becomes clear that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

finchy

teagar wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

It's an international recession! Not a UK one.

It's just a storm you have to steer.

I know it's an international recession, but not every major economy had invested such large amounts of money into a bubble.

If the French and Germans could have more sensible regulations on the financial sector, why couldn't we?

That's finance you're talking. Not macro-economics. It may have been a catalyst or a trigger, but it's not the sole cause.

I admit that I'm not too hot on economic theory, but I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

I know that there is an economic cycle of peaks and troughs.

I also know that sometimes, during the peak, very large numbers of people will go mad and start investing in something based only on the idea that somebody else will buy it for a higher price at a later date, rather than the inherent value. For example, tulip mania, the South Sea bubble, the '20s share craze, the dotcom boom and the housing bubble.

When these bubbles burst, economies are often left well and truly shafted. Like ours is today. Even if the bubble isn't the sole cause of the recession, they do have a massive exacerbating effect. Am I correct so far?

And by allowing this bubble to inflate, inflate, inflate, without doing anything to stop it, whilst watching huge piles of UK savers' money being pumped in, the government is guilty of allowing the UK to be hit by this recession much harder than most other western European economies. I think that I'm fairly accurate in saying that, and I think that we were talking (or typing) at cross-purposes before.

teagar

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

It's an international recession! Not a UK one.

It's just a storm you have to steer.

I know it's an international recession, but not every major economy had invested such large amounts of money into a bubble.

If the French and Germans could have more sensible regulations on the financial sector, why couldn't we?

That's finance you're talking. Not macro-economics. It may have been a catalyst or a trigger, but it's not the sole cause.

I admit that I'm not too hot on economic theory, but I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

I know that there is an economic cycle of peaks and troughs.

I also know that sometimes, during the peak, very large numbers of people will go mad and start investing in something based only on the idea that somebody else will buy it for a higher price at a later date, rather than the inherent value. For example, tulip mania, the South Sea bubble, the '20s share craze, the dotcom boom and the housing bubble.

When these bubbles burst, economies are often left well and truly shafted. Like ours is today. Even if the bubble isn't the sole cause of the recession, they do have a massive exacerbating effect. Am I correct so far?

And by allowing this bubble to inflate, inflate, inflate, without doing anything to stop it, whilst watching huge piles of UK savers' money being pumped in, the government is guilty of allowing the UK to be hit by this recession much harder than most other western European economies. I think that I'm fairly accurate in saying that, and I think that we were talking (or typing) at cross-purposes before.

You're right in the sense that brits borrowed harder so are now feeling poorer and thus spending less than on thecontinent.

The factors that make this a long recession rather than a small v dip, are structural macro problems though, not financial. (I think!)[/i]

STEFANOS4784

The government will keep benefits because they need the votes so they can carry on wasting loads of tax on 'expenses'. To me this is almost as pointless and endless as the religion debate :roll:

However the vouchers idea is good IMO

d198594t

"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Gotte

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

There are plenty of smart economists in the gov't and BoE who know what they're doing. Certainly better than a public who is largely, (and I include myself in this) ignorant and ill-educated to economics.

Really? Pity they didn't recognise a market bubble and debt crisis when they saw one then, because even I saw that one coming, and my knowledge of economics is extremely rudimentary to say the least.

N.B. I'm sure that some of them did see it coming, but I guess then their warnings would have been ignored in the name of political expediency.

+1

Anonymous

2Phat4Rapha wrote:

Woman went to court to have her marriage annulled because after 12 years it hadn't been consummated. The judge asked what was wrong with her husband. "He's New Labour" she said. What's that got to do with it asked the judge. "Well, he just sits on the edge of the bed and tells me how good it's going to be"!

Boom boom!

Very good.

Mike Healey

And there was I thinking the recession was caused by a lot of financial "experts", who invested more money than their banks/finance houses had, in products they didn't understand, which turned out to be anti-products which were worth nowt'.

And that we, the PBT (poor bloody taxpayer) had to bail out the likes of that supperating, deliquescing, pus filled sack of smug, self-satisfied maggot-wriggling greed, Sir Fred Goodwin, so that he could trouser a sum of money that it would take some poor sod on the minimum wage 60 years x 40 hrs/week to earn.

And that there's negative equity in many houses because these same "experts" were perfectly happy to lend 105% or more, of the market "value" of the property, because property prices never go down, do they. And it had nothing to do with developers marketing apartments with bloody great plasma tvs and flash furniture, etc. thrown in and disguised because they hid them in the same inflated market "value", with those same loan "experts" being take for a ride over it.

But I'm wrong and Cameron's final speech was right when he said it was all the fault of "Big Government" and had nothing to do with any of the above.

finchy

Don't worry Mike - there'll be another crisis just like this in 50 or 60 years time, when financial "experts" have forgotten the lessons learnt today.

And if we're still alive, we can join in, investing in the bubble and then jumping ship just before it sinks (sorry mixed metaphor there).

zedders

Just a couple of points:
I think we all know how ridiculous the welfare system is when so called asylum seekers and alike are so desperate to escape their countries that they have to go through, several other countries such as Italy, Germany, and France but to name a few to get to the UK? Is this because they want to get a far away from their homeland as possible? Or is it because they know they’ll receive more benefits here than anywhere else?

