BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Worldwide? Neither of us have any idea.

It's definitely not in the majority.

pinno

Stevo_666 said:

But I hope for your sake they don't impose rent controls as you might have to sell one of your fleet of prestige German cars

HB is costing the tax payer millions.
I would have no concerns about a rental cap given how deflated the local market already is.
And rental prices here are pretty much in line with council house rental prices anyway.
The cap would therefore, be minimal if any.
It's areas south of the border, (apart from Edinburgh) that are extortionate.

In Scotland, deposits for house rental go to a 3rd party.
We also have long term tenancy agreements. There are stricter rules on rental price increases.

rick_chasey

So I think all the evidence suggests that rent control don't really help much overall. In areas of very fast rent rises, they tend help people who already live there but at the expense of new tenants (this conclusion is derived from evidence; there was a really big thorough investigation of the impact in San Fransisco for example - the amount saved by existing tenants was pretty much exactly the amount new tenants lost out by).

In an ideal world you want it to be easy for people to move around without the downside risk of making it easy to be turfed out of where you live. Rent control doesn't really help with that.

I think most studies now suggest that property prices across the west have surged in urban areas as a result of extremely low interest rates and cheap money combined with low inflation. It's not really hugely to do with supply and demand of actual stock.

rjsterry

This Twitter fake factcheck stunt - as if the public needed a reason to be even more cynical about politics.

And then to go out and defend it as some perfectly reasonable tactic.

rick_chasey

Presumably the gamble was if it gets everyone talking then the 'facts checked' will also be covered more widely than they otherwise would have.

Pross

rjsterry said:

This Twitter fake factcheck stunt - as if the public needed a reason to be even more cynical about politics.

And then to go out and defend it as some perfectly reasonable tactic.

Hearing Raab defending it this morning was cringeworthy. In fact his whole interview was terrible, I heard him on TV first and then on the radio where he wouldn't answer questions and then had a go at the presenter for interrupting him when all she was doing was cutting in to try to get him to answer what she'd asked rather than just giving a speech on something else entirely. I know they all do it but he was particularly bad (and comes across as being so smug).

Longshot

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

This Twitter fake factcheck stunt - as if the public needed a reason to be even more cynical about politics.

And then to go out and defend it as some perfectly reasonable tactic.

Hearing Raab defending it this morning was cringeworthy. In fact his whole interview was terrible, I heard him on TV first and then on the radio where he wouldn't answer questions and then had a go at the presenter for interrupting him when all she was doing was cutting in to try to get him to answer what she'd asked rather than just giving a speech on something else entirely. I know they all do it but he was particularly bad (and comes across as being so smug).

One thing about Trump is that he has the ego and personality to pull off his megalomaniac, lie-to-your-face antics. The likes of Raab and others generally have the personality of a wet dishcloth and just look both stupid and dishonest.

bompington

longshot said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

This Twitter fake factcheck stunt - as if the public needed a reason to be even more cynical about politics.

And then to go out and defend it as some perfectly reasonable tactic.

Hearing Raab defending it this morning was cringeworthy. In fact his whole interview was terrible, I heard him on TV first and then on the radio where he wouldn't answer questions and then had a go at the presenter for interrupting him when all she was doing was cutting in to try to get him to answer what she'd asked rather than just giving a speech on something else entirely. I know they all do it but he was particularly bad (and comes across as being so smug).

One thing about Trump is that he has the ego and personality to pull off his megalomaniac, lie-to-your-face antics. The likes of Raab and others generally have the personality of a wet dishcloth and just look both stupid and dishonest.

Perhaps where the Tories are failing is that somewhere, maybe deep down but somewhere, they still have some decency and a sense of shame: something that you need to eradicate to perform like Trump.

elbowloh

Remember that Dominic Raab is the guy who negotiated Theresa May's deal and then resigned because he didn't like the deal that he negotiated.

john80

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?

