|
Replies:
|
|
Stan Still
|
Oct 18 2014, 09:45 AM
Post #81
|
- Posts:
- 1,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 18 2014, 09:37 AM
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 06:32 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 17 2014, 07:36 PM
- Stan Still
- Oct 17 2014, 06:43 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016 GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST
* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second day. * U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent * Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower * Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs
By Marc Jones LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up from a two-year siesta. European stock markets slumped, with London , Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and 2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for a loss of 17 percent in a week. Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower, with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P 500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced for a flurry of economic data and earnings. Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil face their own hardships. These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it. "Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham Secker. "Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what they can." The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling. The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens. German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S. Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high. EURO ZONE ON ALERT As well as meek global growth, European markets have been rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in Athens. Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94 on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since October 2008 continued. One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding. But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese , Spanish and Italian 10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and 2.31 percent respectively. They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds , which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard. "The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the European economic and currency union and the situation of individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.
GROWTH GLOOM In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured during market turbulence also made gains. Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their expectations to the first quarter of 2016. Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P 500 and the MSCI 45-country world index have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial crisis in 2009 though. As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188, flat on the day. Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though. Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as U.S. crude slumped to $80.45. Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.
(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by Anna Willard)
No, look beyond the Anglo Saxon World and see what they are saying. In Europe they are now aware that there are two price indices in the economy, asset prices and current prices, both of these operate independently but over different time scales and indeed different markets, the latter must always validate the former otherwise we get recession which is what we are in my opinion still suffering from.. To get a sustainable recovery, note the word sustainable here, the two must be brought into balance, by continually subsidizing the market the balance is kept artificially in favour of asset holders, eventually society will be unable to pay the rent seekers and speculators the dues they believe they deserve, this is now starting to dawn on the markets..........
The economists have looked beyond borders for years due to investment being a global market, in addition to what I posted earlier on top of the nervousness about the European Economy and the Euro especially what is happening in France, the economy of China and its neighbours is slowing down. That is what has made investors sell shares over the last few weeks, lower investment puts employment at risk world wide, but the market was starting to recover as of yesterday when investors started to buy shares again. Like it or not we need the global market to be robust and strong if you and I want to keep earning paying our bills and feeding our families, you would soon go out of business if few could afford to pay for your services.
"Economists" do not run the financial system Stan! Bankers and what I'd very loosely describe as investors do, and all they are interested in is extracting as much profit as possible and sod the longer term consequences, exponential growth is no longer possible instead some consolidation must take place, I repeat those who are productive can no longer afford the inflated prices the markets are demanding, deflation (a dirty word in the City) will restore the balance between what people can afford and what markets can ask. At the moment assets are being kept at artificially high prices thus resulting in the stagnation we are now seeing once again, those consumers cannot afford to consume at current price points, have you got that now? ie the easy money for the markets is drying up and consumers cannot fill the gap. But don't just take my word for it in the last 24 hours the head of the US federal reserve has said much the same, the growing wealth inequality in the US is damaging the economy, of course the exact same thing applies here. Economists are part of it their job is to predict financial trends and advise and the object of any business including the financial sector is to make money just as any other yours included.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 18 2014, 09:46 AM
Post #82
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 08:05 AM
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now? The economy is beginning to collapse again. Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing. Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings. Government borrowing is as high as ever. In short just a shambles.
Our economy is not collapsing it is not a strong as one as one would like it but it is slowly improving and soon all being well will overtake France, what happens there may well effect us and those in the Euro zone according to economists . Frances economy is in serious trouble 10% unemployment, strike ridden right across the board so much so some pundits compare it to the days of the UK under Callaghan in the winter of discontent and the sick man of Europe, their entire economy is in grave danger of collapsing. The advice the economists give to anyone with money in France is very simple get it out quick, they see the UK as a much safer more stable option, the French community in London is growing and has been for the last few years as they leg it. Utter nonsense and an indication of your lacklustre understanding of business.
