So Ed was right: 'too deep & too quick'
Comments
-
And people who bought new cars, sofas, TVs, holidays on the never never.TheStone wrote:We could have just let those that caused the mess (bankers and over leveraged property empire 'owners') suffer for a bit.
And the politicians who let it happen on their watch, for their personal gain.0 -
W1 wrote:True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
As overpriced as housing is, they're devaluing cash every single month. They're destroying the fiat currencies the western world is based on to save a few.
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Ah I'll sit back down then.rjsterry wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Is that police numbers as in officers on the street or the entire police force including the administrators we don't see?rjsterry wrote:Re: whether the cuts are happening or not: to take a topical example, police numbers are at their lowest in 10 years, with 6000 fewer officers in the last year alone. If that isn't a cut, then what is?
If it's the later is that loss in numbers purely a brutal axe or in part the result of making some processes/services more efficient and by extension a reduction in no longer needed workforce?
That's 6000 officers; another 8800 civilian staff axed as well.
Well, overall government spending was up last year, compared to 2009/2010.
There may be examples where cuts have happened, but overall - no change.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/G ... g_2710.pdf0 -
TheStone wrote:W1 wrote:True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
As overpriced as housing is, they're devaluing cash every single month. They're destroying the fiat currencies the western world is based on to save a few.
Indeed - maybe houses are a bad example, particularly with interest rates so low. What I meant was, in bad times, people tend to stick cash under the mattress. I'm not convinced that is happening.
I agree with your view that the government will try to inflate the debt away - but on the flipside, disincentivising saving, and keeping debt cheap, merely increases the overall problem because people are often spending borrowed money.0 -
Ed knew that the economy wasn't going to recover, no matter what plan was or was not followed so he came with his slogan. He didn't have insight, he just kept banging out the sound bite based on probability.
A BBC stat buried in an article says that 14% or mortgage holders aren't making payments. The US has gone through the pain of banks seizing homes & taking the losses so they have purged a huge amount of the hangover. The UK is in limbo, putting off the pain hoping something comes along.0 -
People say that "the cuts" haven't happened yet.
Can anyone actually list what is being cut?
What I have seen thus far is a lot of proposals - some similar to the proposals of the previous Tory manifesto others (NHS bill) that were seemingly thought of 10 to 15 yrs ago and are now out of date for the needs of society - that are either thrown out or reworked to be more palatable.
I'm not saying the cuts won't happen or that it won't hurt. I'm just trying to see the woods from the trees. The woods being the fear mongering and properganda Labour bashing and the trees being actual reality.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
W1 wrote:
Indeed - maybe houses are a bad example, particularly with interest rates so low. What I meant was, in bad times, people tend to stick cash under the mattress. I'm not convinced that is happening.
I agree with your view that the government will try to inflate the debt away - but on the flipside, disincentivising saving, and keeping debt cheap, merely increases the overall problem because people are often spending borrowed money.
By having loose monetary policy, they're encouraging speculation, which doesn't add wealth, just redistributes it (usually to the old and rich). Constantly bidding up the prices of commodities and housing adds no overall value to the economy or standard of living.
Countries who have strong monetary policy tend to do well. Interest rates should always be above inflation. This encourages people to invest more wisely and more long term (see Germany).
At the moment a bank can borrow £1bn at 0.5%, buy tins of baked beans and sell them back to the market at +5% inflation a year later and make £45m. No risk.
The £45m is stolen from the saver.
The 0.5% interest rate is fake. The market hasn't decided that. The bank of england has printed the money, purchased the gilts from the banks, then told them they need to buy more gilts.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:People say that "the cuts" haven't happened yet.
Can anyone actually list what is being cut?
What I have seen thus far is a lot of proposals - some similar to the proposals of the previous Tory manifesto others (NHS bill) that were seemingly thought of 10 to 15 yrs ago and are now out of date for the needs of society - that are either thrown out or reworked to be more palatable.
I'm not saying the cuts won't happen or that it won't hurt. I'm just trying to see the woods from the trees. The woods being the fear mongering and properganda Labour bashing and the trees being actual reality.