I know it's not the done thing to admit on an internet forum but I haven't got a clue to be honest. I'm not really familiar with managing national budgets - keeping the domestic ones is tough enough. I would say it should all be subject to a robust cost / benefit analysis, it might be that a larger number ends up making more sense than a medium sized number because the benefits then become far more worthwhile. From my own line of work you could spend a few million tinkering with improving junctions and temporarily easing congestion or you could spend £100 million on a new bypass to sort the issue out for a few decades - the benefit may justify the cost of option 2 as option 1 might not last long enough to be beneficial. As a lay person in other infrastructure matters it feels like we have gone for option 1 for as long as I can remember but whether that's because the numbers don't stack up in option 2 or because no-one has been prepared to commit the spending who knows?

It's the same with things like hospitals and schools, you can spend money patching them up so they just about keep functioning or build replacements (although ultimately their performance will also be highly dependent on the people running them in either scenario).

As I've said before, the bigger issue for me than the cost would be actually delivering anything that requires large scale construction due to the available resources whether materials, land or the skilled workforce.

Thatcher famously saw running the economy as similar principle as running the domestic finances.
Do you try and balance the family books or spend like a drunken sailor to ingratiate yourself with the kids whilst building up a colossal debt for them to inherit?

It kind of depends on whether you are savvy enough to get the debt unsecured and therefore the debt dies with you with the kids enjoying the benefits or the kids joy of the benefits outweighed the fact that there is no assets to transfer to them at the end. Not so easy making up these everyday scenarios is it.

surrey_commuter

Can you really not see that it was an analogy to simplify understanding?

You will be pleased to know that you are agreeing with me as the analogy was a reference to the UK economy and as such debt gets passed to the next generation.

rjsterry

What is the difference, qualitatively, between paying for something that the government purchased in, say, 1962, compared with something they are buying now?

Does anyone really care about having to pay off the enormous debts accrued during WW2 or on the abolition of slavery? Or less emotively, some civil service salaries in 1974?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

What is the difference, qualitatively, between paying for something that the government purchased in, say, 1962, compared with something they are buying now?

Does anyone really care about having to pay off the enormous debts accrued during WW2 or on the abolition of slavery? Or less emotively, some civil service salaries in 1974?

What makes you think the debt is being paid off?
nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

rjsterry

Well clearly the bit which is falling due is being paid off. We'd be in all sorts of s*** if HM starts defaulting.

But why answer a question?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

What is the difference, qualitatively, between paying for something that the government purchased in, say, 1962, compared with something they are buying now?

Does anyone really care about having to pay off the enormous debts accrued during WW2 or on the abolition of slavery? Or less emotively, some civil service salaries in 1974?

Are you asking me?

That is more or less my entire point. Just widen it out to what is the difference between paying off some civil service salaries from 1974 or hiring some new doctors.

I have actually learnt from you guys that the answer is to do both and borrow more money because there is no downside. This is genuine as previously I did not get why people were so comfortable with national debt.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

What is the difference, qualitatively, between paying for something that the government purchased in, say, 1962, compared with something they are buying now?

Does anyone really care about having to pay off the enormous debts accrued during WW2 or on the abolition of slavery? Or less emotively, some civil service salaries in 1974?

Are you asking me?

That is more or less my entire point. Just widen it out to what is the difference between paying off some civil service salaries from 1974 or hiring some new doctors.

I have actually learnt from you guys that the answer is to do both and borrow more money because there is no downside. This is genuine as previously I did not get why people were so comfortable with national debt.

Oh SC. I don’t think everyone is a MMTist.

In the current context (no productivity growth, low interest rates) the headroom is high. Pretty much every party has agreed. That argument has been won by the expansionists.

Even LDs who have announced a 1% budget surplus target are excluding capital spending from that.

You could look at it the other way; it’s not like a decade of austerity and record low interest rates has stimulated the economy and there isn’t much room left for monetary policy so surely it is time for more stimulative fiscal policy?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Well clearly the bit which is falling due is being paid off. We'd be in all sorts of s*** if HM starts defaulting.

But why answer a question?

That's a bit of a technicality because if you look at the overall position, debt is still increasing rather than being paid off.

rjsterry

My point is that decisions on public borrowing should be based on rational analysis not emotive calls to 'think of the children'.

rick_chasey

Yes this thinking is really holding the EU back

rick_chasey

Right on cue: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/11/20/1574275130000/The-roots-of-Strafzins-myths-go-deep/

surrey_commuter

Where you see borrowing money to improve the economy I see a a bunch of charlatans borrowing money to buy power for themselves.