We have taxpayer subsidies for banks, house builders, big business and a host of others who must not be exposed to the cold winds of financial reality, capitalism in the UK is broken, on top of this we have plummeting productivity and as an employer myself I can state categorically that if you want a part time, insecure and poorly paid workforce you can kiss goodbye to that oh so important productivity. The current "boom" is built on sand, the march of the manufacturers has slowed to a backward shuffle and we are running up debt at ever increasing amounts, perhaps Stan you can explain how we solve these problems? Although if you know the answer I suspect you won't like it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 18 2014, 09:49 AM
Post #83
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 09:45 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 18 2014, 09:37 AM
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 06:32 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 17 2014, 07:36 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016 GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST
* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second day. * U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent * Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower * Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs
By Marc Jones LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up from a two-year siesta. European stock markets slumped, with London , Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and 2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for a loss of 17 percent in a week. Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower, with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P 500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced for a flurry of economic data and earnings. Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil face their own hardships. These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it. "Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham Secker. "Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what they can." The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling. The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens. German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S. Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high. EURO ZONE ON ALERT As well as meek global growth, European markets have been rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in Athens. Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94 on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since October 2008 continued. One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding. But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese , Spanish and Italian 10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and 2.31 percent respectively. They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds , which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard. "The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the European economic and currency union and the situation of individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.
GROWTH GLOOM In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured during market turbulence also made gains. Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their expectations to the first quarter of 2016. Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P 500 and the MSCI 45-country world index have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial crisis in 2009 though. As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188, flat on the day. Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though. Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as U.S. crude slumped to $80.45. Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.
(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by Anna Willard)
The economists have looked beyond borders for years due to investment being a global market, in addition to what I posted earlier on top of the nervousness about the European Economy and the Euro especially what is happening in France, the economy of China and its neighbours is slowing down. That is what has made investors sell shares over the last few weeks, lower investment puts employment at risk world wide, but the market was starting to recover as of yesterday when investors started to buy shares again. Like it or not we need the global market to be robust and strong if you and I want to keep earning paying our bills and feeding our families, you would soon go out of business if few could afford to pay for your services.
"Economists" do not run the financial system Stan! Bankers and what I'd very loosely describe as investors do, and all they are interested in is extracting as much profit as possible and sod the longer term consequences, exponential growth is no longer possible instead some consolidation must take place, I repeat those who are productive can no longer afford the inflated prices the markets are demanding, deflation (a dirty word in the City) will restore the balance between what people can afford and what markets can ask. At the moment assets are being kept at artificially high prices thus resulting in the stagnation we are now seeing once again, those consumers cannot afford to consume at current price points, have you got that now? ie the easy money for the markets is drying up and consumers cannot fill the gap. But don't just take my word for it in the last 24 hours the head of the US federal reserve has said much the same, the growing wealth inequality in the US is damaging the economy, of course the exact same thing applies here.
Economists are part of it their job is to predict financial trends and advise and the object of any business including the financial sector is to make money just as any other yours included. And economics is known as the dismal science!
Only a handful saw the crash coming and those who were predicting it were often labelled renegade economists, economics in the UK has become the art of protecting those who messed up the joint in the first place, that will eventually have to change if genuine recovery is to take place.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 18 2014, 09:55 AM
Post #84
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Marconi
- Oct 17 2014, 11:57 PM
Who's blaming the bankers? A real banker is someone who is responsible to his financial institution, the wider community and the country, who is professional and has integrity.
If he isn't any those things then he is not a banker, he is a financial terrorist.
So are we saying that those who were working in the financial institutions at the time of the crash are not even a teeny weensy bit responsible for sinking the economy?
It would have been in the interest of real bankers to have prosecuted the rogues within the industry and bring confidence to the markets and the public. Instead they blamed everyone else.
Wish me luck tomorrow when I am at work - I am going to break all the CNC machines then do bugger all and blame it on my mate Steve. Let's see how long I last in my job.
Disable the G83 command on deep drilling operations to burn out the tooling and then go to your boss and ask him to give you a pay rise and and then blame him for not stopping you from effing up that machining centre!
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 10:22 AM
Post #85
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 18 2014, 07:28 AM
The state of the economy is not dandy with the most significant problem being low productivity. Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament. Unless we get a Gov with gonads this borrowing to fuel current consumption will go on for decades. Labour have no interest in the future only the votes to be bought today.
Today would be a good day for you to re-asses ....... This Chart (admittedly for the USA, but that does not detract from what it tells about us) has the introduction - - Quote:
-
If you must know only one fact about the U.S. economy, it should be this chart:

Tax receipts are low because jobs are increasingly scarce, wages are suppressed, and welfare cost keep rising - and all this is largely because business has increased productivity through technological advances that reduced reliance on man-power. More wealth has been created, but less of it has filtered down to support society - instead it has supported global expansionism, globalisation, greed. They have taken the wealth created in the West and used it to advance the development of the third world (as was), opening up markets, and making traditional Western employment redundant.
