This is the title of the lead feature this week in the US produced "Economist" magazine.
They say that well before the economic crisis there was rising dismay about the country's direction and nostalgia for the good old days. They then point out that the actual real crime rate, including burglaries and car theft, has impoved over the past 15 years and that child murder rates have fallen by two thirds since the 1970s. The latter is actually more or less in line with child matters on another thread recently discussed in this Forum.
However, the concluding paragraphs blame the education system in general for not providing young people the skills they need and the waning of manufacturing jobs for the working class creating a generation of young males in particular who don't know what to do with themselves.
They finish with the statement that: "Britain has a crunched economy, an out-of-control deficit and plenty of social problems; but is not "broken""
PLIM'S VIEW - - I am largely in agreement with them. I feel our main failure is a weakness of those in power to take proper control of crises. I think that far stronger terms should have been imposed as a condition of the recent bank subsidies and money should be put into re-starting mainstream manufacturing, plus call centres and the like need to be brought back from overseas. And that's just a starter!
Plim :sad:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
How broke is Britain?
I think the economy is cyclical and that it will always be this way. What we are however is much more informed than we were even 5 years ago about the economy and where we are today.
Its hard to really define what 'broke' really looks like. For example: child poverty is a term which is interesting. Government policy is that by 2020 child poverty will be eradicated in this country. As a vision that is fantastic and I wouldnt disagree. However, what does that look like? Looked after children increased because of Baby 'P', children on the risk regster has increased and with the present economic crisis, unemployment has risen and so the cycle remains.
Is education worse in this country than 10/20 years ago? No I believe it isnt but I also believe that we have not led education and research in the way we did back in the former part of last century and have lost out in many ways to being the first to get it right. A bit like the industrial revolution - we started many things that were replicated and made better by others. What however we dont talk about is that working class white males are more likely to be unemployed and ill educated than any other group of our society today. (can provide reference for this if required).
In a sense the 3rd world has had more opportunties to move into a more technological and economically productive time, not held back by the chains that we create around policy and working practices. Our manufacturing has also been declining from the mid 1970's.
Do I blame the banks? well partly as we have put trust in unelected bodies with our money and pensions. Without trust its hard to feel a sense of where will this all end. Just like Star Trek has become a reality with all the technology it showed back in the 1970's in the early series, maybe we really will create the worlds that we portray in futuristic films where life looks dam unpleasant.
Its hard to really define what 'broke' really looks like. For example: child poverty is a term which is interesting. Government policy is that by 2020 child poverty will be eradicated in this country. As a vision that is fantastic and I wouldnt disagree. However, what does that look like? Looked after children increased because of Baby 'P', children on the risk regster has increased and with the present economic crisis, unemployment has risen and so the cycle remains.
Is education worse in this country than 10/20 years ago? No I believe it isnt but I also believe that we have not led education and research in the way we did back in the former part of last century and have lost out in many ways to being the first to get it right. A bit like the industrial revolution - we started many things that were replicated and made better by others. What however we dont talk about is that working class white males are more likely to be unemployed and ill educated than any other group of our society today. (can provide reference for this if required).
In a sense the 3rd world has had more opportunties to move into a more technological and economically productive time, not held back by the chains that we create around policy and working practices. Our manufacturing has also been declining from the mid 1970's.
Do I blame the banks? well partly as we have put trust in unelected bodies with our money and pensions. Without trust its hard to feel a sense of where will this all end. Just like Star Trek has become a reality with all the technology it showed back in the 1970's in the early series, maybe we really will create the worlds that we portray in futuristic films where life looks dam unpleasant.
contrary to the image being promoted, that the world economy has stabilised due to governments and central banks actions, the worst is yet to come, by design.
unfortunately, there are many on this site that will poo poo the evidence as conspiracy theory, so i think i will reserve further comment for now.
unfortunately, there are many on this site that will poo poo the evidence as conspiracy theory, so i think i will reserve further comment for now.
