Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I don’t really understand it that’s why I’m asking.surrey_commuter said:
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.
To me it’s a highly technical question.0 -
Sure it's an extraordinary measure, but I'm not sure what alternatives they had. I agree there's increased uncertainty, but that applies to everything at the moment. It might not work (how ever you want to define that) but doing nothing looks more certain to not work.surrey_commuter said:
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.
I don't think comparing this to some of the pre-2008 'clever ideas' is fair without explaining why they are similar. If you are comparing this to the funding of the Napoleonic war effort, then again, I think you need to make a more detailed case of why the two are comparable.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
QE was first used in Japan in 2001 and the UK in 2009. If it is such a wonderful, painless idea then why did nobody use it before Japan and why did we take 8 years to adopt it.rjsterry said:
Sure it's an extraordinary measure, but I'm not sure what alternatives they had. I agree there's increased uncertainty, but that applies to everything at the moment. It might not work (how ever you want to define that) but doing nothing looks more certain to not work.surrey_commuter said:
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.
I don't think comparing this to some of the pre-2008 'clever ideas' is fair without explaining why they are similar. If you are comparing this to the funding of the Napoleonic war effort, then again, I think you need to make a more detailed case of why the two are comparable.
My whole argument is that we should not run perpetual deficits because when you need to take on debt your wriggle room will be curtailed. Everybody except SteveO told me I was wrong and that we could borrow forever at no cost to the economy. Now you tell me we are in an extraordinary situation and need to resort to extraordinary measures to secure Govt funding.0 -
That's a complete exaggeration of what I and others said. If we had a lower level of debt, the need to borrow now may have been reduced but we are where we are. In the current state what are the alternatives? If your house is on fire, you would still put the fire out first and worry about water shortages later1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Basically BofE is giving the Govt an overdraft. Why is this a danger sign?rick_chasey said:
I don’t really understand it that’s why I’m asking.surrey_commuter said:
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.
To me it’s a highly technical question.
April 6th new guv’nor said he would not do it
Previously done by Weimar Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe
No developed economy ever done it
Banned in the Eurozone
Shows the magnitude of required borrowing
Shows their fear of failed gilts issue.0 -
Sure that I get.surrey_commuter said:
Basically BofE is giving the Govt an overdraft. Why is this a danger sign?rick_chasey said:
I don’t really understand it that’s why I’m asking.surrey_commuter said:
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.
To me it’s a highly technical question.
April 6th new guv’nor said he would not do it
Previously done by Weimar Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe
No developed economy ever done it
Banned in the Eurozone
Shows the magnitude of required borrowing
Shows their fear of failed gilts issue.
So, to be clear, all the examples you have offered are examples of hyperinflation, so is that your concern?0 -
In what way is that an exaggeration? How many of you disapproved of the most expansionary budget in peacetime? Where are the calls to cull discretionary spending?rjsterry said:That's a complete exaggeration of what I and others said. If we had a lower level of debt, the need to borrow now may have been reduced but we are where we are. In the current state what are the alternatives? If your house is on fire, you would still put the fire out first and worry about water shortages later
My argument is that we were always going to end up in the poo.0 -
You are confusing cause and effect.rick_chasey said:
Sure that I get.surrey_commuter said:
Basically BofE is giving the Govt an overdraft. Why is this a danger sign?rick_chasey said:
I don’t really understand it that’s why I’m asking.surrey_commuter said:
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.
To me it’s a highly technical question.
April 6th new guv’nor said he would not do it
Previously done by Weimar Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe
No developed economy ever done it
Banned in the Eurozone
Shows the magnitude of required borrowing
Shows their fear of failed gilts issue.
