BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
My limited understanding is they purchase financial and mainly banking assets in order to make it much cheaper for non-BoE banks to lend.
The buying of the financial assets boosts the price of the assets (increased demand), and increases the level of cash in the business, thus making it cheaper to lend.
They buy it by electronically adding the money to their balance sheet, so creating the money out of thin air.
I understand it's advantageous for two reasons: 1) when standard monetary policy runs out, it can continue to help lower lending rates, and it supports banks that otherwise are struggling even more in a very low interest rate environment, and 2) if inflation gets too high, they can sell the assets.0 -
-
I'm not advocating politicians being in charge of the BoE just that they are allowed to ask questions.
For QE the BoE buys medium term gilts from the open market with new money. This increases the money supply because they have just used new money. So it is in effect printing. If you bought gilts with cash they would print the cash and buy the gilts. They have now extended it to corporate bonds, but same idea.
The BoE currently owns a lot of gilts and therefore a lot of the UK debt. Think it is about a third.
QE is not that much different from setting interest rates except that that is only done in the overnight markets. I get confused how the BoE sets interest rates but if you read wikipedia about open market operations it describes all the approaches taken around the world.
The key point about QE is it drives down interest rates in the medium term which is a completely different kettle of fish than controlling them in the short term. But when rates are close to zero there is little more that can be done to increase the money supply.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but the criticism is partisan and misses out half the story.
If the economy is managed through two main levers - monetary policy and fiscal policy - you can't really discuss one without the other.
The reason why it makes sense to have an independent monetary policy is because politicians generally can't be trusted to do what's best long term.
To do what May has done; which is give the BoE a broadside without discussing the wider context (i.e. fiscal policy), is irresponsible; it serves to politicise their decisions, which are supposed to be taken as objectively as possible.
Furthermore, the BoE is in little position to do the same back; so it's a one way argument. The BoE can say 'the economy could do with some more fiscal stimulus' but that's as far as it's allowed to go.
It's not really fair criticism on a number of levels.
But in this case the argument is about monetary policy and whether the asset bubble chosen by the BoE is better or worse than the deflationary recession that may have been the alternative.
As I said before, it may be that the BoE made the right choice, but it needs to be accountable for that choice. Now, you can argue that should be done behind closed doors, but I'm also interested in the answer and really don't mind the democratically elected government asking that question and holding it to account. Now if the response is that the government should have spent more then fine, but at least there is some debate. And yes, the BoE should be free to respond, and it has made comments in the past, so i suspect it will.
So maybe the Conservative party conference is not the place for the criticism, but I'm glad that someone has asked the question.
I would far rather have an independent BofE than politicians setting monetary policy.
However could somebody explain QE to me... please don't say it is printing money as they are not (or am I wrong). hopefully the explanation will reveal why they are doing it as I really don't understand.
It is printing money. Sort of. Money is created and added to the economy by way of buying bonds, which in theory means more is available for borrowing by business/people therefore stimulating spend. It can be inflationary if not careful.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:I'm not advocating politicians being in charge of the BoE just that they are allowed to ask questions.
.
There is a way to do that that doesn't politicise the issue.
Giving a broadside at a party conference is not the way to do that.0 -
0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not advocating politicians being in charge of the BoE just that they are allowed to ask questions.
.
There is a way to do that that doesn't politicise the issue.
Giving a broadside at a party conference is not the way to do that.
She's been called a Control Freak many times. This is a case in point.0 -
0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not advocating politicians being in charge of the BoE just that they are allowed to ask questions.
.
There is a way to do that that doesn't politicise the issue.
Giving a broadside at a party conference is not the way to do that.
I conceded that in my post above.0 -
So do you think it is discriminatory?Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.
Yes or no."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:My limited understanding is they purchase financial and mainly banking assets in order to make it much cheaper for non-BoE banks to lend.
The buying of the financial assets boosts the price of the assets (increased demand), and increases the level of cash in the business, thus making it cheaper to lend.
They buy it by electronically adding the money to their balance sheet, so creating the money out of thin air.
I understand it's advantageous for two reasons: 1) when standard monetary policy runs out, it can continue to help lower lending rates, and it supports banks that otherwise are struggling even more in a very low interest rate environment, and 2) if inflation gets too high, they can sell the assets.
So as the banks could have sold these assets in the open market does this mean they are deliberately overpaying to improve the liquidity of the banks?
My problem is that I thought the problem with lending was a lack of demand rather than a lack of supply.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
So do you think it is discriminatory?Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.
Yes or no.
We did not arbitrarily decide to accept EU immigrants rather than non EU immigrants. We joined the EU which guarantees free movement of labour, goods services and capital. As such EU immigration was a price we were willing to pay for access to the world's largest trading bloc. It has been decided that it is no longer a price worth paying.
For your question to work you would need to set a hypothetical scenario whereby we decide to accept 100,000 immigrants a year with no strings attached. You could then ask how people would decide where they came from and on the basis of their answer accuse them of bigotry.