Sex God
*in best Andy Parsons voice*
Is it so broke that it's rummaging down the back of the sofa to get enough money together to go for a pint?
Is it so broke that it's rummaging down the back of the sofa to get enough money together to go for a pint?
It's your fault, and mine, that the country has no manufacturing industry.
We pay other countries to manufacture the goods we purchase, because we cannot afford the cost of them made here.
IE: We want too much money to make them here.
Plus: The cost of paying the government for workers is too high here....the employers NI contribution on a weekly wage of is The employees is (note: the employers contribution is what THEY pay to employ YOU....so from your the state gets (in NI) )
Then there is the local government subsidy that employers pay to the council....known as business rates.....which are an average of £4500 (ish) for each business (some are lower than that....)
I could go on at length about how successive UK governments have priced business out of the country.
Deliberately.
We pay other countries to manufacture the goods we purchase, because we cannot afford the cost of them made here.
IE: We want too much money to make them here.
Plus: The cost of paying the government for workers is too high here....the employers NI contribution on a weekly wage of is The employees is (note: the employers contribution is what THEY pay to employ YOU....so from your the state gets (in NI) )
Then there is the local government subsidy that employers pay to the council....known as business rates.....which are an average of £4500 (ish) for each business (some are lower than that....)
I could go on at length about how successive UK governments have priced business out of the country.
Deliberately.
Quote by JTS
It's your fault, and mine, that the country has no manufacturing industry.
We pay other countries to manufacture the goods we purchase, because we cannot afford the cost of them made here.
IE: We want too much money to make them here.
Plus: The cost of paying the government for workers is too high here....the employers NI contribution on a weekly wage of is The employees is (note: the employers contribution is what THEY pay to employ YOU....so from your the state gets (in NI) )
Then there is the local government subsidy that employers pay to the council....known as business rates.....which are an average of £4500 (ish) for each business (some are lower than that....)
I could go on at length about how successive UK governments have priced business out of the country.
Deliberately.
Spare us. You might want to look at the cost of payroll taxes in other countries. You might want to look at the cost of local taxation in other countries. You do know, by the way that councils only collect business rates, and then forward the money to central government to redistribute? (Except in BID areas of course, where they get to keep some of the money with the agreement of local businesses.)
Thanks to all for comments to date.
Corrie is right about the economy being cyclical, but the recent problems are much worse and compounded on top of that scenario. With the emergence of China as a major manufacturing force, the US and other western powers have followed our problems, well to an extent. This lead to the "clever" bankers in Wall Street, and then elsewhere, especially here, trying to cover things up with new financial devices.
Recovery will be a long haul, but more honesty will be paramount in future.
Plim
Corrie is right about the economy being cyclical, but the recent problems are much worse and compounded on top of that scenario. With the emergence of China as a major manufacturing force, the US and other western powers have followed our problems, well to an extent. This lead to the "clever" bankers in Wall Street, and then elsewhere, especially here, trying to cover things up with new financial devices.
Recovery will be a long haul, but more honesty will be paramount in future.
Plim
Quote by awayman
Spare us. You might want to look at the cost of payroll taxes in other countries. You might want to look at the cost of local taxation in other countries. You do know, by the way that councils only collect business rates, and then forward the money to central government to redistribute? (Except in BID areas of course, where they get to keep some of the money with the agreement of local businesses.)
Quite.
But look at the cost to business in India or China.
And the wages paid in same.
Not to mention the astronomical cost of the public services, particularly staffing and pensions.
Quote by JTS
Spare us. You might want to look at the cost of payroll taxes in other countries. You might want to look at the cost of local taxation in other countries. You do know, by the way that councils only collect business rates, and then forward the money to central government to redistribute? (Except in BID areas of course, where they get to keep some of the money with the agreement of local businesses.)
Quite.
But look at the cost to business in India or China.
And the wages paid in same.
Not to mention the astronomical cost of the public services, particularly staffing and pensions.
