Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Is this the general politics thread now? Because this is an amazing headline:
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/swastika-hot-cross-bun-row-sees-portsmouth-conservative-councillor-lee-mason-suspended-tory-party-25399850 -
-
Great! Tax at 94% for the highest earners.
😱😢😱
They will be chuffed.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 -
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀0 -
If you think we will have a problem with debt, watch Italy as this crisis unfolds and what that might do for the Eurozone. I predicted this a while back and looks like the trigger point may have come sooner than anyone realised.surrey_commuter said:
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Double post.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Which is pretty much what the report says.surrey_commuter said:If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
1. Taxes were kept high. Before the war, tax revenue as a percent of GDP had never been higher than 7.8%. Since the war it’s averaged 14%, and has never gone below 11% in a given year. The top marginal tax rate went from 24% in 1929 to 94% by 1945, and would not drop below 80% for another 20 years.
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 -
Lucky its a US report then - and as everyone in Cake Stop knows, anything the US does is stupid so we wouldn't follow their example
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sorry I really don’t get the relevance.Stevo_666 said:
If you think we will have a problem with debt, watch Italy as this crisis unfolds and what that might do for the Eurozone. I predicted this a while back and looks like the trigger point may have come sooner than anyone realised.surrey_commuter said:
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀
Are you saying our political leaders will wake up when a similar sized economy gets into debt related trouble? because if so I don’t share your optimism0 -
Not my main point. I'm mentionng another country with a larger debt issue than ours which may come to a head sooner. If that helps to wake people up then good.surrey_commuter said:
Sorry I really don’t get the relevance.Stevo_666 said:
If you think we will have a problem with debt, watch Italy as this crisis unfolds and what that might do for the Eurozone. I predicted this a while back and looks like the trigger point may have come sooner than anyone realised.surrey_commuter said:
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀
Are you saying our political leaders will wake up when a similar sized economy gets into debt related trouble? because if so I don’t share your optimism"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The only reason I care about other countries being deeper in the hole than us is because of the inevitable hits to the UK economy. I really see nothing to celebrateStevo_666 said:
Not my main point. I'm mentionng another country with a larger debt issue than ours which may come to a head sooner. If that helps to wake people up then good.surrey_commuter said:
Sorry I really don’t get the relevance.Stevo_666 said:
If you think we will have a problem with debt, watch Italy as this crisis unfolds and what that might do for the Eurozone. I predicted this a while back and looks like the trigger point may have come sooner than anyone realised.surrey_commuter said:
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀
Are you saying our political leaders will wake up when a similar sized economy gets into debt related trouble? because if so I don’t share your optimism0 -
Who mentioned celebrating?surrey_commuter said:
The only reason I care about other countries being deeper in the hole than us is because of the inevitable hits to the UK economy. I really see nothing to celebrateStevo_666 said:
Not my main point. I'm mentionng another country with a larger debt issue than ours which may come to a head sooner. If that helps to wake people up then good.surrey_commuter said:
Sorry I really don’t get the relevance.Stevo_666 said:
If you think we will have a problem with debt, watch Italy as this crisis unfolds and what that might do for the Eurozone. I predicted this a while back and looks like the trigger point may have come sooner than anyone realised.surrey_commuter said:
I get your argument- I just don’t agree with it.rick_chasey said:
My argument is to mix your knowledge of economics, mix in a dose of common sense and then apply a filter of logical thinking.
Every few years we have a new Chancellor who preaches a version of “prudence” and introduces a new set of financial disciplines because the old ones no longer apply due to some paradigm shift.
Your link extols last month’s theory that so long as debt grows slower than GDP then we remain in a land of milk and honey.
This month we have a new boy and a new theory that we need to keep debt servicing costs below 6% and then we remain in the land of milk and honey.
Why change theory? they had breached it year after year and had announced spending plans that would see them breach it for the next 5 years.
Essentially I think where we disagree is what the end game will look like. If I am right then you think we will see a gradual tightening of the debt markets and the Govt will cut it’s cloth to get debt under control.
I think the tipping point was the GFC and that since then debt is already beyond political control. The underlying debt position will continue to worsen until another black swan hits and the end game will look like Greece ten years ago with the Govt forced to live within its means.
We are both dogmatic people but there must be a part of you you that would give a % chance on me being right.
You of course can not prove me wrong as I will just duck behind timing 😀
Are you saying our political leaders will wake up when a similar sized economy gets into debt related trouble? because if so I don’t share your optimism"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
so the BofE has increased QE to £50bn a month for the next four months
HMG is raising £60bn a month for the next four months
so it is deemed ridiculous for the Bof E to directly buy gilts so it takes an equivalent sum out of the market so the people it just bought off can buy back from the Govt
now what if the emperor has no clothes and the above is just total bow locks?0 -
Does this mean you have finalled acknowledged that the BoE owns a lot of the government's debt on behalf of the treasury?surrey_commuter said:so the BofE has increased QE to £50bn a month for the next four months
HMG is raising £60bn a month for the next four months
so it is deemed ridiculous for the Bof E to directly buy gilts so it takes an equivalent sum out of the market so the people it just bought off can buy back from the Govt
now what if the emperor has no clothes and the above is just total bow locks?0 -
I have never denied that.TheBigBean said:
Does this mean you have finalled acknowledged that the BoE owns a lot of the government's debt on behalf of the treasury?surrey_commuter said:so the BofE has increased QE to £50bn a month for the next four months
HMG is raising £60bn a month for the next four months
so it is deemed ridiculous for the Bof E to directly buy gilts so it takes an equivalent sum out of the market so the people it just bought off can buy back from the Govt
now what if the emperor has no clothes and the above is just total bow locks?