This is a topic requiring much more to be said (and told) than I can do justice to here.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 18 2014, 10:50 AM
Post #86
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:52 AM
. .Your timeslot is way too short to get a true appreciation of what has been going on. Thereby rendering your argument mostly invalid. Welfare has been steadily increasing as we see from 1980 (short respite in circa 2000), when we had a mostly competent government in power.  Not really. And you have to use real term values to see what happened

Having cut Welfare spending from 97 to 2002 as employment improved it suddenly accelerates again as an election looms
Now look at the unemployment and average wages for the same time period and it shows there was no reason other than to buy votes.


Brown wanted that top job at all costs especially as he was guaranteed a fat pension for life when it all hit the fan.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #87
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 10:50 AM
Having cut Welfare spending from 97 to 2002 as employment improved it suddenly accelerates again as an election looms
Now look at the unemployment and average wages for the same time period and it shows there was no reason other than to buy votes.
Brown wanted that top job at all costs especially as he was guaranteed a fat pension for life when it all hit the fan.
Not something I can generally say of you, but this time I just don't see the logic you appear to employ here to reach the conclusions you do - it does look very much like political posturing from where I'm sat.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 18 2014, 12:10 PM
Post #88
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Well what other explanation can you suggest for increasing welfare spend that much in the 2 year run in to a general election when wages were increasing and unemployment falling?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 18 2014, 12:16 PM
Post #89
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now? The economy is beginning to collapse again. Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing. Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings. Government borrowing is as high as ever. In short just a shambles. All this from the serial complainer that wanted to increase borrowing to fuel the public sector deficit. Some people, I think we call the hypocrites, are never satisfied. Anyway think the UK economy is stuffed then best get out of your darkened room and look at what is going on elsewhere. We live in a global economy and there is not much this UK Gov. or any other can do about that. But Labour could and would make a fragile situation a lot worse. The truth is finally coming home, we should have cut Big Nanny down to an affordable size in a single Parliamentary term as I said at the outset and not relied in pie in the sky growth, predicted by Labour, to buy us time. A big mistake which we all will now regret as this growth is coming from employment of low skilled poorly educated people who by definition do not add much value that is taxable. As for those with skills the demand generally exceeds supply. I am afraid the pseudo-Keynsian crap spewed out from the left has left us still in the sh1t and the deficit is growing not reducing. Think that Labour will improve the mess? Then you must be dreaming, they will make it even worse and even more difficult for our kids to dig themselves out.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 01:38 PM
Post #90
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 12:10 PM
Well what other explanation can you suggest for increasing welfare spend that much in the 2 year run in to a general election when wages were increasing and unemployment falling?
I have already said that there is no obvious reason for spending to have increased post 2005 GE. There is however a lot of justification for the increased spending from 2001 - 2005. That was the repair bill for decades of underspend on the NHS, schools, policing and most everything. After 2005 it is my opinion that it was job done, time to ease up, time to relax investment spending.
The increase in the Welfare bill was dwarfed by larger increases in the NHS spend and on Education.
On the time scale you chose year 2000 - 2015, we are looking at 2000 - 2007 (when G Brown took over from AL Blair).
Total Spend increased from 2000 £310bn to 2007 £530bn (approx -not real terms) At 2005 valuations - £400bn - £56obn But for my purposes I'll stay with £bn (actual spend - it doesn't matter which scale I use).
Increase in Welfare Spend (over that time period) = £60bn - £80bn ..... £20bn or by 33% Increase in NHS spend = £45bn - £90bn ........... by £45bn or by 100%. Increase in Education spend = £40bn - £80bn ............ by 100%
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/charts
Ergo it wasn't Welfare Spending responsible for the main rise in spending - Welfare spending has been increasing annually apart from that initial impact (under Labour) of getting folk off benefits and into work which caused a dip for the only time. As I have also said previously - the only parallel change in circumstances I know of to account for any of this is EU enlargement and a huge increase in EU immigrants. Whether there is a relationship or not I cannot say with any detail.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 18 2014, 01:44 PM
Post #91
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Interesting comparison:-
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 01:51 PM
Post #92
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
I just realised something ........ for Steve K I have been assuming that there is an understanding that the reduction in Welfare Spending we saw from 1997 - 2004 was entirely due to people coming off benefits and into work. It should also be just as obvious that once that major change has been achieved, that the fall in unemployment settles, then so will the reduction in spending witnessed also cease to take place ......... Is this point being missed?
|
|
|
| |
|
marybrown
|
Oct 18 2014, 02:04 PM
Post #93
|
- Posts:
- 10,516
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #60
- Joined:
- Jul 27, 2014
|
Do all these lovely graphs apply to British born people finding work, or the rest of the fecking world who are here nicking the jobs?