The difference is not what you call costs to business, but wages. If you want Britain to have Indian or Chinese levels of pay and public services, stand for Parliament.
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
That's quantitative easing, surely?
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
Ok, even though you are determined to make your text unreadable because you think it's clever to pretend to be illiterate, a couple of comments.
Your first sentence is garbage. How are you measuring national debt? On a per capita basis? If not, comparing UK national debt to Iceland and saying ours is larger is just fuckwittery of the highest order.
The claim that increases in the money supply automatically lead to inflation is monetarist voodoo; our economy was devastated in the 1980s by the self same obsession with voodoo economics from the Chicago school. Anyone who tries to measure the money supply without also measuring the velocity of circulation of money is barking mad, or, to use the technical term, a Thatcherite nutter.
Finally, I'll say this. Your premise for your analogy, that all the money would be borrowed from a wanker / banker, is daft. So your conclusions may be valid, but since you started from the wrong place, they're useless. It's like Archbishop Usher's calculation of the age of the earth; you may well have done all the sums correctly, but it isn't worth a damn.
Quote by awayman
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
Ok, even though you are determined to make your text unreadable because you think it's clever to pretend to be illiterate, a couple of comments.
Your first sentence is garbage. How are you measuring national debt? On a per capita basis? If not, comparing UK national debt to Iceland and saying ours is larger is just fuckwittery of the highest order.
The claim that increases in the money supply automatically lead to inflation is monetarist voodoo; our economy was devastated in the 1980s by the self same obsession with voodoo economics from the Chicago school. Anyone who tries to measure the money supply without also measuring the velocity of circulation of money is barking mad, or, to use the technical term, a Thatcherite nutter.
Finally, I'll say this. Your premise for your analogy, that all the money would be borrowed from a wanker / banker, is daft. So your conclusions may be valid, but since you started from the wrong place, they're useless. It's like Archbishop Usher's calculation of the age of the earth; you may well have done all the sums correctly, but it isn't worth a damn. very sorry awayman for my unreadable text, it's not intentional. for some reason unknown to me, no matter how i write the text it bunches up so i'm not as clever as you think i think i am.
my first sentence is garbage, your right. like other fuckwits, i went and compared sovereign debt by numbers, doh, me, i'm just like them fuckwits at ratings agencies. sorry.
mmmm and i happen to agree with you that m1 m2 m3 and m4 as various measures of money supply do not necessarily, if increased, lead to inflation in a complex economy such as ours, which is why i was using an embryonic example of simple money supply m3, cash in circulation and i'm very sorry if you think i am a milton friedmanite chicago austrian school monetarist ju ju man. being against the dismantling of glass steagal and the de-regulation that took place from reagan/thatcher onwards and the devastation of manufacturing industry in favour of bogus financial instruments and ponzi schemes, doh. if you say so, i must be a barking mad, thatcherite nutter.
finally awayman, i'll say this. the premise that all money/credit is created by banks and lent out is daft, true but, ITS 100% CORRECT and whilst you obviously started from the right place and premise, i cannot understand how i've got things so wrong over all these years. mmmmm musta bin that J.M.K. that fried me brains or the shock doctrine of M.F. and the chicago school who were previously the austrian school while the bretton woods agreement and the gold standard stood firm.
i hope you will forgive me awayman for making any comment about finance or banking. i have'nt got a phucking clue what i'm on about and my only excuse/mitigation is that i am a illiterate, garbage talking, monetarist fuckwit of a ju ju man, having practiced chicago/austrian school monetarist voo doo for that long, its made me a barking mad thatcherite nutter and i cant stop meself....sob
Quote by GnV
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
That's quantitative easing, surely?not quite. q.e. as applied by merv the swerve of the b.o.e, puts credit numbers into banks,insurance companies and other too big to fail financial institutions to prevent their insolvency and ripple effect to the rest of the banking industry. whilst causing sterling to devalue against other currencies, it has not been added to cash in circulation because it is not.
its creation is added to goverment debt at interest so the tax payer can pay it back to the private bank of england, at interest.
