GB News
Comments
-
Stevo is just doing some extra trolling pretending to not know what it means.elbowloh said:
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
0 -
One for the irony threadddraver said:
James O Brien does not pretend to be a bias free news channel...focuszing723 said:
Talking of bias you did post a tweet via LBC's James O'Brien earlier. I would never listen to his show for a broad view.ddraver said:So a Conservative Chancellor was interviewed by a conservative interviewer running a nakedly right wing channel which was then dissected by a former conservative minister and shadow chancellor and a Telegraph Journalist.
And this is "balance"?
I mean, guys, seriously???0 -
Watched a bit of the opening night and bits here and there
They seem to have several problems aside from technical stuff.
They aren't rolling news, the other evening Sky and BBC had the story that the Covid restrictions were being extended for 4 weeks - GB news were covering some culture war story, can't even remember what, but we'd already kicked it to death on here. When a story is breaking, a news channel needs to be over it. That's the point.
They've employed right wing contrarian mouth pieces as broadcasters. Which is fine if they have learnt how to broadcast. The relief on Andrew Neil's face when Alastair Stewart turned up on the opening night was clear. Mitchelle Dewsbury came out of the Boris Johnson press conference with a nose picking joke.
I'd also suggest that the premise that these 'voices and opinions aren't being elsewhere is fundamentally flawed. They are. The contributors to GB News all contribute elsewhere on channels doing it better.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Neil's monologue on the extension of the restrictions was interesting.
Started with 'Boris has bottled it' then explained why it was the right decision
The tension between providing red meat to the viewer base and basic journalism clear
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's like like those posters on here who state an argument and they link to an article that says the exact opposite of what they said as evidence.tailwindhome said:Neil's monologue on the extension of the restrictions was interesting.
Started with 'Boris has bottled it' then explained why it was the right decision
The tension between providing red meat to the viewer base and basic journalism clear0 -
Or a Boris Johnson article.elbowloh said:
It's like like those posters on here who state an argument and they link to an article that says the exact opposite of what they said as evidence.tailwindhome said:Neil's monologue on the extension of the restrictions was interesting.
Started with 'Boris has bottled it' then explained why it was the right decision
The tension between providing red meat to the viewer base and basic journalism clear0 -
Or a Telegraph Articlekingstongraham said:
Or a Boris Johnson article.elbowloh said:
It's like like those posters on here who state an argument and they link to an article that says the exact opposite of what they said as evidence.tailwindhome said:Neil's monologue on the extension of the restrictions was interesting.
Started with 'Boris has bottled it' then explained why it was the right decision
The tension between providing red meat to the viewer base and basic journalism clearWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Going purely on what has been written on here it sounds like a televised Talk Radio.tailwindhome said:
I'd also suggest that the premise that these 'voices and opinions aren't being elsewhere is fundamentally flawed. They are. The contributors to GB News all contribute elsewhere on channels doing it better.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 -
The ongoing hissy fit over a few companies withdrawing their advertising is pretty hilarious. Ditto the bragging about being the most watched news channel in a time slot when other channels are not showing news. Neil does seem very thin-skinned sometimes.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This account is objectively very funny
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
0
-
watching this sh!t so you don't have to0
-
No, you don't have to. There's a gammon-light world out there.shirley_basso said:watching this sh!t so you don't have to
0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
or is it in here?orraloon said:
No, you don't have to. There's a gammon-light world out there.shirley_basso said:watching this sh!t so you don't have to
0 -
He was floundering but his premise was that when they came due the BofE would have a choice of paying bank the bonds or tearing them up. His argument was that if torn up it would undermine confidence in the markets and future borrowing costs would be higher.kingstongraham said:
Don't think so. Just that it takes a long time to build credibility and can be lost in an instant. No mention of what would cause that loss of credibility or who would lose out. He just didn't know the answer, but gave an answer that sounded grown up.focuszing723 said:
I'm sure when I watched the analysis after Neils interview with Sunak, this was mentioned.TheBigBean said:
I asked a leading economist that question, but it was misinterpreted as whether it would ever be repaid. His response was that "ever" is a long time, but that he would expect the asset purchases to remain on the BoE's balance sheet for a long time unchanged.kingstongraham said:
Yes, which is why it's a good question - an answer from an expert would have been enlightening.rick_chasey said:
In fairness, it is a fairly technical question about QE, of which there is a lot of confusion.kingstongraham said:He asked a better question to Halligan about what would happen if the government just didn't pay off its debt to the Bank of England. He had absolutely no answer to that and started talking about furlough.
