Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
That's why I said FTFY - to make it really clear that I'd changed what you said. Pretty standard stuff.kingstongraham said:
No, just quoted me and changed my words. Bad form imo.Stevo_666 said:
Why not? Have I offended you?kingstongraham said:
Don't do that please.Stevo_666 said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Re long term changes.
I’m not quite so bleak as Rick in how I see changes manifesting themselves but I do foresee many coming out of this. The usual mix of foreseeable and unexpected ones.
Supermarkets. Won’t be at all surprised to see ranges stay permanently reduced and opening hours standardised. The economic benefits of both will assist the bottom line and roll back a scenario that was created pre-online shopping that they’ve struggled to roll back.
Permanent increase in online shopping.
Remote working: massive increase on a permanent basis and much less dedicated office space.
NHS. Hmmm, there will be changes but risky to guess what. Rationalisation of services maybe and simplification of management structures to tackle retention and provision.
Cultural. Who knows. Resumed respect for experts maybe. Social media suggests otherwise.
Political. I don’t think the virus will drastically change the political landscape in UK or Europe as we are all fairing similarly. The recession may change that.
Exercise. Short to mid term, people will appreciate the outdoors more and what the UK has to offer. More domestic tourism due to recession and travel industry decimation.
Travel industry. Fucked. Higher costs due to limited supply due to amount of closures.
Nationalism. I think countries will look internally at how they can be more self reliant having seen the world competing for limited resources. Maybe manufacturing domestically becomes an area of interest.
China. If the world perceives they deliberately provided faulty goods to the EU, trust may be eroded and a shift in the dynamic may happen. It may just be they provided faulty stuff because that’s what they were using.
More of a sense of community. Not expecting a massive shift but I have seen evidence locally.0 -
Ya think? I suspect China will emerge from this in a far stronger position than the rest of the world and the switch in the balance of power between them and the US will be accelerated. Unless Trump can work an economic miracle then America is looking in very bad shape and the knock on effect for the rest of us will be huge. Expect China to extract a huge price from debtor nations who want to continue trading with her (as we surely will). The world is going to be a very different place after this and not in a good way. The consequences for trashing our economies are going to be far reaching and painful. Just watch.morstar said:Re long term changes.
I’m not quite so bleak as Rick in how I see changes manifesting themselves but I do foresee many coming out of this. The usual mix of foreseeable and unexpected ones.
Supermarkets. Won’t be at all surprised to see ranges stay permanently reduced and opening hours standardised. The economic benefits of both will assist the bottom line and roll back a scenario that was created pre-online shopping that they’ve struggled to roll back.
Permanent increase in online shopping.
Remote working: massive increase on a permanent basis and much less dedicated office space.
NHS. Hmmm, there will be changes but risky to guess what. Rationalisation of services maybe and simplification of management structures to tackle retention and provision.
Cultural. Who knows. Resumed respect for experts maybe. Social media suggests otherwise.
Political. I don’t think the virus will drastically change the political landscape in UK or Europe as we are all fairing similarly. The recession may change that.
Exercise. Short to mid term, people will appreciate the outdoors more and what the UK has to offer. More domestic tourism due to recession and travel industry decimation.
Travel industry. censored . Higher costs due to limited supply due to amount of closures.
Nationalism. I think countries will look internally at how they can be more self reliant having seen the world competing for limited resources. Maybe manufacturing domestically becomes an area of interest.
China. If the world perceives they deliberately provided faulty goods to the EU, trust may be eroded and a shift in the dynamic may happen. It may just be they provided faulty stuff because that’s what they were using.
More of a sense of community. Not expecting a massive shift but I have seen evidence locally.0 -
You’ll notice I’ve focussed more locally than the global dynamic. So what you’re saying doesn’t really agree or disagree with my comments on the whole.shortfall said:
Ya think? I suspect China will emerge from this in a far stronger position than the rest of the world and the switch in the balance of power between them and the US will be accelerated. Unless Trump can work an economic miracle then America is fvcked and the knock on effect for the rest of us will be huge. Expect China to extract a huge price from debtor nations who want to continue trading with her (as we surely will). The world is going to be a very different place after this and not in a good way. The consequences for trashing our economies are going to be far reaching and painful. Just watch.morstar said:Re long term changes.
I’m not quite so bleak as Rick in how I see changes manifesting themselves but I do foresee many coming out of this. The usual mix of foreseeable and unexpected ones.