Now my knowledge of economics extends to being able to put the names to the abbreviations in gulson's post but my head gets fried by monetary theory and M1 thro M4.
Wasn't the function of quantitative easing not just to prevent insolvency but also to free up credit for lending and thus stimulating the economy in which case it would affect the money supply albeit M3(or 4 or 2 or whichever one it is
). I am led to believe it's failing thus far because those naughty have banks kept it all on their balance sheets to meet enhanced solvency/liquidity ratios(i think)
Oh and with regard to the national debt I heard a statistic on TV that said the uk has the same proportion of debt to GDP as Greece and they have just had to have an emergency Austerity budget including mandatory cuts of 10% in public services...
Are we getting a feel for things yet ??
Wasn't the function of quantitative easing not just to prevent insolvency but also to free up credit for lending and thus stimulating the economy in which case it would affect the money supply albeit M3(or 4 or 2 or whichever one it is
). I am led to believe it's failing thus far because those naughty have banks kept it all on their balance sheets to meet enhanced solvency/liquidity ratios(i think)Oh and with regard to the national debt I heard a statistic on TV that said the uk has the same proportion of debt to GDP as Greece and they have just had to have an emergency Austerity budget including mandatory cuts of 10% in public services...
Are we getting a feel for things yet ??
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the national debt of uk plc, thats you and me, is greater than those of iceland, greece, portugal, spain, ireland and italy. the order here is pertinent. "our" government, without consulting us, has committed our and future generations of tax revenue contributors to a debt that can never be repaid in full. it has underwritten, with our money, private institutions (gamblers and risk takers) to the tune of at least £200 billion with more to come. with this the gamblers and risk takers were supposed to remain solvent and carry on their retail trade of lending to bussinesses and individuals to oil the wheels of the economy. but, other than filling their pockets with our money for failing, they have failed to maintain or increase lending levels.
if ten swingers sit round a table each with ten pounds representing all activity in the economy and they trade amongst themselves for goods and or services and all the money that they had was a loan from an eleventh member at the table, shall we say "the wanker", if the wanker charges interest, eventually, the wanker would end up with all the money.........unless, the wanker continued to increase the money supply through increased loans......do you follow? now by increasing the money supply (inflation) i dont mean big cock here, a commodity like a shag costs more notes because the increase in notes means they are worth less eventually. in the short term, the increased credit causes an increase in transactions (shags) and a feel good factor. but, in time, the amount of interest accrued becomes too great for the capacity of the swingers to shag. realising this, the wanker cuts off the supply of new credit and the activity rate begins to fall at an increasing (exponential) rate while new credit becomes unavailable but interest has to be paid. the wanker slows down this falling rate of shagging by reducing interest rates. now the wanker has done this because he borrowed some of the money he brought to the table from someone else who backed his bussiness plan but he was facing a crossover point where, if he could'nt get the swingers to shag more cos they could'nt afford it, he would'nt be able to service the interest on his debt.....to be continued
Ok, even though you are determined to make your text unreadable because you think it's clever to pretend to be illiterate, a couple of comments.
Your first sentence is garbage. How are you measuring national debt? On a per capita basis? If not, comparing UK national debt to Iceland and saying ours is larger is just fuckwittery of the highest order.
The claim that increases in the money supply automatically lead to inflation is monetarist voodoo; our economy was devastated in the 1980s by the self same obsession with voodoo economics from the Chicago school. Anyone who tries to measure the money supply without also measuring the velocity of circulation of money is barking mad, or, to use the technical term, a Thatcherite nutter.