An article from March 2011 statesThere was a 45,000 reduction in the number of public sector jobs between October and November 2010. In 2010 there was a 132,000 reduction in public sector employment, a decrease of 2.1%.
• Of these 9,000 were in central government, 24,000 in local government and 12,000 in quangos and other public corporations.
• The regions with the biggest falls in public sector employment were: Yorkshire and Humber (22,000), the north-west (19,000) and the south-west (18,000).
In Whitehall the largest number of job losses were recorded in the Department for Work and Pensions (1,670), the Home Office (1,190) and Revenue and Customs (640).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... dundancies
And that was almost a year ago.
We can assume that the number since austerity started are much higher, given that it's a further year on.
If the plans continue, we're looking at around 600,000 job cuts in total by 2017.0 -
What I think you may be overlooking is the nature of this crisis - debt.W1 wrote:TheStone wrote:W1 wrote:True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
As overpriced as housing is, they're devaluing cash every single month. They're destroying the fiat currencies the western world is based on to save a few.
Indeed - maybe houses are a bad example, particularly with interest rates so low. What I meant was, in bad times, people tend to stick cash under the mattress. I'm not convinced that is happening.
I agree with your view that the government will try to inflate the debt away - but on the flipside, disincentivising saving, and keeping debt cheap, merely increases the overall problem because people are often spending borrowed money.
Where previously a crisis would happen and people have money to put under the matress. Most are probably using the 'matress money' to pay back overdrafts, loans and credit cards etc.
I think the rationale being "I'd rather have no job and owe no money than have no job and owe credit cards, loans and overdrafts".Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Agree with that, good post.TheStone wrote:W1 wrote:
Indeed - maybe houses are a bad example, particularly with interest rates so low. What I meant was, in bad times, people tend to stick cash under the mattress. I'm not convinced that is happening.
I agree with your view that the government will try to inflate the debt away - but on the flipside, disincentivising saving, and keeping debt cheap, merely increases the overall problem because people are often spending borrowed money.
By having loose monetary policy, they're encouraging speculation, which doesn't add wealth, just redistributes it (usually to the old and rich). Constantly bidding up the prices of commodities and housing adds no overall value to the economy or standard of living.
Countries who have strong monetary policy tend to do well. Interest rates should always be above inflation. This encourages people to invest more wisely and more long term (see Germany).
At the moment a bank can borrow £1bn at 0.5%, buy tins of baked beans and sell them back to the market at +5% inflation a year later and make £45m. No risk.
The £45m is stolen from the saver.
The 0.5% interest rate is fake. The market hasn't decided that. The bank of england has printed the money, purchased the gilts from the banks, then told them they need to buy more gilts.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:[
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... dundancies
And that was almost a year ago.
We can assume that the number since austerity started are much higher, given that it's a further year on.
If the plans continue, we're looking at around 600,000 job cuts in total by 2017.
I'm not sure that answers my question, or as directly as I'd like.
What is the Government cutting i.e. benefits and funding. Is there a list?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:What I think you may be overlooking is the nature of this crisis - debt.
Correct. We got in too much debt over the last decade buying stuff we couldn't really afford and didn't really need.
Surely if we now see a drop off in spending, that's a good thing? A readjustment that needs to be made.
No... we'll print money, so we can keep the spending levels rising! This is the madness from the governments and central banks. Meanwhile they're taking the opportunity to load up their boats with gold and set sail.0 -
W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Perhaps all that stress testing has paid off... and this is what global/financial metldowns will be like from now on.
That may be the case if it was finished. It isn't.
There are years of this to go and nobody knows how it is going to pan out.
True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
Greece isn't fixed. Neither are Spain, Portugal, Ireland or Italy.
Ergo the Euro isn't fixed.
The U.S. is simply printing money instead of addressing the issues.
Ergo the U.S. isn't fixed.
Ergo the world recession still has a way to go regardless what is done in Westminster.
Cuts will help reduce the Goverments debt payment (if there are any actual cuts) but growth is a long way off.
I am doing my best though as Rapha, Condor, Campagnolo, Lezyne, Wiggle etc will testify...