Supermarkets. Won’t be at all surprised to see ranges stay permanently reduced and opening hours standardised. The economic benefits of both will assist the bottom line and roll back a scenario that was created pre-online shopping that they’ve struggled to roll back.
Permanent increase in online shopping.
Remote working: massive increase on a permanent basis and much less dedicated office space.
NHS. Hmmm, there will be changes but risky to guess what. Rationalisation of services maybe and simplification of management structures to tackle retention and provision.
Cultural. Who knows. Resumed respect for experts maybe. Social media suggests otherwise.
Political. I don’t think the virus will drastically change the political landscape in UK or Europe as we are all fairing similarly. The recession may change that.
Exercise. Short to mid term, people will appreciate the outdoors more and what the UK has to offer. More domestic tourism due to recession and travel industry decimation.
Travel industry. censored . Higher costs due to limited supply due to amount of closures.
Nationalism. I think countries will look internally at how they can be more self reliant having seen the world competing for limited resources. Maybe manufacturing domestically becomes an area of interest.
China. If the world perceives they deliberately provided faulty goods to the EU, trust may be eroded and a shift in the dynamic may happen. It may just be they provided faulty stuff because that’s what they were using.
More of a sense of community. Not expecting a massive shift but I have seen evidence locally.
Re the global dynamic. I think China comes out incredibly strong yes, but they are strong based on low cost supply. I think two things will start to change. Western economies may finally realise we are too dependent on them and start to look both internally and to other markets. If we stop buying everything from China their power is reduced.
They are a becoming a global monopoly and we’ve sleep walked into that. But rather than continue down that path, we can start to change direction. I think this may sow the first seeds of that shift both through necessity and shifting attitudes.
The biggest risk is China aggressively asserting authority over other potential manufacturers.
As for US. They are / have been gradually declining for years but are still a huge market. If anything, their get through this quickly approach (by design or ignorance) is what you have argued could be the better economic path. So you can’t really argue they’ve allowed this to run and trashed the economy.0 -
I agree with most of that but America's get through it quickly approach has surely changed? In any case, that's not "my" solution. I have only questioned the wider ramifications of lockdown and the crushing of civil liberties and suggested that we look for solutions to the nations who haven't done this but who are so far coming out of it better than we are.morstar said:
You’ll notice I’ve focussed more locally than the global dynamic. So what you’re saying doesn’t really agree or disagree with my comments on the whole.shortfall said:
Ya think? I suspect China will emerge from this in a far stronger position than the rest of the world and the switch in the balance of power between them and the US will be accelerated. Unless Trump can work an economic miracle then America is fvcked and the knock on effect for the rest of us will be huge. Expect China to extract a huge price from debtor nations who want to continue trading with her (as we surely will). The world is going to be a very different place after this and not in a good way. The consequences for trashing our economies are going to be far reaching and painful. Just watch.morstar said:Re long term changes.
I’m not quite so bleak as Rick in how I see changes manifesting themselves but I do foresee many coming out of this. The usual mix of foreseeable and unexpected ones.
Supermarkets. Won’t be at all surprised to see ranges stay permanently reduced and opening hours standardised. The economic benefits of both will assist the bottom line and roll back a scenario that was created pre-online shopping that they’ve struggled to roll back.
Permanent increase in online shopping.
Remote working: massive increase on a permanent basis and much less dedicated office space.
NHS. Hmmm, there will be changes but risky to guess what. Rationalisation of services maybe and simplification of management structures to tackle retention and provision.
Cultural. Who knows. Resumed respect for experts maybe. Social media suggests otherwise.
Political. I don’t think the virus will drastically change the political landscape in UK or Europe as we are all fairing similarly. The recession may change that.
Exercise. Short to mid term, people will appreciate the outdoors more and what the UK has to offer. More domestic tourism due to recession and travel industry decimation.
Travel industry. censored . Higher costs due to limited supply due to amount of closures.
Nationalism. I think countries will look internally at how they can be more self reliant having seen the world competing for limited resources. Maybe manufacturing domestically becomes an area of interest.
China. If the world perceives they deliberately provided faulty goods to the EU, trust may be eroded and a shift in the dynamic may happen. It may just be they provided faulty stuff because that’s what they were using.
More of a sense of community. Not expecting a massive shift but I have seen evidence locally.
Re the global dynamic. I think China comes out incredibly strong yes, but they are strong based on low cost supply. I think two things will start to change. Western economies may finally realise we are too dependent on them and start to look both internally and to other markets. If we stop buying everything from China their power is reduced.