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Oct 18 2014, 07:17 PM
Post #94
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 18 2014, 12:16 PM
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now? The economy is beginning to collapse again. Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing. Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings. Government borrowing is as high as ever. In short just a shambles.
All this from the serial complainer that wanted to increase borrowing to fuel the public sector deficit. Some people, I think we call the hypocrites, are never satisfied. Anyway think the UK economy is stuffed then best get out of your darkened room and look at what is going on elsewhere. We live in a global economy and there is not much this UK Gov. or any other can do about that. But Labour could and would make a fragile situation a lot worse. The truth is finally coming home, we should have cut Big Nanny down to an affordable size in a single Parliamentary term as I said at the outset and not relied in pie in the sky growth, predicted by Labour, to buy us time. A big mistake which we all will now regret as this growth is coming from employment of low skilled poorly educated people who by definition do not add much value that is taxable. As for those with skills the demand generally exceeds supply. I am afraid the pseudo-Keynsian crap spewed out from the left has left us still in the sh1t and the deficit is growing not reducing. Think that Labour will improve the mess? Then you must be dreaming, they will make it even worse and even more difficult for our kids to dig themselves out. Same old worn out diatribe from someone who knows nothing much about anything.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 18 2014, 08:25 PM
Post #95
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 01:51 PM
I just realised something ........ for Steve K I have been assuming that there is an understanding that the reduction in Welfare Spending we saw from 1997 - 2004 was entirely due to people coming off benefits and into work. It should also be just as obvious that once that major change has been achieved, that the fall in unemployment settles, then so will the reduction in spending witnessed also cease to take place ......... Is this point being missed?
Not so sure. When unemployment falls we not only see the relatively minor drop in JSA claims but we see wages increase through supply and demand) so other benefits should reduce.
To your other post ^ yes I agree Welfare wasn't the only increase in spending, they were throwing money all over the place - but money they did not have - to create a positive position for the 2005 election. Welfare is just the easiest one to see why it was so wrong.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 08:53 PM
Post #96
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 08:25 PM
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 01:51 PM
It should also be obvious that once that major change has been achieved, that the fall in unemployment settles, then so will the reduction in spending witnessed also cease to take place ......... Is this point being missed?
Not so sure. When unemployment falls we not only see the relatively minor drop in JSA claims but we see wages increase through supply and demand) so other benefits should reduce. To your other post ^ yes I agree Welfare wasn't the only increase in spending, they were throwing money all over the place - but money they did not have - to create a positive position for the 2005 election. Welfare is just the easiest one to see why it was so wrong.
All other things being equal then there are a few certainties. One is that the NHS spend goes up year on year - just to keep pace with demand and an ageing population. Another is that since the eighties we have had a large number of people (families) on Welfare, with little prospects of that changing - over this period reliance on 'in work' benefits has also increased, is still increasing. What it does mean is that like the NHS, the Welfare bill is set to keep on rising. It did under the last Conservative government, it is doing under this one ....... there is the explanation for the increase you have decided was popularist politicking for votes. No sane person on benefits is ever going to vote Tory, so why imagine Labour need to woo them?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 18 2014, 10:39 PM
Post #97
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 08:53 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 08:25 PM
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 01:51 PM
It should also be obvious that once that major change has been achieved, that the fall in unemployment settles, then so will the reduction in spending witnessed also cease to take place ......... Is this point being missed?
Not so sure. When unemployment falls we not only see the relatively minor drop in JSA claims but we see wages increase through supply and demand) so other benefits should reduce. To your other post ^ yes I agree Welfare wasn't the only increase in spending, they were throwing money all over the place - but money they did not have - to create a positive position for the 2005 election. Welfare is just the easiest one to see why it was so wrong.