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
That's also a good point - but people also seem to be spending (IIRC the Christmas period was pretty good for the High St)? I would think, given that we own £1trn, we would all be living in caves by now.DonDaddyD wrote:
What I think you may be overlooking is the nature of this crisis - debt.W1 wrote:TheStone wrote:W1 wrote:True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
As overpriced as housing is, they're devaluing cash every single month. They're destroying the fiat currencies the western world is based on to save a few.
Indeed - maybe houses are a bad example, particularly with interest rates so low. What I meant was, in bad times, people tend to stick cash under the mattress. I'm not convinced that is happening.
I agree with your view that the government will try to inflate the debt away - but on the flipside, disincentivising saving, and keeping debt cheap, merely increases the overall problem because people are often spending borrowed money.
Where previously a crisis would happen and people have money to put under the matress. Most are probably using the 'matress money' to pay back overdrafts, loans and credit cards etc.
I think the rationale being "I'd rather have no job and owe no money than have no job and owe credit cards, loans and overdrafts".
I suppose it might have something to do with the "I deserve it now" attitude that got us here in the first place - it might dig us out again, perhaps, provided it is better controlled for a less bumpy landing.0 -
So at last we know who to blame thendaviesee wrote:I am doing my best though as ... Wiggle etc will testify...0 -
Indeed - but even given all of that, it's not tins and shotguns time yet - at least, not in the mindset of the general population.daviesee wrote:W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Perhaps all that stress testing has paid off... and this is what global/financial metldowns will be like from now on.
That may be the case if it was finished. It isn't.
There are years of this to go and nobody knows how it is going to pan out.
True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.
Greece isn't fixed. Neither are Spain, Portugal, Ireland or Italy.
Ergo the Euro isn't fixed.
The U.S. is simply printing money instead of addressing the issues.
Ergo the U.S. isn't fixed.
Ergo the world recession still has a way to go regardless what is done in Westminster.
Cuts will help reduce the Goverments debt payment (if there are any actual cuts) but growth is a long way off.
I am doing my best though as Rapha, Condor, Campagnolo, Lezyne, Wiggle etc will testify...
All we need is a decent series of Xfactor and the whole issue falls off the news.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:[
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... dundancies
And that was almost a year ago.
We can assume that the number since austerity started are much higher, given that it's a further year on.
If the plans continue, we're looking at around 600,000 job cuts in total by 2017.
I'm not sure that answers my question, or as directly as I'd like.
What is the Government cutting i.e. benefits and funding. Is there a list?
As I understand it, in the broadest terms, different departments were given new expenditure targets, which varied between 50% and 10% cuts, with a few exceptions. It was up to the departments, councils etc, to decide how they were achieve.
Beyond that, I can't find any figures for cuts in 2011 say. I'm sure the ONS will have them somewhere.0 -
Interesting that. I'd say.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:[
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... dundancies
And that was almost a year ago.
We can assume that the number since austerity started are much higher, given that it's a further year on.
If the plans continue, we're looking at around 600,000 job cuts in total by 2017.
I'm not sure that answers my question, or as directly as I'd like.
What is the Government cutting i.e. benefits and funding. Is there a list?
As I understand it, in the broadest terms, different departments were given new expenditure targets, which varied between 50% and 10% cuts, with a few exceptions. It was up to the departments, councils etc, to decide how they were achieve.
Beyond that, I can't find any figures for cuts in 2011 say. I'm sure the ONS will have them somewhere.
Point is we know the public sector funding is being reduced in places.
What other cuts are affecting the general (private sector working) populace? What "cuts" affect Sharon's earnings, she earns £24,000 working in the private sector and has two kids.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Interesting that. I'd say.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:[
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... dundancies
And that was almost a year ago.
We can assume that the number since austerity started are much higher, given that it's a further year on.
If the plans continue, we're looking at around 600,000 job cuts in total by 2017.
I'm not sure that answers my question, or as directly as I'd like.
What is the Government cutting i.e. benefits and funding. Is there a list?
As I understand it, in the broadest terms, different departments were given new expenditure targets, which varied between 50% and 10% cuts, with a few exceptions. It was up to the departments, councils etc, to decide how they were achieve.
Beyond that, I can't find any figures for cuts in 2011 say. I'm sure the ONS will have them somewhere.
