Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1368370372373374

Posts

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282

    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?

    You are conflating war spending with spending to live beyond your means for decade after decade. Why are you so confident that will stop?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.
    I don’t get that comparison
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282
    pblakeney 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?

    Spending and high taxes. This was covered a couple of weeks ago.
    Expect huge increases in tax for the foreseeable once recovery begins..

    I can’t see that happening

    The last budget as something like 12 days before lockdown yet they ploughed ahead with increased spending and no major tax increases.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,408

    pblakeney 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?

    Spending and high taxes. This was covered a couple of weeks ago.
    Expect huge increases in tax for the foreseeable once recovery begins..

    I can’t see that happening

    The last budget as something like 12 days before lockdown yet they ploughed ahead with increased spending and no major tax increases.
    Yes, but as you say that was before they appreciated the full impact of the virus.
    I doubt anyone can predict the full impact even now.
    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.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,613

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.
    I don’t get that comparison
    The UK's obligation to the EU is £350m a week, but some of that money comes back. Therefore, many think that a net figure is more appropriate.

    The UK's obligation through it's gilts is [some large number], but some of this money will come back (approx 1/3). Therefore, some think that a net figure is more appropriate.

    Now you can argue that the net figure, for either example, is too high, but at least use appropriate figures.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    That is a colossal gamble on something that is “probably ok”

    And the alternatives at this point?
    The alternative was not to have debt over 80% of GDP when the next black swan flapped into view.
    There were only 6 words and you ignored 3 of them. At *this point* what alternative do you suggest.
    The debate we are having is about whether continuously running a deficit is sustainable.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 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.
    I don’t get that comparison
    The UK's obligation to the EU is £350m a week, but some of that money comes back. Therefore, many think that a net figure is more appropriate.

    The UK's obligation through it's gilts is [some large number], but some of this money will come back (approx 1/3). Therefore, some think that a net figure is more appropriate.

    Now you can argue that the net figure, for either example, is too high, but at least use appropriate figures.
    In my simple world one part of the State buying debt off another part of the State does not mean that it has been annulled.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,613
    So £350m a week it is then.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282

    So £350m a week it is then.

    In my simple world, yes.

    Surely by your logic is Wandsworth Council buys debt it no longer counts
    And a public sector pension fund also annuls

    What I don’t get is if I buy £100 of gilts does that mean it no longer exists because somebody has bought them?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,613
    Ok, one last time in an attempt to make this really easy. The treasury pays interest to the holders of its gilts. This includes the BoE. The BoE gives this interest back to the treasury.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282

    Ok, one last time in an attempt to make this really easy. The treasury pays interest to the holders of its gilts. This includes the BoE. The BoE gives this interest back to the treasury.

    Is this not very marginal?

    O due date who takes the hit?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,613
    It's a "marginal" £35b or so a year. Not sure how you can argue that the overall debt service is large, but one third of it is marginal.

    When it matures the prevailing view is that it will rolled over in perpetuity.

    It therefore has no impact on the country's finances and is largely an accounting entry which has helped provide evidence for austerity when that was fashionable
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,533 Lives Here
    pblakeney 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?

    Spending and high taxes. This was covered a couple of weeks ago.
    Expect huge increases in tax for the foreseeable once recovery begins..
    Right. So we have the spending, right?

    Is the concern the taxes bit?

    If so, go out and campaign for your mate Starmer.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,408
    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.
    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.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,533 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:

    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.

    What is a false assumption?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282
    pblakeney said:

    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.

    Unless they think of something really clever they will never be able to raise taxes by enough
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,408

    pblakeney said:

    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.

    What is a false assumption?
    The my mate Starmer bit.
    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.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,408

    pblakeney said:

    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.

    Unless they think of something really clever they will never be able to raise taxes by enough
    No. But in the income/outgoings/debt balance they are going to have be really clever on all accounts.
    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.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282
    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    The concern will be future taxes.
    The rest is a huge, and false, assumption.

    Unless they think of something really clever they will never be able to raise taxes by enough
    No. But in the income/outgoings/debt balance they are going to have be really clever on all accounts.
    Or borrow more so we can continue to live beyond our means help whichever charlatan is PM to get re-elected.

    In the blink of an eye we went from balancing the budget manana to Boris promising not to balance the books before the next election.

    I remember those halcyon days when El Gordo was an irresponsible lunatic for only promising to balance the books over the economic cycle. Oh how we lambasted him for not fixing the roof when the sun was shining.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,408
    Well, my thinking is that we are financially fooked regardless of who is in power.
    Very happy to be proven wrong.
    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.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282
    pblakeney said:

    Well, my thinking is that we are financially fooked regardless of who is in power.
    Very happy to be proven wrong.

    Agreed until conservatives take back leadership of the Conservative Party
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,213
    Interesting article by William Hague on the need to be vigilant against the threat of leftiebollox in the post-COVID world:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/18/right-must-plan-now-save-post-covid-world-torment-socialism/
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,533 Lives Here
    edited 21 May
    The NHS migrant levy u turn is a lovely example of the value of competent opposition.

    Think that’s known as actually “winning argument”.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,282
    Stevo_666 said:

    Interesting article by William Hague on the need to be vigilant against the threat of leftiebollox in the post-COVID world:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/18/right-must-plan-now-save-post-covid-world-torment-socialism/

    I can’t see the article but is there a chance it is a reference to Boris being a TINO?
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,213
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 4,397

    Stevo_666 said:

    Interesting article by William Hague on the need to be vigilant against the threat of leftiebollox in the post-COVID world:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/18/right-must-plan-now-save-post-covid-world-torment-socialism/

    I can’t see the article but is there a chance it is a reference to Boris being a TINO?

    I don't think so. It's a vaguely realistic survey of the general political landscape ahead.

    "Most ominously, Sir Keir Starmer has taken an increasingly critical line in the House of Commons, using much more forensic thinking and a more reasonable manner than could ever have been mustered by his predecessor. We can be sure that, as the drama of today’s health crisis is followed by the long agony of massive unemployment and a slow economic recovery, any last attempt at political consensus will disappear. This is merely the phoney war, and an immense ideological conflict will shortly commence.

    It will be a conflict in which the natural supporters of free enterprise as the foundation of human progress, and fiscal responsibility as the bedrock of a confident economy, will suddenly find themselves on the back foot. In Britain, and many other countries, the state has intervened in the lives of families and businesses more than ever before in peacetime. It is only too easy to think that what has happened can become the new normal."

  • ProssPross Posts: 22,386
    Stevo_666 said:
    Must have taken 5 minutes to come to those conclusions and it was obvious in the months beforehand. Getting thrashed is a bad sign, getting thrashed by a Party that itself was trying its best to tear itself apart is humiliating.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,213
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:
    Must have taken 5 minutes to come to those conclusions and it was obvious in the months beforehand. Getting thrashed is a bad sign, getting thrashed by a Party that itself was trying its best to tear itself apart is humiliating.
    Look on the bright side, they have four and a half years to sort themselves out before the next GE :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 9,663
    I'm not sure you should be hoping that being bloody useless is a vote loser.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,213
    edited 24 June

    I'm not sure you should be hoping that being bloody useless is a vote loser.

    Judging by the last election result it's all relative. Also what does that say about the Lib Dems, never mind Labour? :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,533 Lives Here
    Given Johnson's poor performance in PMQs, I'm surprised this thread got a resurrection tbh.
Sign In or Register to comment.