All other things being equal then there are a few certainties. One is that the NHS spend goes up year on year - just to keep pace with demand and an ageing population. Another is that since the eighties we have had a large number of people (families) on Welfare, with little prospects of that changing - over this period reliance on 'in work' benefits has also increased, is still increasing. What it does mean is that like the NHS, the Welfare bill is set to keep on rising. It did under the last Conservative government, it is doing under this one ....... there is the explanation for the increase you have decided was popularist politicking for votes. No sane person on benefits is ever going to vote Tory, so why imagine Labour need to woo them? because swing voters do react to the level of unemployed and the numbers of calling on the bank of Ma and Da. And if people are instead claiming the higher paid disability and carer benefits it looks good to such swing voters
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344650/stats-summary-aug14.pdf table 1.1
No I can't prove it
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 18 2014, 11:42 PM
Post #98
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 10:39 PM
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 08:53 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 08:25 PM
- Affa
- Oct 18 2014, 01:51 PM
It should also be obvious that once that major change has been achieved, that the fall in unemployment settles, then so will the reduction in spending witnessed also cease to take place ......... Is this point being missed?
Not so sure. When unemployment falls we not only see the relatively minor drop in JSA claims but we see wages increase through supply and demand) so other benefits should reduce. To your other post ^ yes I agree Welfare wasn't the only increase in spending, ...... Welfare is just the easiest one to see why it was so wrong.
Another is that since the eighties we have had a large number of people (families) on Welfare, with little prospects of that changing - over this period reliance on 'in work' benefits has also increased, is still increasing. What it does mean is that like the NHS, the Welfare bill is set to keep on rising. It did under the last Conservative government, it is doing under this one .......
because swing voters do react to the level of unemployed and the numbers of calling on the bank of Ma and Da. And if people are instead claiming the higher paid disability and carer benefits it looks good to such swing voters https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344650/stats-summary-aug14.pdf table 1.1 No I can't prove it
I'm not sure what I am expected to make of the pdf link, but I'll tell you what I did notice - that despite the number of claimants falling in every category of Welfare spending (pensions excluded) the bill keeps on rising just as I told it would do.
There is an explanation for why it is so, and a pointer to how best bring Welfare under control - and that is that the growth we are told is happening isn't being seen or transferred into improving wages/living standards. Treasury receipts are not showing much returns either. That arrest of welfare spending post 1997 was because the new jobs were paying a living wage, people were coming off benefits, and treasury receipts were increasing ........ "that's the way to do it!
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 18 2014, 11:52 PM
Post #99
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Well I did reference the table that showed numbers on disability related benefits increasing but I think we've ground this line of discussion into the dust. I agree with you that we have to increase the number in decent paid jobs and we have been woeful for decades at that.
On a side issue I hate that term "living wage". It is badly overused and many forget that for a second earner in a household a "living wage" is actually well BELOW the NMW.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 19 2014, 12:05 AM
Post #100
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 18 2014, 11:52 PM
On a side issue I hate that term "living wage". It is badly overused and many forget that for a second earner in a household a "living wage" is actually well BELOW the NMW.
And I agree with that. The only use it has (for me) is in making it easier to express what this term represents, that wages below a certain level, a level at which 'in work benefits' become available, are a drag on the economy.
We used to have a system whereby wages were held below that sort of level - it was called 'apprenticeship', and implied (usually correctly) that it was for training with the guarantee of a good job at the end of it. Apprenticeships were largely funded from business, the recognition being that it was business that needed these skills. ........ it has all been lost, the funding, the training, the very idea that business do more to help themselves. Lost to greed and political complicity in making these changes.
Edited by Affa, Oct 19 2014, 12:12 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 19 2014, 06:32 AM
Post #101
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 07:17 PM
- RJD
- Oct 18 2014, 12:16 PM
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now? The economy is beginning to collapse again. Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing. Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings. Government borrowing is as high as ever. In short just a shambles.
All this from the serial complainer that wanted to increase borrowing to fuel the public sector deficit. Some people, I think we call the hypocrites, are never satisfied. Anyway think the UK economy is stuffed then best get out of your darkened room and look at what is going on elsewhere. We live in a global economy and there is not much this UK Gov. or any other can do about that. But Labour could and would make a fragile situation a lot worse. The truth is finally coming home, we should have cut Big Nanny down to an affordable size in a single Parliamentary term as I said at the outset and not relied in pie in the sky growth, predicted by Labour, to buy us time. A big mistake which we all will now regret as this growth is coming from employment of low skilled poorly educated people who by definition do not add much value that is taxable. As for those with skills the demand generally exceeds supply. I am afraid the pseudo-Keynsian crap spewed out from the left has left us still in the sh1t and the deficit is growing not reducing. Think that Labour will improve the mess? Then you must be dreaming, they will make it even worse and even more difficult for our kids to dig themselves out.