How about if May was offered free trade deal with the USA in exchange for giving US citizens free right of movement to the UK. As they are an English speaking, predominantly Christian and white country do you think she would accept?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:
How about if May was offered free trade deal with the USA in exchange for giving US citizens free right of movement to the UK. As they are an English speaking, predominantly Christian and white country do you think she would accept?
As long as they are prepared to pay 55% income tax, go for it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
So do you think it is discriminatory?Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.
Yes or no.
We did not arbitrarily decide to accept EU immigrants rather than non EU immigrants. We joined the EU which guarantees free movement of labour, goods services and capital. As such EU immigration was a price we were willing to pay for access to the world's largest trading bloc. It has been decided that it is no longer a price worth paying.
For your question to work you would need to set a hypothetical scenario whereby we decide to accept 100,000 immigrants a year with no strings attached. You could then ask how people would decide where they came from and on the basis of their answer accuse them of bigotry.
How about if May was offered free trade deal with the USA in exchange for giving US citizens free right of movement to the UK. As they are an English speaking, predominantly Christian and white country do you think she would accept?
No idea but I doubt it. It would cede control of our borders which is unacceptable to leavers.
I would regard such an arrangement as being discriminatory along the same lines as our arrangement with Europe.
Is this you tacitly admitting that such an arrangement is discriminatory?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
So do you think it is discriminatory?Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.
Yes or no.
We did not arbitrarily decide to accept EU immigrants rather than non EU immigrants. We joined the EU which guarantees free movement of labour, goods services and capital. As such EU immigration was a price we were willing to pay for access to the world's largest trading bloc. It has been decided that it is no longer a price worth paying.
For your question to work you would need to set a hypothetical scenario whereby we decide to accept 100,000 immigrants a year with no strings attached. You could then ask how people would decide where they came from and on the basis of their answer accuse them of bigotry.
How about if May was offered free trade deal with the USA in exchange for giving US citizens free right of movement to the UK. As they are an English speaking, predominantly Christian and white country do you think she would accept?
Well said. It's a straw man anyway of no importance, merely a diversionary tactic from the ills of the Nazis.0 -
Worth a read. IMO it suggests that there is a hard-core of right wingers, so Tory and the more middle ground Ukippers, who'll happily pay to keep all immigrants out. Couple this with what we also know from Ashcroft, the disaffected poor who still think it can't possibly get any worse not being prepared/able to pay the personal price.
So, the latter are likely to be very transient in their support for May. i.e. Until it hits them shortly.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... ign=buffer0 -
Joelsim wrote:Worth a read. IMO it suggests that there is a hard-core of right wingers, so Tory and the more middle ground Ukippers, who'll happily pay to keep all immigrants out. Couple this with what we also know from Ashcroft, the disaffected poor who still think it can't possibly get any worse not being prepared/able to pay the personal price.
So, the latter are likely to be very transient in their support for May. i.e. Until it hits them shortly.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... ign=buffer
It reckons 47% of leavers also want less immigration.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:My limited understanding is they purchase financial and mainly banking assets in order to make it much cheaper for non-BoE banks to lend.
The buying of the financial assets boosts the price of the assets (increased demand), and increases the level of cash in the business, thus making it cheaper to lend.
They buy it by electronically adding the money to their balance sheet, so creating the money out of thin air.
I understand it's advantageous for two reasons: 1) when standard monetary policy runs out, it can continue to help lower lending rates, and it supports banks that otherwise are struggling even more in a very low interest rate environment, and 2) if inflation gets too high, they can sell the assets.
So as the banks could have sold these assets in the open market does this mean they are deliberately overpaying to improve the liquidity of the banks?
My problem is that I thought the problem with lending was a lack of demand rather than a lack of supply.
Think so yeah.
They mainly buy gilts. In so doing the rates on guilts drop so those seeking a certain return look elsewhere, hence pumping up equities.
....I think....0 -
Whoever posted that South Park pic is bang on.
May's decided to go after the "they took er jeeeerbs" crowd.
If people already blame immigration incorrectly for things, then this rhetoric only makes it worse.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
So do you think it is discriminatory?Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.
Yes or no.
We did not arbitrarily decide to accept EU immigrants rather than non EU immigrants. We joined the EU which guarantees free movement of labour, goods services and capital. As such EU immigration was a price we were willing to pay for access to the world's largest trading bloc. It has been decided that it is no longer a price worth paying.
For your question to work you would need to set a hypothetical scenario whereby we decide to accept 100,000 immigrants a year with no strings attached. You could then ask how people would decide where they came from and on the basis of their answer accuse them of bigotry.
How about if May was offered free trade deal with the USA in exchange for giving US citizens free right of movement to the UK. As they are an English speaking, predominantly Christian and white country do you think she would accept?
No idea but I doubt it. It would cede control of our borders which is unacceptable to leavers.
I would regard such an arrangement as being discriminatory along the same lines as our arrangement with Europe.
Is this you tacitly admitting that such an arrangement is discriminatory?
Nope - that is me trying to help you see EU membership as an issue bigger than immigration.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:My limited understanding is they purchase financial and mainly banking assets in order to make it much cheaper for non-BoE banks to lend.
