Macroeconomics, the economy, inflation etc. *likely to be very dull*

Pross

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The crap in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

focuszing723

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Thought you'd have the hots for Zuck given your fetish for techbros.

This place would benefit from removing the ability to just repost tweets from nobodies.

skyblueamateur

Doesn’t coalition mean compromise?

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Thought you'd have the hots for Zuck given your fetish for techbros.

This place would benefit from removing the ability to just repost tweets from nobodies.

Again, who care who tweeted it. It just came up as a twitter search, it's about the context of the promise made and broken. ** All Political Parties can be called up on promises, mistakes they have made **.

Anyway, I'm about the only person here who bothers to post a salient point with a link. Half of you just like to drivel and point score.

Pross

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Why did you choose to ignore the first part of my comment which addresses your subsequent response? As SBA said coalition requires compromise.

focuszing723

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Why did you choose to ignore the first part of my comment which addresses your subsequent response? As SBA said coalition requires compromise.

It's a promise he made, he should have bloody well not compromised and stood his ground. How about that?

He won votes and subsequent election on that promise, do you forget that?

skyblueamateur

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Why did you choose to ignore the first part of my comment which addresses your subsequent response? As SBA said coalition requires compromise.

It's a promise he made, he should have bloody well not compromised and stood his ground. How about that?

He won votes and subsequent election on that promise, do you forget that?

If the LD’s had actually won the election and went back on their promises I think you’d be right to be p1ssed off.

They were a very junior partner in the coalition and punched above their weight in it.

Do you think they should have thought of the national interest or just stood firm, refusing to govern and throw the country into turmoil?

I respect the fact that they were pragmatic. Obviously voters thought otherwise and threw them under the bus but hey ho.

skyblueamateur

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Why did you choose to ignore the first part of my comment which addresses your subsequent response? As SBA said coalition requires compromise.

It's a promise he made, he should have bloody well not compromised and stood his ground. How about that?

He won votes and subsequent election on that promise, do you forget that?

They didn’t win the election though did they?

focuszing723

Nick Clegg was actually “keen” to treble student tuition fees and is “talking crap” by claiming he did not want to vote for the policy, a former coalition colleague has said.

Last night the Liberal Democrat leader told a Question Time audience that he was “between a rock and a hard place” on the broken pledge.

“In politics, as in life, sometimes you can’t do exactly what you want,” he argued. “I was absolutely between a rock and a hard place five years ago on that particular policy.”

But James O'Shaughnessy, David Cameron’s former director of policy, says he was in the room in 2010 when the policy was being discussed and that Mr Clegg was “keen” for it to go ahead.

“[Nick] Clegg [is] talking crap on tuition fees,” he tweeted. “He wasn't between 'rock and hard place'. I was in the room when he decided to vote for it. He was keen.”

The policy chief said Mr Clegg was in favour of trebling fees because the plan came from a department headed by a Liberal Democrat minister, Vince Cable, and because he simply “agreed with the policy”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-was-actually-keen-to-treble-tuition-fees-former-coalition-colleague-reveals-10218326.html

Ah, I can't believe I've been diverted by one of Ricks random agenda tweets.

Lets stick to Economics on this thread.

skyblueamateur

focuszing723 said:

Nick Clegg was actually “keen” to treble student tuition fees and is “talking censored ” by claiming he did not want to vote for the policy, a former coalition colleague has said.

Last night the Liberal Democrat leader told a Question Time audience that he was “between a rock and a hard place” on the broken pledge.

“In politics, as in life, sometimes you can’t do exactly what you want,” he argued. “I was absolutely between a rock and a hard place five years ago on that particular policy.”

But James O'Shaughnessy, David Cameron’s former director of policy, says he was in the room in 2010 when the policy was being discussed and that Mr Clegg was “keen” for it to go ahead.

“[Nick] Clegg [is] talking censored on tuition fees,” he tweeted. “He wasn't between 'rock and hard place'. I was in the room when he decided to vote for it. He was keen.”

The policy chief said Mr Clegg was in favour of trebling fees because the plan came from a department headed by a Liberal Democrat minister, Vince Cable, and because he simply “agreed with the policy”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-was-actually-keen-to-treble-tuition-fees-former-coalition-colleague-reveals-10218326.html

There you go, check that source.