Finally, I'll say this. Your premise for your analogy, that all the money would be borrowed from a wanker / banker, is daft. So your conclusions may be valid, but since you started from the wrong place, they're useless. It's like Archbishop Usher's calculation of the age of the earth; you may well have done all the sums correctly, but it isn't worth a damn. very sorry awayman for my unreadable text, it's not intentional. for some reason unknown to me, no matter how i write the text it bunches up so i'm not as clever as you think i think i am.
my first sentence is garbage, your right. like other fuckwits, i went and compared sovereign debt by numbers, doh, me, i'm just like them fuckwits at ratings agencies. sorry.
mmmm and i happen to agree with you that m1 m2 m3 and m4 as various measures of money supply do not necessarily, if increased, lead to inflation in a complex economy such as ours, which is why i was using an embryonic example of simple money supply m3, cash in circulation and i'm very sorry if you think i am a milton friedmanite chicago austrian school monetarist ju ju man. being against the dismantling of glass steagal and the de-regulation that took place from reagan/thatcher onwards and the devastation of manufacturing industry in favour of bogus financial instruments and ponzi schemes, doh. if you say so, i must be a barking mad, thatcherite nutter.
finally awayman, i'll say this. the premise that all money/credit is created by banks and lent out is daft, true but, ITS 100% CORRECT and whilst you obviously started from the right place and premise, i cannot understand how i've got things so wrong over all these years. mmmmm musta bin that J.M.K. that fried me brains or the shock doctrine of M.F. and the chicago school who were previously the austrian school while the bretton woods agreement and the gold standard stood firm.
i hope you will forgive me awayman for making any comment about finance or banking. i have'nt got a phucking clue what i'm on about and my only excuse/mitigation is that i am a illiterate, garbage talking, monetarist fuckwit of a ju ju man, having practiced chicago/austrian school monetarist voo doo for that long, its made me a barking mad thatcherite nutter and i cant stop meself....sob
Talk about a little knowledge being dangerous. You posit a closed cycle game, then claim it should be treated as an example of an open cycle like the real economy. Unless game theory has changed radically in the last 24 hours, that's daft.
Is all money created by banks? Hmm, let's see, quantitative easing.... That was the creation of money, but is the Bank of England a bank in any meaningful way? Or is it a special kind of quango?
Here's a link to government debt to GDP ratios with historical figures as well as predicted outcomes. See what I've done there? I've related governemnt debt to the size of the economy. That's economics, that is (well, it's econometrics applied to economics). How do I know? Check the attribution at the bottom of the table - the IMF say so.
Want another example? Have a look at this IMF report.
Have a look at Figures 6 & 7 They graph CDS rates. CDS rates are so much higher in the five countries in Figure 7, which don't include Britain, as compared to figure 6, which does, that they've had to use a different scale on the graph! You do know what CDS rates are don't you?
See what I've done there Guls? I've used punctuation. And evidence. Real, live, certified by someone who might know what they're talking about evidence. You should try it some day.
Incidentally, thank you for the barking mad and unsolicited suggestion via PM that I should follow your advice and day trade the FTSE today. You left out some vital information about which FTSE measure you thought I should day trade (there's more than one you know) and you revealed a vital ignorance of the key feature of how markets work. Joe Stiglitz and others would tell you that markets function on mismatches of information; there may be a profit in the market for you today if you know something about banking numbers, as you claim, that the rest of the market don't. However, by sharing that information, you dilute its value to yourself, since I'll also get into the market position you advise, and it will become more obvious what's going on. If enough people know what you claim to know then there'll be no sellers, only buyers, of the position you advocate, and no money will get made. Of course, you could be engaged in a bluff; advising potential market entrants to assume the opposite position to yourself so you can make money out of their gullibility.
Or you could be just a fuckwit. Currently, I prefer the latter position, but I'm open to being persuaded.
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.
Sex God
Quote by gulsonroad30664
them eegits meetin in sid's house in oz at the w/e callin themselves central wankers, imf's (that means international men farters) and bis, short for biscuits or taking the biscuit went all that way and decided to do nufin ?