I recently had a case where a chav 16 yr old drug dealer living with his mum and three siblings was charged with offences relating to Proceeds of Crime as well as drug dealing. This was because he had a brand new large flatscreen TV, PS3 games console and alike in his bedroom (We know he had brought them from his ill gotten gains). The case got dropped because his mum could prove she had over £200 left over from her benefits each month, after all her outgoings. So she claimed she brought them. (I know she didn’t) but how the hell could she possibly have that much money left over? She was getting three lots of child tax credits, housing, disability, income support etc, etc. She was raking over £1200 a month. It was a joke. There is absolutely no way she will ever work and pay her own way!

Finally – I just wanted to say, Yes the banks, and the Government are to blame for the mess we are in, but some of the blame must be shouldered by us. To many people kept on paying over the odds for property, and kept pushing the house prices up. Too many took on ridiculous mortgages and brought to much on the never never. Some folk have been way to short sighted. As my old man says: Champagne taste, beer money.
I’m pretty bitter, that me and my family will suffer and have to pay more, when I have been prudent and others have not!

finchy

zedders wrote:

Just a couple of points:
I think we all know how ridiculous the welfare system is when so called asylum seekers and alike are so desperate to escape their countries that they have to go through, several other countries such as Italy, Germany, and France but to name a few to get to the UK? Is this because they want to get a far away from their homeland as possible? Or is it because they know they’ll receive more benefits here than anywhere else?

There are loads of asylum seekers spread out all across Europe. This idea that they're all trying to get to England by any means possible is just untrue, as anyone who has ever lived on the continent could tell you - in fact per capita, the UK has the 11th highest refugee intake in the EU.

Do you want to know what really is scandalous about the system of asylum and immigration? I used to play football with one refugee, and it took him two years to get a work permit for the UK. I did a bit of research into this, and found that the average time waiting was 2.5 years. So WTF are we letting all these asylum seekers sit around on benefits for 2 or 3 years, when they are probably mostly willing to work, and at the same time importing labour from Eastern Europe? If the government hurried up the work application process, then those coming from countries where their lives are in danger (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan) could start working here instead of people coming in from, say, Bulgaria.

NB I don't know if the above situation has changed or not. I am talking about the system from a few years ago, when the number of asylum seekers coming into the UK was much higher than it is nowadays, and companies were in real need of labour.

teagar

zedders wrote:

Just a couple of points:
I think we all know how ridiculous the welfare system is when so called asylum seekers and alike are so desperate to escape their countries that they have to go through, several other countries such as Italy, Germany, and France but to name a few to get to the UK? Is this because they want to get a far away from their homeland as possible? Or is it because they know they’ll receive more benefits here than anywhere else?
!

Are you sure the UK is the only country which gives out benefit to the poor?

Do you not think that people who would go through that much effort and that much hardship (which the journey inevitably is), from a long way away to the UK not to do work? I'd imagine those who can and do make the effort would be more than willing to work. structural and latent racism often prevents them from getting work. Some employers, particuarly those of lower skilled jobs (the jobs the asylum seekers et immigrants would be seeking to get) have a tendancy to have a informal tacit "british first" policy, which inevitably makes it more difficult for those who have just entered the UK to get a job. That goes some way to explaining the difficulty.

What saddens me is the lack of empathy your views seem to have. What if you were in their shoes? Do you not feel that every life is worth effort - worth keeping happy?

I doubt the costs to you as a "tax payer" are remotely comparable to the gains for those who recieve help. I bet you still live more comfortably than the vast majority of those who seek and/or gain government assistance, despite all your grievences. Why not show a little bit of humanity and take a little bit of perspective? Put yourself in someone elses shoes, without your petite bourgeoise hang-ups.

zedders

johnfinch wrote:

zedders wrote:

Just a couple of points:
I think we all know how ridiculous the welfare system is when so called asylum seekers and alike are so desperate to escape their countries that they have to go through, several other countries such as Italy, Germany, and France but to name a few to get to the UK? Is this because they want to get a far away from their homeland as possible? Or is it because they know they’ll receive more benefits here than anywhere else?

There are loads of asylum seekers spread out all across Europe. This idea that they're all trying to get to England by any means possible is just untrue, as anyone who has ever lived on the continent could tell you - in fact per capita, the UK has the 11th highest refugee intake in the EU.

Do you want to know what really is scandalous about the system of asylum and immigration? I used to play football with one refugee, and it took him two years to get a work permit for the UK. I did a bit of research into this, and found that the average time waiting was 2.5 years. So WTF are we letting all these asylum seekers sit around on benefits for 2 or 3 years, when they are probably mostly willing to work, and at the same time importing labour from Eastern Europe? If the government hurried up the work application process, then those coming from countries where their lives are in danger (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan) could start working here instead of people coming in from, say, Bulgaria.

NB I don't know if the above situation has changed or not. I am talking about the system from a few years ago, when the number of asylum seekers coming into the UK was much higher than it is nowadays, and companies were in real need of labour.