They are a becoming a global monopoly and we’ve sleep walked into that. But rather than continue down that path, we can start to change direction. I think this may sow the first seeds of that shift both through necessity and shifting attitudes.
The biggest risk is China aggressively asserting authority over other potential manufacturers.
As for US. They are / have been gradually declining for years but are still a huge market. If anything, their get through this quickly approach (by design or ignorance) is what you have argued could be the better economic path. So you can’t really argue they’ve allowed this to run and trashed the economy.
I'd also question the likelihood of the West being in a position to get back on their feet whilst keeping g China at arms length. We're still going to want to buy lots of cheap stuff and not be in a position to be fussy about where it comes from? And surely they're going to be the ones dictating terms being as they're the World's biggest creditor?0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.0 -
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.0 -
Ask those who have been banging on about tax and spend.
We have seen the spending, we will be taxed to oblivion. With all that entails.
For benefit of doubt, I think the spending was necessary.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 -
My worry is that we are inventing smart arse financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.0 -
pblakeney said:
Ask those who have been banging on about tax and spend.
We have seen the spending, we will be taxed to oblivion. With all that entails.
For benefit of doubt, I think the spending was necessary.
Agreed - as I have long argued the problem was our start point0 -
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic0 -
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.0 -
The highest gross remption yield on a gilt is currently 82 bps on the 2046 one. If there was a concern rates would have gone up instead they are much much lower than they have been historically .0
-
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.0 -
TheBigBean said:
The highest gross remption yield on a gilt is currently 82 bps on the 2046 one. If there was a concern rates would have gone up instead they are much much lower than they have been historically .
That just rings a bigger alarm bell.
Why adopt this dubious strategy when there is no apparent need?0 -
The buyers of a lot of gilts are currently stuck at home wrestling with kids and sickness not fully focused on work. Haven't you noticed?surrey_commuter said:TheBigBean said:The highest gross remption yield on a gilt is currently 82 bps on the 2046 one. If there was a concern rates would have gone up instead they are much much lower than they have been historically .
That just rings a bigger alarm bell.
Why adopt this dubious strategy when there is no apparent need?1 -
Gilts also didn’t perform as expected during the recent crash so investors have ditched their “buy gilts in a downturn” strategy and are sitting in cash till they know what the hell is going on.TheBigBean said:
The buyers of a lot of gilts are currently stuck at home wrestling with kids and sickness not fully focused on work. Haven't you noticed?surrey_commuter said:TheBigBean said:The highest gross remption yield on a gilt is currently 82 bps on the 2046 one. If there was a concern rates would have gone up instead they are much much lower than they have been historically .
That just rings a bigger alarm bell.
Why adopt this dubious strategy when there is no apparent need?0 -
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Plenty of alchemy during the gold stanard time0
-
Crown traditionally used taxation to fund wars.rjsterry said:
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.
This is not a new invention, it is a massive extension of an existing instrument.
And still you chose to ignore my use of the word “since”0 -
rick_chasey said:
Gilts also didn’t perform as expected during the recent crash so investors have ditched their “buy gilts in a downturn” strategy and are sitting in cash till they know what the hell is going on.TheBigBean said:
The buyers of a lot of gilts are currently stuck at home wrestling with kids and sickness not fully focused on work. Haven't you noticed?surrey_commuter said:TheBigBean said:The highest gross remption yield on a gilt is currently 82 bps on the 2046 one. If there was a concern rates would have gone up instead they are much much lower than they have been historically .
That just rings a bigger alarm bell.
Why adopt this dubious strategy when there is no apparent need?
Govt were three times over subscribed
“Sitting in cash” does that mean I need to worry about borrowing indefinitely?0 -
Anyone who worried about Diane Abbott being home secretary...
Priti Patel: "I've been in the Home Office working virtually every single day, seven days a week, three days a week in the Home Office actually."0 -
Interesting that she only reappeared once Boris had disappearedkingstongraham said:Anyone who worried about Diane Abbott being home secretary...
Priti Patel: "I've been in the Home Office working virtually every single day, seven days a week, three days a week in the Home Office actually."0 -
So are you just pointing out that it's a long time since the government borrowed this much?surrey_commuter said:
Crown traditionally used taxation to fund wars.rjsterry said:
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.
This is not a new invention, it is a massive extension of an existing instrument.