The buying of the financial assets boosts the price of the assets (increased demand), and increases the level of cash in the business, thus making it cheaper to lend.
They buy it by electronically adding the money to their balance sheet, so creating the money out of thin air.
I understand it's advantageous for two reasons: 1) when standard monetary policy runs out, it can continue to help lower lending rates, and it supports banks that otherwise are struggling even more in a very low interest rate environment, and 2) if inflation gets too high, they can sell the assets.
So as the banks could have sold these assets in the open market does this mean they are deliberately overpaying to improve the liquidity of the banks?
My problem is that I thought the problem with lending was a lack of demand rather than a lack of supply.
Think so yeah.
They mainly buy gilts. In so doing the rates on guilts drop so those seeking a certain return look elsewhere, hence pumping up equities.
....I think....
And massively widening pension fund deficits so reducing companies appetite to invest0 -
My commuting friend from SurreyFor your question to work you would need to set a hypothetical scenario whereby we decide to accept 100,000 immigrants a year with no strings attached. You could then ask how people would decide where they came from and on the basis of their answer accuse them of bigotry.
That has not been the case at all. We have said to the people of 27 countries that they can come here, no strings attached. Some 400 odd million people.
We have said to the rest of the world that anyone coming here has to be vetted and meet certain criteria.
Is that not a form of discrimination? We are discriminating by country of origin, no?
Post Brexit, it is assumed that everyone will be treated on equal merit. Is that not a less discriminatory arrangement?
As regardsNope - that is me trying to help you see EU membership as an issue bigger than immigration.
I already know that. My point in this recent discussion was how some remainers were taking the moral high ground and considering 17m people who voted Brexit to be gigots, without giving thought to what their own position was.
BTW did you see that link posted by Joel revealing that 47% of remainers wanted immigration control?
These bigots get everywhere eh?0 -
Been a while since I had a good gigot.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
:oops:
Perhaps this Sunday you could treat yourself?
0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:
And massively widening pension fund deficits so reducing companies appetite to invest
Yeah that is a downside.
But then I would also suggest that the current demographics and wealth distribution means there is more money than ever sitting in funds looking for a return, which is also pressing returns and rates down. On top of that, that demographic is moving out of work, so lowering overall productivity.
I don't think it's a coincidence Japan, with an older population, has gone through the process a decade before Europe has.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
I already know that. My point in this recent discussion was how some remainers were taking the moral high ground and considering 17m people who voted Brexit to be pigots, without giving thought to what their own position was.
BTW did you see that link posted by Joel revealing that 47% of remainers wanted immigration control?
These bigots get everywhere eh?
we are where we are Bally, i m not sure what is the point in continuing this, plenty of posters have already answered this, unless you want to distract from the mess we are heading toward?
As a tory, is May right to go for a hard brexit, the uk going it alone? how will immigration control and the rhetoric that goes alongside this, deter eu workers? workers our nhs desperately need and if we are to take them from non eu countries, is this morally right? taking doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
I already know that. My point in this recent discussion was how some remainers were taking the moral high ground and considering 17m people who voted Brexit to be pigots, without giving thought to what their own position was.
BTW did you see that link posted by Joel revealing that 47% of remainers wanted immigration control?
These bigots get everywhere eh?
we are where we are Bally, i m not sure what is the point in continuing this, plenty of posters have already answered this, unless you want to distract from the mess we are heading toward?
As a tory, is May right to go for a hard brexit, the uk going it alone? how will immigration control and the rhetoric that goes alongside this, deter eu workers? workers our nhs desperately need and if we are to take them from non eu countries, is this morally right? taking doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries.
Not a distraction at all and I don't think anyone has shown why it is not discriminatory.
But as regards TM and Brexit, hard or soft.
Whoever was in the office pf PM, I can't see that they have any choice but to go it alone. The referendum provided a shock but the result must be honoured. Any deal that permits free movement would in my opinion not be acceptable to the majority of the public.
The link I posted earlier (yesterday?)re the NHS showed that non EU workers in the NHS account for 5% of the workforce, which is still less than those from outside the EU
Even after it was made more difficult for immigrants from outside the EU to enter the Uk, the number of such doctors continued to rise and outstrips the number of docs arriving from the EU.
Is it morally right? We need doctors and docs in the 3rd world want to emigrate for a better life. Win / win.
Would it be morally right to insist that a doctor or nurse were to remain in the country of their birth due to their profession when they see people from other walks of life free to move to a better life. How do you envisage that would impact on the number of people who wanted to train as doctors in some of the 3rd world countries.
And it would bring us neatly back to that word, discrimination, again wouldn't it?
0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Bally is basically of the opinion that to solve a limp, it's best to hurt the other foot too.
So do you suggest we ignore the referendum result and refuse entry to qualified doctors from some countries based soley on their profession as Looky asked?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Bally is basically of the opinion that to solve a limp, it's best to hurt the other foot too.
So do you suggest we ignore the referendum result and refuse entry to qualified doctors from some countries based soley on their profession as Looky asked?
Ref result was to leave the EU.
That's it.
The rest is making sh!t up.0