I do think that you are very susceptible to group think. Economics is not a science so something being mainstream does not make it right.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Well clearly the bit which is falling due is being paid off. We'd be in all sorts of s*** if HM starts defaulting.

But why answer a question?

That's a bit of a technicality because if you look at the overall position, debt is still increasing rather than being paid off.

Not sure why you are conflating the two. Of course overall public borrowing goes up and down. But existing debt very definitely is repaid as it falls due. That's a bit more than a technicality.

surrey_commuter

How else would you explain the downside of future (Greek style) austerity decades in the future to a bunch of intrinsically selfish people

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Well clearly the bit which is falling due is being paid off. We'd be in all sorts of s*** if HM starts defaulting.

But why answer a question?

You know we issue new gilts to pay off the ones coming due.

I am pleased you see that there would be a downside to us not being able to borrow money to refinance.

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Well clearly the bit which is falling due is being paid off. We'd be in all sorts of s*** if HM starts defaulting.

But why answer a question?

You know we issue new gilts to pay off the ones coming due.

I am pleased you see that there would be a downside to us not being able to borrow money to refinance.

It's the expensive version of pass the parcel. I'm not sure I want to be last though.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Where you see borrowing money to improve the economy I see a a bunch of charlatans borrowing money to buy power for themselves.

I do think that you are very susceptible to group think. Economics is not a science so something being mainstream does not make it right.

Yeah I think it's fair to say I tend to buy into the current academic consensus on things. That's partly because I believe in things like this, more often than not, it's right.

In this specific instance I think there is overwhelming evidence that your approach is disadvantageous fwiw.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

How else would you explain the downside of future (Greek style) austerity decades in the future to a bunch of intrinsically selfish people

Looking at where else the 'future generations' argument has been made I think the attitude of most is "I'll be dead before it's a problem". I'd rather qualified people assess whether a given level of borrowing is or isn't sustainable based on suitably cautious predictions, than the current false dichotomy of "borrowing is a sin" versus "we'll just tax the 1% to fill any holes". Actually the nuTory position seems to be "borrowing is bad, but don't worry as soon as Brexit is done the economy will suddenly double in size overnight and tax receipts will be so large we'll be insulating pensioners homes with wads of fivers".

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

How else would you explain the downside of future (Greek style) austerity decades in the future to a bunch of intrinsically selfish people

Looking at where else the 'future generations' argument has been made I think the attitude of most is "I'll be dead before it's a problem". I'd rather qualified people assess whether a given level of borrowing is or isn't sustainable based on suitably cautious predictions, than the current false dichotomy of "borrowing is a sin" versus "we'll just tax the 1% to fill any holes". Actually the nuTory position seems to be "borrowing is bad, but don't worry as soon as Brexit is done the economy will suddenly double in size overnight and tax receipts will be so large we'll be insulating pensioners homes with wads of fivers".

the honest Tory approach is that we inflicted ten years of austerity and if keep going we are just handing over a mended economy to Labour who will break it again, therefore we may as well spend it ourselves.

This suggests that they think that debt is bad but would rather they got the credit for spending it.

Their Brexit argument is that waiting for it to happen is worse than it happening, not that it is better than it will never happen.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Where you see borrowing money to improve the economy I see a a bunch of charlatans borrowing money to buy power for themselves.

I do think that you are very susceptible to group think. Economics is not a science so something being mainstream does not make it right.

Yeah I think it's fair to say I tend to buy into the current academic consensus on things. That's partly because I believe in things like this, more often than not, it's right.

In this specific instance I think there is overwhelming evidence that your approach is disadvantageous fwiw.

My approach is to apply commonsense to the current consensus. This obviously only works in areas where you have a great enough understanding to apply your own logic

surrey_commuter

I totally accept that I am rubbish at explaining economics so will post a couple of related articles from this week's Economist. The first is a 5 minute read so easily accessible.

In summary public sector pensions in America are on a city and state basis in some of which the current cost of meeting those payments is 15% of total revenues and rising. This will lead to sharply falling services or rising taxes which will lead to people/companies moving to escape.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/public-pensions-are-woefully-underfunded

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/11/14/americas-public-sector-pension-schemes-are-trillions-of-dollars-short