Tory throwing a LD under the bus. Who’d have thought it?

I’d rather all politicians didn’t make BS promises that they know they can’t keep but isn’t that now the game? The general public don’t want to hear about reality.

focuszing723

That was my point, all Parties are going to have this issue, it's par the course. I could bring up something for Labour, Greens, hell the monster raving loony party.

It's easy to just chuck up a sensationalist tweet akin to what Rick does everyday, to support his agenda.

skyblueamateur

focuszing723 said:

That was my point, all Parties are going to have this issue, it's par the course. I could bring up something for Labour, Greens, hell the monster raving loony party.

It's easy to just chuck up a sensationalist tweet akin to what Rick does everyday, to support his agenda.

Fair

focuszing723

I'm not a Tory. I don't want to be a political football supporter.

kingstongraham

skyblueamateur said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why people still go on about that. He was the minority partner in a coalition Government. The censored in the first paragraph shows the true colours of the person writing the Tweet.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, the narrative could be from anybody. The context is the false promise. In other words all Parties will have this issue of people calling them out. It's just par the course.

Chr1st.

Why did you choose to ignore the first part of my comment which addresses your subsequent response? As SBA said coalition requires compromise.

It's a promise he made, he should have bloody well not compromised and stood his ground. How about that?

He won votes and subsequent election on that promise, do you forget that?

If the LD’s had actually won the election and went back on their promises I think you’d be right to be p1ssed off.

They were a very junior partner in the coalition and punched above their weight in it.

Do you think they should have thought of the national interest or just stood firm, refusing to govern and throw the country into turmoil?

I respect the fact that they were pragmatic. Obviously voters thought otherwise and threw them under the bus but hey ho.

Should have abstained, it would still have passed.

Actually should never have made the pledge, but having done that, voting for it when they didn't have to is beyond stupid.

focuszing723

“While higher interest rates, slower growth and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain,” he said.

“These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation,” he added.

The Fed was slow to react to rising inflation. At last year’s meeting, Powell dismissed rising prices as a “transitory” phase triggered by supply chain problems related to the coronavirus pandemic.

But as prices have risen at rates unseen since the 1980s the Fed has moved to hike interest rates aggressively and is all but guaranteed to do so again when its committee meets again in September.

At each of its last two meetings the Fed has increased its benchmark federal funds rate by 0.75 percentage points, to a range between 2.25% and 2.5%, the most rapid rate of increase since the early 1990s.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/26/fed-inflation-jerome-powell-job-losses-jackson-hole

Jerome Powell the chair of the FED at the annual Federal Reserve Symposium at Jackson Hole, Wyoming . Sounds like the party of historically low interest rates is over.

rick_chasey

pblakeney

U.S. mortgages are slumping. Not a repeat of 2008 but still....
Lack of house movement affects the economy and shows a lack of confidence in the economy. A downward spiral.
The U.S. economy affects us in case you're wondering what this has to do with us.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-19/mortgage-lenders-are-starting-to-go-broke-as-loan-volumes-plunge?utm_medium=cpc_social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=BLOM_ENG_EDITORL_Y0469_FB_SO_WTRF_FOCUSPROSX_INTST_00XXXXCPM_2PFB_XXXX_GENERALINTSTX_XXXXX_Y0469_XXXXX_ALLFOA_USMO_C1_EN_PG_NFLINKS&dclid=CNWesZ_RjvoCFaGnUQodt98LkQ

rick_chasey

Sunday times apparently reporting Truss and Kwarteng are panicking about Sterling.

Rather like trying to put the sh!t back in the donkey.

Run the economy like it’s a political inconvenience for a decade means when the crisis is around the corner investors think you’re a basket case.

skyblueamateur

rick_chasey said:

Sunday times apparently reporting Truss and Kwarteng are panicking about Sterling.

Rather like trying to put the sh!t back in the donkey.

Run the economy like it’s a political inconvenience for a decade means when the crisis is around the corner investors think you’re a basket case.