So, to be clear, all the examples you have offered are examples of hyperinflation, so is that your concern?0 -
Nobody has said that we can borrow forever at no cost to the economy. Everything has a cost. No treatment is without side effects. It's always a balance of one lot of costs against another.surrey_commuter said:
In what way is that an exaggeration? How many of you disapproved of the most expansionary budget in peacetime? Where are the calls to cull discretionary spending?rjsterry said:That's a complete exaggeration of what I and others said. If we had a lower level of debt, the need to borrow now may have been reduced but we are where we are. In the current state what are the alternatives? If your house is on fire, you would still put the fire out first and worry about water shortages later
My argument is that we were always going to end up in the poo.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Might have to spell it out for me.surrey_commuter said:
You are confusing cause and effect.rick_chasey said:
Sure that I get.surrey_commuter said:
Basically BofE is giving the Govt an overdraft. Why is this a danger sign?rick_chasey said:
I don’t really understand it that’s why I’m asking.surrey_commuter said:
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.
To me it’s a highly technical question.
April 6th new guv’nor said he would not do it
Previously done by Weimar Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe
No developed economy ever done it
Banned in the Eurozone
Shows the magnitude of required borrowing
Shows their fear of failed gilts issue.
So, to be clear, all the examples you have offered are examples of hyperinflation, so is that your concern?
0 -
FWIW, not that they’re often right but plenty of sell side analysts expecting a sharp *drop* in inflation as there will be a deep output gap.0
-
Perhaps a bit closer to the original thread title the leak of the “inquiry” into antisemitism in labour manages to twist it into an 800 page document blaming factionalism *against Corbyn* for the antisemitism.
Would recommend getting stuck into some of the quotes; the whole thing is horrendous and everyone comes out looking terrible.0 -
Maybe you are scarred by childhood memories of Thatcher’s fight against inflation or maybe your economics text books were written against a similar background.rick_chasey said:FWIW, not that they’re often right but plenty of sell side analysts expecting a sharp *drop* in inflation as there will be a deep output gap.
Remove all thoughts of inflation and then think about the point I am trying to make about HMG taking extraordinary measures to ensure they get the funding they need.0 -
I'm still not 100% sure I really know what you're on about, but here's someone who people I rate seem to rate so take a looksurrey_commuter said:
Maybe you are scarred by childhood memories of Thatcher’s fight against inflation or maybe your economics text books were written against a similar background.rick_chasey said:FWIW, not that they’re often right but plenty of sell side analysts expecting a sharp *drop* in inflation as there will be a deep output gap.
Remove all thoughts of inflation and then think about the point I am trying to make about HMG taking extraordinary measures to ensure they get the funding they need.
https://mobile.twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/12481637989571420160 -
I think that he is saying that the money tree doesn’t come for free. There will be a pay back post virus. Even if you’ve not collected.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 -
Sort of. The old money tree is looking a bit unsafe so we just found a new one. Bizarrely, despite this well laden tree being there all along we had not used it before, leaving that to our cousins the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.pblakeney said:I think that he is saying that the money tree doesn’t come for free. There will be a pay back post virus. Even if you’ve not collected.
To be clear this is not about inflation.
I see this as a warning sign (that will be ignored) not the end game.0 -
-
And a country running substantial deficits year after year is most likely to have a massive deficit in a time of systemic instability.rick_chasey said:I think it is a lot more about financial system stability than much else at this stage.
You fix the roof when the sun is shining so you are in a better position to deal with the inevitable storm0 -
Don't think anyone disagrees with that basic premise. It's just that the sun hasn't really shone since 2008 and the roof is still leaking. Sometimes you have to get the ladder out when it's still raining.surrey_commuter said:
And a country running substantial deficits year after year is most likely to have a massive deficit in a time of systemic instability.rick_chasey said:I think it is a lot more about financial system stability than much else at this stage.
You fix the roof when the sun is shining so you are in a better position to deal with the inevitable storm1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I might have to dig out that chart that shows the proportion of GDP spent on debt servicing was at something close to an all-time low.surrey_commuter said:
And a country running substantial deficits year after year is most likely to have a massive deficit in a time of systemic instability.rick_chasey said:I think it is a lot more about financial system stability than much else at this stage.