Point is we know the public sector funding is being reduced in places.
What other cuts are affecting the general (private sector working) populace? What "cuts" affect Sharon's earnings, she earns £24,000 working in the private sector and has two kids.
Someone close to me, for example, works in a management consultancy, and they have plenty less work. Maybe 20-30% of the work was from the public sector.
More generally, there are the multiplier/demand effects. Say Sharon works for a sandwich shop next to a the local council building. Her shop has less customers.
Let's say she works for a company that makes car clutches. I would imagine a few less cars will be sold since so many people are unemployed, and even those who are not, are worried they might, so they're saving rather than splurging on a car. That will affect her company, and possibly her.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:More generally, there are the multiplier/demand effects. Say Sharon works for a sandwich shop next to a the local council building. Her shop has less customers.
Yes, but there's always another side to.
Sharon might have to close her sandwich shop and change jobs.
But her children will have less government debt to pay off, so more money to spend on something in the future (maybe even sandwiches).0 -
You're right of course but that would indicate that the private sector was more considerably dependant on the public sector that it maybe should have been. Which means Ed was right about 'too deep & too quick' and perhaps a more staggered reduction in funding over the five years would have been more beneficial.Rick Chasey wrote:Someone close to me, for example, works in a management consultancy, and they have plenty less work. Maybe 20-30% of the work was from the public sector.
More generally, there are the multiplier/demand effects. Say Sharon works for a sandwich shop next to a the local council building. Her shop has less customers.
Let's say she works for a company that makes car clutches. I would imagine a few less cars will be sold since so many people are unemployed, and even those who are not, are worried they might, so they're saving rather than splurging on a car. That will affect her company, and possibly her.
The only thing that I would say you aren't correct is the last part. People don't seem to be saving but spending/or paying off debt.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
And in any evernt, Sharon has had it good for 10 years of growth, on the back of unsustainable debt, and should have been saving for a rainy day, rather than splurging it up the wall on cars and holidays. Easily said in hindsight I suppose.TheStone wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:More generally, there are the multiplier/demand effects. Say Sharon works for a sandwich shop next to a the local council building. Her shop has less customers.
Yes, but there's always another side to.
Sharon might have to close her sandwich shop and change jobs.
But her children will have less government debt to pay off, so more money to spend on something in the future (maybe even sandwiches).0 -
So these cuts, they're not really tax hikes or additional tax or savage reduction in benefits.
It's largely bringing public spending down to a sustainable level. That's not really a cut. Just good fiscal policy.
Even then the Government are in fact borrowing just as much as before just not giving it to public services (so what are they using the borrowed money for)?
So with the exception of bringing the bankers/bonuses in line/house market back to making sense.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
So people aren't spending (I get that) or paying off debt (I don't buy that).
I generally don't believe the majority of people are saving. Not with all the debt that was generated during Labour's reign.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
Saving and paying off debt. It's possible.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:So these cuts, they're not really tax hikes or additional tax or savage reduction in benefits.
It's largely bringing public spending down to a sustainable level. That's not really a cut. Just good fiscal policy.
Even then the Government are in fact borrowing just as much as before just not giving it to public services (so what are they using the borrowed money for)?
So with the exception of bringing the bankers/bonuses in line/house market back to making sense.
Or, as my pretty Guardian *shudder* picture showed, not actually cutting at all...0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:So these cuts, they're not really tax hikes or additional tax or savage reduction in benefits.
It's largely bringing public spending down to a sustainable level. That's not really a cut. Just good fiscal policy.
Even then the Government are in fact borrowing just as much as before just not giving it to public services (so what are they using the borrowed money for)?
So with the exception of bringing the bankers/bonuses in line/house market back to making sense.
Or, as my pretty Guardian *shudder* picture showed, not actually cutting at all...
Does make you wonder if tens (hundreds?) of thousands of public servants are being laid off, what is the extra money being spent on?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Does make you wonder if tens (hundreds?) of thousands of public servants are being laid off, what is the extra money being spent on?
There must be a short term extra cost in laying people off? Redundancy etc.
I doubt this money is saved over the period of their employment, it's not the government way!0