Trying to form a constructive relationship with our nearest, biggest trading partner rather then threatening a trade war every 5 minutes because they signed an utter wet-wipe of a deal would probably help.

skyblueamateur

The slow realisation that a devaluing currency has a huge affect on inflation 😂

‘F*ck business’ has been the mantra post Brexit hasn’t it? Sovereignty trumps economics.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Sunday times apparently reporting Truss and Kwarteng are panicking about Sterling.

Rather like trying to put the sh!t back in the donkey.

Run the economy like it’s a political inconvenience for a decade means when the crisis is around the corner investors think you’re a basket case.

It is far too late for you to join the “too much debt is bad for you team”

Get back on your own argument that we have a sovereign currency so can borrow as much as we like and it does not matter as the cost is so low.

Surely all they have to do is is turn QE back on and go back to pretending they are not self funding the deficit.

rick_chasey

Yikes you only see this through one lens don’t you?

The sell off is about the appalling retail & spending figures and all round lack of competitiveness. It’s unusually exposed to the energy crisis because of the unusual reliance on gas and the unusual lack of gas storage (courtesy of a Truss decision in 2017)

My arguments about borrowing with you are originally from the austerity days and I’ve been proven right that austerity was a terrible policy mistake. I also argued borrowing should be considered in the context of the cost of servicing rather than big numbers.

The data coming out of China suggests the underlying non-energy inflation is coming down quite quickly and the supply chain restrictions are easing.

So that should help.

UK is in a tricky spot for the reasons above and the Fed is tightening exceptionally quickly which adds to inflationary pressures here so either you choke off the spluttering uncompetitive, Brexit addled gas starved economy, or you double down on inflation and erode everyone’s standard of living even more.


I’m curious about your views of the govt sponsored energy price cap.

skyblueamateur

rick_chasey said:

Yikes you only see this through one lens don’t you?

The sell off is about the appalling retail & spending figures and all round lack of competitiveness

That’s only took a few cents off. I’m sure the mountain of debt we have racked up plays a bigger role then that.

rick_chasey

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

Yikes you only see this through one lens don’t you?

The sell off is about the appalling retail & spending figures and all round lack of competitiveness

That’s only took a few cents off. I’m sure the mountain of debt we have racked up plays a bigger role then that.

Debt only matters if you can’t pay it off, right?

That’s only because of the above.

rick_chasey

Think of it this way. What’s the plan to grow the economy?

Currently we have lifting banking bonuses which as I’ve explained elsewhere will do virtually nothing.

TheBigBean

Have you now accepted that we are in a sustained period of high inflation?

pblakeney

My whole fear about the level of debt was that the interest rates would rise and that would make servicing the debt impossible. Hello today.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

My whole fear about the level of debt was that the interest rates would rise and that would make servicing the debt impossible. Hello today.

We have been warning him about this day for years and when we get here he triumphantly announces that he has been proved right.

My flabber is well and truly gasted

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Yikes you only see this through one lens don’t you?

The sell off is about the appalling retail & spending figures and all round lack of competitiveness. It’s unusually exposed to the energy crisis because of the unusual reliance on gas and the unusual lack of gas storage (courtesy of a Truss decision in 2017)

My arguments about borrowing with you are originally from the austerity days and I’ve been proven right that austerity was a terrible policy mistake. I also argued borrowing should be considered in the context of the cost of servicing rather than big numbers.

The data coming out of China suggests the underlying non-energy inflation is coming down quite quickly and the supply chain restrictions are easing.

So that should help.

UK is in a tricky spot for the reasons above and the Fed is tightening exceptionally quickly which adds to inflationary pressures here so either you choke off the spluttering uncompetitive, Brexit addled gas starved economy, or you double down on inflation and erode everyone’s standard of living even more.


I’m curious about your views of the govt sponsored energy price cap.

My argument was that at that level of debt when servicing costs turned against us it would already be too late.

You also argued that a good dose of inflation would erode the value of the debt. Now you are arguing that are debt problems are debt lead.

We are in a tricky situation because we are going into an economic crisis with a high level of debt. I have not been proved right yet but the speed with which everybody is so concerned about the markets would suggest that I will be out by a decade or so.