You fix the roof when the sun is shining so you are in a better position to deal with the inevitable storm
I guess we disagree on the premise of what a 'substantial deficit' is.0 -
My worry is what the debt service ratio will look like in the future, not the past. Your mortgage lender does not assess affordability on the current historically low rates.rick_chasey said:
I might have to dig out that chart that shows the proportion of GDP spent on debt servicing was at something close to an all-time low.surrey_commuter said:
And a country running substantial deficits year after year is most likely to have a massive deficit in a time of systemic instability.rick_chasey said:I think it is a lot more about financial system stability than much else at this stage.
You fix the roof when the sun is shining so you are in a better position to deal with the inevitable storm
I guess we disagree on the premise of what a 'substantial deficit' is.
You still have no qualms about all the debt we voluntarily took on board now that we need to borrow?
Still OK with Boris’s vanity projects?
Very soon we will be well over 100%, still OK with that?
On the safe assumption we will do nothing to cut debt before the next black swan pops up we could be staring at 200%, you OK with that?0 -
I don't know where to draw the line in the sand re debt proportions. I've said before, and I've posted a better proposal that is more well thought out than my ideas but works along the same lines; be guided by the proportion of gdp sent on debt servicing.
If rates hike up when the rollover happens to push the costs above the threshold spending will have to be cut back quite hard etc etc.
I also think there needs to be recognition that in the current environment the cost of the gov't not propping up the economy would be massively more.0 -
In principle I don’t agree. In practice we are led by politicians who will never cut the debt and the level it is at if rates return to normal we will be fvcked. Cutting spending will look like cutting public sector wages and pensions by 20%.rick_chasey said:I don't know where to draw the line in the sand re debt proportions. I've said before, and I've posted a better proposal that is more well thought out than my ideas but works along the same lines; be guided by the proportion of gdp sent on debt servicing.
If rates hike up when the rollover happens to push the costs above the threshold spending will have to be cut back quite hard etc etc.
I also think there needs to be recognition that in the current environment the cost of the gov't not propping up the economy would be massively more.
They had another stop opportunity on HS2 yesterday and gave the go ahead - these people should be in prison0 -
-
That is based upon the assumption that your downturn is caused by a reduction in demand.rick_chasey said:Counter cyclical fiscal spending is macro economic policy 101.
Over the next ten years do you really think they can not think of a better way to spend £100bn?0 -
Well yes absolutely. Is there anything to suggest this is not the case?surrey_commuter said:
That is based upon the assumption that your downturn is caused by a reduction in demand.rick_chasey said:Counter cyclical fiscal spending is macro economic policy 101.
0 -
I was putting it down to the C19 pandemic. It is not caused by consumers having a lack of money.rick_chasey said:
Well yes absolutely. Is there anything to suggest this is not the case?surrey_commuter said:
That is based upon the assumption that your downturn is caused by a reduction in demand.rick_chasey said:Counter cyclical fiscal spending is macro economic policy 101.
0 -
Has it not caused a reduction in demand? I'm not demanding any services from any shops & cafes for starters, given I'm not allowed out and they have been shuttered by the gov't.surrey_commuter said:
I was putting it down to the C19 pandemic. It is not caused by consumers having a lack of money.rick_chasey said:
Well yes absolutely. Is there anything to suggest this is not the case?surrey_commuter said:
That is based upon the assumption that your downturn is caused by a reduction in demand.rick_chasey said:Counter cyclical fiscal spending is macro economic policy 101.
0 -
Given the numbers signing up for UC, I think there might be a quite noticeable lack of money.surrey_commuter said:
I was putting it down to the C19 pandemic. It is not caused by consumers having a lack of money.rick_chasey said:
Well yes absolutely. Is there anything to suggest this is not the case?surrey_commuter said:
That is based upon the assumption that your downturn is caused by a reduction in demand.rick_chasey said:Counter cyclical fiscal spending is macro economic policy 101.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