I'm guessing you think it's clever to write such nonsense. A bit alternative, off the wall, post-modernist (or whatever). Unfortunately the only thing I know about you is what I see on here.
What I am shown is an illiterate who cannot even attempt to communicate at a level higher than baboon. You claim (in previous threads) to be intelligent, educated, capable of writing in a clear and understandable way - but you choose not to.
I'm curious - are we supposed to be impressed/intruiged by your garbling of communication or do you despise everyone on here so much that you deliberately deform the communication to demonstrate your loathing?
Quote by foxylady2209
them eegits meetin in sid's house in oz at the w/e callin themselves central wankers, imf's (that means international men farters) and bis, short for biscuits or taking the biscuit went all that way and decided to do nufin ?
I'm guessing you think it's clever to write such nonsense. A bit alternative, off the wall, post-modernist (or whatever). Unfortunately the only thing I know about you is what I see on here.
What I am shown is an illiterate who cannot even attempt to communicate at a level higher than baboon. You claim (in previous threads) to be intelligent, educated, capable of writing in a clear and understandable way - but you choose not to.
I'm curious - are we supposed to be impressed/intruiged by your garbling of communication or do you despise everyone on here so much that you deliberately deform the communication to demonstrate your loathing?under the auspices of the bank of international settlements, bankers from the international monetary fund, the new york federal reserve, the european central bank, the bank of england, the central bank of india and the central bank of china met in sidney australia at the week end and decided nothing.
very sorry foxylady, please forgive me
Quote by gulsonroad30664
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.
I probably shouldn't have called you a fuckwit, but why do you keep up this pretence that there's some kind of ghost in your machine that garbles your words?
I must have missed something here, but how can Kraft be a counterparty to Cadburys when they own Cadburys? Are they being a counterparty to themselves? (Yes, I know there's effectively a set of sale contracts for shares in which Kraft is is, in avery general sense, counterparty to the individual shareholders, but you didn;t really mean that did you?)
I was right to call you on your prediction though. I don't actually know what happened to FTSE yesterday - that kind of day tradery entrail reading is a symptom of the mess we've got ourselves into - it's like betting on horse racing without the fringe benefits of jolly ladies in nice frocks and high heels to admire between the races.
The idea that Volker is a people's man is pretty risible; Volker is a creature of the system that created the systemic risk. His warnings now are the metaphorical equivalent of telling people their tap water may taste funny after you've diverted the sewerage into the reservoir.
Surely, if your last but one paragraph is 'We didn;t start the fire' without the tuneful bits, your last line should be 'It's Still Rock and Roll to me'
Quote by foxylady2209
them eegits meetin in sid's house in oz at the w/e callin themselves central wankers, imf's (that means international men farters) and bis, short for biscuits or taking the biscuit went all that way and decided to do nufin ?
I'm guessing you think it's clever to write such nonsense. A bit alternative, off the wall, post-modernist (or whatever). Unfortunately the only thing I know about you is what I see on here.
What I am shown is an illiterate who cannot even attempt to communicate at a level higher than baboon. You claim (in previous threads) to be intelligent, educated, capable of writing in a clear and understandable way - but you choose not to.
I'm curious - are we supposed to be impressed/intruiged by your garbling of communication or do you despise everyone on here so much that you deliberately deform the communication to demonstrate your loathing?
Completly uncalled for as are the " fuckwit " comments.
It fecking angers me that I have been banned for making less aggresive comments like that in the past.
I think he rambles on a bit but people on here are so quick to make excuses for any " fuckwit " in society who has broken the law, and to make any old rubbish excuse, but it seems Gulson has become fair game on here.
I have had to curb my " spats " and my comments, yet others seem to get away with blue murder.
I am sure foxy you could have been a little less nasty, I expect it of Awayman to be honest.
Sex God
Kent, Awayman appears to have apologised and, from his response to her, gulsonroad didn't seem to take offence at foxylady's comments.