And still you chose to ignore my use of the word “since”
Yes the Crown did raise taxes as well, and any other way they could think of. In 1347 Edward III defaulted on a loan to one of the early Florentine banks. Money he borrowed to finance the invasion of France. The invasion failed; Edward defaulted and the bank went bust.
https://www.beyondtheyalladog.com/2015/11/peruzzi-bank-and-the-interest-on-king-edward-iiis-loan/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
My original point is more lucid than my usual offering, as such I do not think any attempt to clarify what I meant will be successful.rjsterry said:
So are you just pointing out that it's a long time since the government borrowed this much?surrey_commuter said:
Crown traditionally used taxation to fund wars.rjsterry said:
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.
This is not a new invention, it is a massive extension of an existing instrument.
And still you chose to ignore my use of the word “since”
Yes the Crown did raise taxes as well, and any other way they could think of. In 1347 Edward III defaulted on a loan to one of the early Florentine banks. Money he borrowed to finance the invasion of France. The invasion failed; Edward defaulted and the bank went bust.
https://www.beyondtheyalladog.com/2015/11/peruzzi-bank-and-the-interest-on-king-edward-iiis-loan/0 -
So how does this problematic central bank behaviour end up?surrey_commuter said:
My original point is more lucid than my usual offering, as such I do not think any attempt to clarify what I meant will be successful.rjsterry said:
So are you just pointing out that it's a long time since the government borrowed this much?surrey_commuter said:
Crown traditionally used taxation to fund wars.rjsterry said:
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.
This is not a new invention, it is a massive extension of an existing instrument.
And still you chose to ignore my use of the word “since”
Yes the Crown did raise taxes as well, and any other way they could think of. In 1347 Edward III defaulted on a loan to one of the early Florentine banks. Money he borrowed to finance the invasion of France. The invasion failed; Edward defaulted and the bank went bust.
https://www.beyondtheyalladog.com/2015/11/peruzzi-bank-and-the-interest-on-king-edward-iiis-loan/
What problem is it storing up?
It’s not quite clear to me what you expect to happen.0 -
I'm only guessing but I picture a fan and some sh!t.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 -
Even if you don’t agree with my opinion on public debt surely you understand it?rick_chasey said:
So how does this problematic central bank behaviour end up?surrey_commuter said:
My original point is more lucid than my usual offering, as such I do not think any attempt to clarify what I meant will be successful.rjsterry said:
So are you just pointing out that it's a long time since the government borrowed this much?surrey_commuter said:
Crown traditionally used taxation to fund wars.rjsterry said:
I don't follow. The Crown borrowing to fight a war goes back to at least the beginning of banking. Bankers continue to invent new ways of lending. There are lots of things not invented in 1815, that we now take for granted. Some of them have turned out to have serious side effects. Why would the same not apply to lending?surrey_commuter said:
I did not arbitrarily chose that date, the primacy and ingenuity of the City of London allowed us to fund and win the war.rjsterry said:
Not really a comment on Rick's link, but "they didn't try this 200 years ago" is not much of an argument.surrey_commuter said:
Not at all.rick_chasey said:
How would this action blow up?surrey_commuter said:
My worry is that we are inventing smart censored financial products that will explode and leave us looking like Greece.rick_chasey said:
What’s your worry? Inflation?surrey_commuter said:So those who think the ability to borrow is unlimited what do you think about the BofE using it’s Ways and Means account to avoid a possible failed gilts offering.
As somebody who thinks QE does not pass the sniff test this really is dodgy. Interesting that it is banned in the Eurozone.
This might put your mind at rest: https://voxeu.org/article/monetisation-do-not-panic
A cleverer man than me uses economic theory to show me that something is OK.
My mind is still screaming that if it was such a fantastic idea why did they not do it in the Napoleonic wars or any financial crisis since.
Can you really not think of any recent examples of clever chaps inventing new financial instruments to solve a problem.
I also said since so including WW1, WW2, oil price shock, us going to IMF and GFC.
And now we have adopted a solution that was deemed unacceptable as a solution to those crises.
This is not a new invention, it is a massive extension of an existing instrument.
And still you chose to ignore my use of the word “since”
Yes the Crown did raise taxes as well, and any other way they could think of. In 1347 Edward III defaulted on a loan to one of the early Florentine banks. Money he borrowed to finance the invasion of France. The invasion failed; Edward defaulted and the bank went bust.
https://www.beyondtheyalladog.com/2015/11/peruzzi-bank-and-the-interest-on-king-edward-iiis-loan/
What problem is it storing up?
It’s not quite clear to me what you expect to happen.
I am merely passing on news that the Govt is resorting to non-traditional means of meeting it’s funding requirements. In nobody’s world can this be a positive.
You may still think that I am wrong but your level of certainty will/should have reduced.0