If this was in the private sector it would be called a scam0 -
I’ve already posted multiple explanations for why this is probably ok.surrey_commuter said:
I have never denied that.TheBigBean said:
Does this mean you have finalled acknowledged that the BoE owns a lot of the government's debt on behalf of the treasury?surrey_commuter said:so the BofE has increased QE to £50bn a month for the next four months
HMG is raising £60bn a month for the next four months
so it is deemed ridiculous for the Bof E to directly buy gilts so it takes an equivalent sum out of the market so the people it just bought off can buy back from the Govt
now what if the emperor has no clothes and the above is just total bow locks?
If this was in the private sector it would be called a scam0 -
That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”0
-
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
0 -
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.0 -
And you've forgotten it again.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
0 -
I think we were talking about the BoE's latest scheme. Your words were "that's a colossal gamble on something that is probably OK." It would have been lovely if we didn't have so much debt when Covid-19 kicked off, but we did. Wishing it wasn't so seems a bit futile.surrey_commuter said:
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Our whole debate is over debt levels and if there is an end point what it looks like. Rick believes we are way off unsustainable levels I disagree and think that recent events are warning signs. Rick believes that we will see the end coming and mitigate accordingly, I believe by the time the politicians accept the inevitable it will be far too late.rjsterry said:
I think we were talking about the BoE's latest scheme. Your words were "that's a colossal gamble on something that is probably OK." It would have been lovely if we didn't have so much debt when Covid-19 kicked off, but we did. Wishing it wasn't so seems a bit futile.surrey_commuter said:
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.
TBB thinks it is good that the BofE buys up lots of our debt, I think that it is an accounting sleight of hand that covers up that we would struggle to sell that volume of gilts.
The debate is more about how much debt we have when the next black swan hits, this makes our current situation relevant and not to ignore on the grounds it is futile.0 -
Hey SC how do you explain the post WW2 recovery in the US?
Given it was more indebted proportionally than it has ever been before or sense immediately after?0 -
I haven't expressed an opinion other than that you consistently talk about the total debt and ignore the BoE's holdings. This is broadly the same as sending the EU £350m a week.surrey_commuter said:
Our whole debate is over debt levels and if there is an end point what it looks like. Rick believes we are way off unsustainable levels I disagree and think that recent events are warning signs. Rick believes that we will see the end coming and mitigate accordingly, I believe by the time the politicians accept the inevitable it will be far too late.rjsterry said:
I think we were talking about the BoE's latest scheme. Your words were "that's a colossal gamble on something that is probably OK." It would have been lovely if we didn't have so much debt when Covid-19 kicked off, but we did. Wishing it wasn't so seems a bit futile.surrey_commuter said:
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.
TBB thinks it is good that the BofE buys up lots of our debt, I think that it is an accounting sleight of hand that covers up that we would struggle to sell that volume of gilts.
The debate is more about how much debt we have when the next black swan hits, this makes our current situation relevant and not to ignore on the grounds it is futile.0 -
Spending and high taxes. This was covered a couple of weeks ago.rick_chasey said:Hey SC how do you explain the post WW2 recovery in the US?
Given it was more indebted proportionally than it has ever been before or sense immediately after?
Expect huge increases in tax for the foreseeable once recovery begins..
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 -
You are conflating war spending with spending to live beyond your means for decade after decade. Why are you so confident that will stop?rick_chasey said:Hey SC how do you explain the post WW2 recovery in the US?
Given it was more indebted proportionally than it has ever been before or sense immediately after?0 -
TheBigBean said:
I haven't expressed an opinion other than that you consistently talk about the total debt and ignore the BoE's holdings. This is broadly the same as sending the EU £350m a week.surrey_commuter said:
Our whole debate is over debt levels and if there is an end point what it looks like. Rick believes we are way off unsustainable levels I disagree and think that recent events are warning signs. Rick believes that we will see the end coming and mitigate accordingly, I believe by the time the politicians accept the inevitable it will be far too late.rjsterry said:
I think we were talking about the BoE's latest scheme. Your words were "that's a colossal gamble on something that is probably OK." It would have been lovely if we didn't have so much debt when Covid-19 kicked off, but we did. Wishing it wasn't so seems a bit futile.surrey_commuter said:
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.
TBB thinks it is good that the BofE buys up lots of our debt, I think that it is an accounting sleight of hand that covers up that we would struggle to sell that volume of gilts.
The debate is more about how much debt we have when the next black swan hits, this makes our current situation relevant and not to ignore on the grounds it is futile.
I don’t get that comparisonTheBigBean said:
I haven't expressed an opinion other than that you consistently talk about the total debt and ignore the BoE's holdings. This is broadly the same as sending the EU £350m a week.surrey_commuter said:
Our whole debate is over debt levels and if there is an end point what it looks like. Rick believes we are way off unsustainable levels I disagree and think that recent events are warning signs. Rick believes that we will see the end coming and mitigate accordingly, I believe by the time the politicians accept the inevitable it will be far too late.rjsterry said:
I think we were talking about the BoE's latest scheme. Your words were "that's a colossal gamble on something that is probably OK." It would have been lovely if we didn't have so much debt when Covid-19 kicked off, but we did. Wishing it wasn't so seems a bit futile.surrey_commuter said:
The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.rjsterry said:
There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.surrey_commuter said:
The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.rjsterry said:
And the alternatives at this point?surrey_commuter said:That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”
Your question, as a stand-alone, makes no sense as it presupposes I think the Govt’s response is wrong, therefore I attempted to answer it in the context of the existing debate.
TBB thinks it is good that the BofE buys up lots of our debt, I think that it is an accounting sleight of hand that covers up that we would struggle to sell that volume of gilts.
The debate is more about how much debt we have when the next black swan hits, this makes our current situation relevant and not to ignore on the grounds it is futile.0