It would help if people acted sensibly and sensitively and didn't insult each other with such regularity. If anyone really wishes to make an issue out of the comments then please let us know. In the meantime, please can we all try to refrain from unnecessary insults. Adult debate doesn't have to descend into name-calling all the time!
Back on topic now?
Nola x
It would help if people acted sensibly and sensitively and didn't insult each other with such regularity. If anyone really wishes to make an issue out of the comments then please let us know. In the meantime, please can we all try to refrain from unnecessary insults. Adult debate doesn't have to descend into name-calling all the time!
Back on topic now?
Nola x
Not sure how this will be received, but what about the fact that there are at least 3 football clubs in serious arrears with HMRC - Portsmouth being the most serious owing the State over £7m in unpaid tax, NIC's and VAT (the others being Cardiff and Southend).
But can you blame them when the message coming loud and clear from Westminster is to keep spending?
We harp on about Broken Britain continuing to spend it's way out of a crisis so why not the clubs continue to pay their star players £150k a week?
Maybe the only difference is that the Government can print money legally (quantitative easing) to keep afloat whereas the whole might and power of the legislature will descend on anyone who dares to copy their example!
In edit: bill now £11.5 presumably after HMRC add their daily interest charge...
But can you blame them when the message coming loud and clear from Westminster is to keep spending?
We harp on about Broken Britain continuing to spend it's way out of a crisis so why not the clubs continue to pay their star players £150k a week?
Maybe the only difference is that the Government can print money legally (quantitative easing) to keep afloat whereas the whole might and power of the legislature will descend on anyone who dares to copy their example!
In edit: bill now £11.5 presumably after HMRC add their daily interest charge...
Quote by GnV
Not sure how this will be received, but what about the fact that there are at least 3 football clubs in serious arrears with HMRC - Portsmouth being the most serious owing the State over £7m in unpaid tax, NIC's and VAT (the others being Cardiff and Southend).
But can you blame them when the message coming loud and clear from Westminster is to keep spending?
We harp on about Broken Britain continuing to spend it's way out of a crisis so why not the clubs continue to pay their star players £150k a week?
Maybe the only difference is that the Government can print money legally (quantitative easing) to keep afloat whereas the whole might and power of the legislature will descend on anyone who dares to copy their example!
Well this debate has jogged along nicely, thanks. Actually this latter contribution is a very fair point, premiership (and other professional) football and bankers' traders are two examples, all part of the same culture that seems to have gradually taken over since we lost our manufacturing base in the 1970s.
By the way, I'm old enough to remember when they called "Quantative Easing" by it's true name - Devaluation; and footballers had "club houses" because they were not considered to have long enough playing careers to be granted mortgages!
Plim :sad:
Quote by GnV
Not sure how this will be received, but what about the fact that there are at least 3 football clubs in serious arrears with HMRC - Portsmouth being the most serious owing the State over £7m in unpaid tax, NIC's and VAT (the others being Cardiff and Southend).
But can you blame them when the message coming loud and clear from Westminster is to keep spending?
We harp on about Broken Britain continuing to spend it's way out of a crisis so why not the clubs continue to pay their star players £150k a week?
Maybe the only difference is that the Government can print money legally (quantitative easing) to keep afloat whereas the whole might and power of the legislature will descend on anyone who dares to copy their example!
In edit: bill now £11.5 presumably after HMRC add their daily interest charge...
The problems at Portsmouth and Cardiff predate the current financial crisis and quantitative easing.
Cardiff's problems come about from the cost of building Stade de Ridsdale, a project that's been three or four years in the making. They couldn't find the money to build the stadium and Sam Hammam cut and ran when he realised the project was screwed. Portsmouth's problem is debts they ran up three years ago. In Pompey's case the problem is that they've mortgaged their future income streams, so as soon as potential buyers do due diligence they realise they're buying a bucket with a hole in it and run away.
So the problems at these clubs isn't to due with the current state of the economy - they're just lurching from one crisis to another....