I never said all Asylum seekers were coming here? But surely you would agree, some have attempted and succeeded to ‘make it’ to the UK purely because rightly or wrongly they believe the UK has the best welfare system?
The point I was trying to make was some people will travel right across Europe because they think the benefit system in this country is better (pays more) than in others.
I agree it may have died off somewhat recently (since the downturn) but it is still happening.

OffTheBackAdam

teagar wrote:

your petite bourgeoise hang-ups.

Weeeee, we've got another Communist, I've been missing old Gavn Gilbert.
Send them all back!

finchy

zedders wrote:

I never said all Asylum seekers were coming here? But surely you would agree, some have attempted and succeeded to ‘make it’ to the UK purely because rightly or wrongly they believe the UK has the best welfare system?
The point I was trying to make was some people will travel right across Europe because they think the benefit system in this country is better (pays more) than in others.
I agree it may have died off somewhat recently (since the downturn) but it is still happening.

There are those who do travel all across Europe to get here. There are also a hell of a lot more who jump on a plane to get here.

As to the point about coming here for benefits, I really don't know. The only refugees that I have known have got jobs as soon as they were allowed to. There are other reasons to go to a country - family connections, better knowledge of the language, more chance of making a decent new life for yourself. Unless I met a load personally, who told me that's why they'd come here, or I saw that they had obtained a work permit and then didn't bother to find work, I wouldn't believe a thing that I heard about refugees. When I worked for my local council, quite a few people told me that the services I worked in favoured asylum seekers and ethnic minorities over the white population. Absolute BS of course, not a word of truth in it, but people "knew" because they'd read it in a paper.

To be honest, I've never asked a refugee what they knew of the benefits system in the UK before they came here, so I can't really give an answer to that one. However, I wouldn't condemn them without giving them a chance to prove themselves.

Incidentally, the number of people claiming asylum in the UK hasn't just fallen since the downturn, it has fallen since it's peak in 2002, and since 2005 has been back to the levels of the 1990s, before the massive peak at the turn of the century. If you're interested in stats there's a download here:

http://www.icar.org.uk/?lid=9556&bid=375

Oh, and since 2002, the top 5 producers of asylum seekers coming to the UK have been, every year, a combination of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Iran. All of these countries have appalling human rights situations, so I don't think they can just be dismissed as "so-called" asylum-seekers.

My opinion on immigration is that I think it's an absolute shame that people feel the need to leave their own country, whether because of economic necessity or because of brutal leaders. It really winds me up when I hear politicians w**king themselves off about our multi-cultural society, when many of the people who came here did so because they were pushed by their own home, rather than pulled by ours.

I'm neither for nor against immigrants - there will be some very decent ones, and some real nasty pieces of work ("honour" killings, etc.), just like the UK. I do, however, recognise the fact that in the future, with our ageing population, we will probably have to open the doors to more immigrants. I just hope that politicians will have the honesty and bravery to explain the policy to people, instead of just branding any opponents as racist.

teagar

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

teagar wrote:

your petite bourgeoise hang-ups.

Weeeee, we've got another Communist, I've been missing old Gavn Gilbert.
Send them all back!

Communist? Been called lots of things but not that!

afcbian

As the song goes...........
"Meet the new boss...........same as the old boss"

Cressers

Who remembers this thread?

I fear it may be a close-run thing. Not that I want either of the two main parties to get a majority, but of the two I dread a narrow Labour victory more...

finchy

Cressers wrote:

Who remembers this thread?

I fear it may be a close-run thing. Not that I want either of the two main parties to get a majority, but of the two I dread a narrow Labour victory more...

Of the two main parties I have a slight preference for Labour. With the Tories it would have been the same mess but without the redeeming feature of the minimum wage.

Still wouldn't p1ss on any of them if they were on fire though.

hopper1

johnfinch wrote:

Cressers wrote:

Who remembers this thread?

I fear it may be a close-run thing. Not that I want either of the two main parties to get a majority, but of the two I dread a narrow Labour victory more...

Of the two main parties I have a slight preference for Labour. With the Tories it would have been the same mess but without the redeeming feature of the minimum wage.

Still wouldn't p1ss on any of them if they were on fire though.

+1

Initially, I was favouring the Tories, but it now seems like a Cameron personal crusade, nothing to do with politics, he just wants it to be about him... To55er!

Stone Glider

I do miss Teagar. Please return

awallace

Regarding labour v tory, they are neither left or right in my opinion. They both try to please all of the people all of the time. If one of the parties had the balls to make some tough desicions, there may be people who disagree with the policy, however they may actually make a difference to the quality of peoples lives,

Regarding benefits, i agree about vouchers. I often wonder what did people do before benefits? I know people will say "they starved" or "they all shared a bath on front of the fire" but people had to survive on their own (plant veg etc) as they knew nobody else would provide it! If people were faced with getting of their arse or they would die then im sure people would do it. or would they? Im not saying those who dont deserve help shouldnt get it but we are bringing up children who have a totally easy option as "someone else will pay".