If anyone wants to watch the follow up, it's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fisZpJYb6A
It has all the feel of a heavyweight discussion, but is it really adding much?
Note that the interest payments are effectively written off.
Anyway, my conclusion remains that it would be possible to write it off, but that it would be considered highly unusual by the markets and it would remove a potential tool for the BoE in the future. I also think that the current government likes to state a massive debt balance to encourage lower spending which is a political matter.
Liam Halligan's answer wasn't very good.
Overall though, I think there is a place for these sort of discussions.
This is what I see as the inherent contradiction. If QE is such a good, risk free, idea why would you just not keep going. So Treasury issues some more long dated bonds that the BofE buys and then the Treasury uses the money to redeem the bonds held by the BofE that are now due.
Unless of course the emperor has no clothes and they are dancing on a pinhead desperately spinning the plates hoping that the market does not lose confidence.
So the answer to who loses is that the Govt loses the ability to borrow at the level it needs and has to radically cut spending in Greek levels of severity. The losers will be everybody who relies on the State for income or services, the more dependent you are the bigger you lose.
All IMHO2 -
Or they could buy replacements, couldn't they?0
-
I don't understand why it would cause a lack of confidence if everyone knows its just one bit of the UK state borrowing non existent money from another bit.0
-
That is what they do in addition to paying the interest back to the government (essentially writing it off). As a a result the balance sheet holdings of BoE are very neat and tidy numbers.kingstongraham said:Or they could buy replacements, couldn't they?
0 -
kingstongraham said:
I don't understand why it would cause a lack of confidence if everyone knows its just one bit of the UK state borrowing non existent money from another bit.
It's all smoke and mirrors, from top to bottom, as far as I'm concerned... a load of data about human-invented conceptual stuff with no inherent worth.0 -
So it's not the writing them off that could cause a confidence crash, because there's no reason to. It's when "the market" gets spooked by something.0
-
When they announced they were effectively writing off the interest, there was no market reaction.kingstongraham said:So it's not the writing them off that could cause a confidence crash, because there's no reason to. It's when "the market" gets spooked by something.
I think the issue is that writing them off would make QE permanent whereas at the moment it is just a decade long temporary thing. As I said before, no one expects them to be repaid, but offically admitting that might seem a step too far. Plus, there are no advantages to writing them off other than claiming a smaller debt balance, and the net figure could easily be reported - I mention it fairly consistently.0 -
Should have had you on the telly.0
-
Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.0 -
^^ I’d argue that if your independent central bank is being forced to do QE as rates are already at rock bottom, that that is the clearest sign that fiscal policy needs to do more work putting some heat into the economy.
What I don’t get is that people like SC argue both that QE is some massive time bomb *and* fiscal policy should be shrinking.0 -
W
Overcoming structural problems in the bond market may have been why QE started but it has become a way of manipulating the market to keep debts down and funding affordable for populist Govt.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
As TBB suggests they have to keep a thin veneer of pretence about the whole thing but if you look at the size of recent QE and debt issuance they are remarkably similar numbers.0 -
elbowloh said:
It's like like those posters on here who state an argument and they link to an article that says the exact opposite of what they said as evidence.
Poor Martin.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
If you really think a news station is trolling then its up to you. I don't care either way, but the reaction on here is amusing.elbowloh said:
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think you don't really understand the point.Jezyboy said:
Stevo is just doing some extra trolling pretending to not know what it means.elbowloh said:
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You understand why I see a contradiction in your logic though, right?surrey_commuter said:W
Overcoming structural problems in the bond market may have been why QE started but it has become a way of manipulating the market to keep debts down and funding affordable for populist Govt.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
As TBB suggests they have to keep a thin veneer of pretence about the whole thing but if you look at the size of recent QE and debt issuance they are remarkably similar numbers.
If QE is deployed to further lower rates when the main rate is already at or near zero, what is that saying about the other lever, fiscal policy?0