Same old worn out diatribe from someone who knows nothing much about anything. But he does, he fingers the hypocrite.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stan Still
|
Oct 19 2014, 06:35 AM
Post #102
|
- Posts:
- 1,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 18 2014, 09:46 AM
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 08:05 AM
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now? The economy is beginning to collapse again. Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing. Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings. Government borrowing is as high as ever. In short just a shambles.
Our economy is not collapsing it is not a strong as one as one would like it but it is slowly improving and soon all being well will overtake France, what happens there may well effect us and those in the Euro zone according to economists . Frances economy is in serious trouble 10% unemployment, strike ridden right across the board so much so some pundits compare it to the days of the UK under Callaghan in the winter of discontent and the sick man of Europe, their entire economy is in grave danger of collapsing. The advice the economists give to anyone with money in France is very simple get it out quick, they see the UK as a much safer more stable option, the French community in London is growing and has been for the last few years as they leg it.
Utter nonsense and an indication of your lacklustre understanding of business. We have taxpayer subsidies for banks, house builders, big business and a host of others who must not be exposed to the cold winds of financial reality, capitalism in the UK is broken, on top of this we have plummeting productivity and as an employer myself I can state categorically that if you want a part time, insecure and poorly paid workforce you can kiss goodbye to that oh so important productivity. The current "boom" is built on sand, the march of the manufacturers has slowed to a backward shuffle and we are running up debt at ever increasing amounts, perhaps Stan you can explain how we solve these problems? Although if you know the answer I suspect you won't like it. I do not pretend unlike you to know what the answers are but I do know what the problems are, and you certainly have no answers to them either.
But as and when and if you ever realize that that there is a world outside of your small pond it may just dawn on you that we are part of a global world and market that will continue as it is with or without us or you, there is no option of doing without it.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
Post #103
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.
The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.
And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million. I really do not know what else you expected? Big Nanny remains morbidly obese. We still place a high tax on unemployment. There is a shortage of skilled Labour, however, their are legions willing to take on jobs at NMW. Why are there so many people here chasing these low value adding jobs that deliver little for our recovery? We now see the on going cost of not putting Big Nanny into rapid weight loss. Stuck with her intolerable costs and declining revenues. Well done all those that prefer future generations to fund our selfish consumption, well done they must be proud. I warned not to rely on growth but to cut out the running costs, but the crypto-keynsians screamed blue murder. Now we are doomed unless Slasher is freed up to do his dirty work. It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 19 2014, 08:38 AM
Post #104
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
That is OK for you, you would not be effected. Do you care about the consequences for others or not?
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 19 2014, 11:55 AM
Post #105
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
I really do not know what else you expected? Big Nanny remains morbidly obese. We still place a high tax on unemployment. There is a shortage of skilled Labour, however, their are legions willing to take on jobs at NMW. Why are there so many people here chasing these low value adding jobs that deliver little for our recovery? We now see the on going cost of not putting Big Nanny into rapid weight loss. Stuck with her intolerable costs and declining revenues. Well done all those that prefer future generations to fund our selfish consumption, well done they must be proud. I warned not to rely on growth but to cut out the running costs, but the crypto-keynsians screamed blue murder. Now we are doomed unless Slasher is freed up to do his dirty work. It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
Remember John Major? Recall the economy he left to Tony Blair in 1997? Do you need reminding that he ran a deficit of over 7% GDP for most of his government, reminding that he operated with a record debt, record borrowing (at the time)?
Austerity measures have not resulted in deficit reduction as was told it would. Instead these measures cut of growth. Having failed to solve the deficit problem through cuts to spending, it is suicidal to believe cutting further will eventually do so. Targeting those with least, those on benefits, the low paid to resolve a deficit is plain daft. They recognised it themselves when they said "we are all in it together", knew it would require the wealthy, and business itself, to make a bigger contribution towards a recovery - it hasn't happened. John Major had the right idea, he and Ken Clarke did put a recovery plan in place -
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 19 2014, 12:27 PM
Post #106
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 19 2014, 11:55 AM
. . .Austerity measures have not resulted in deficit reduction as was told it would. . . . Yes they have
PSBR (aka deficit)
2009/10: £153.0B
2013/14: £ 99.3B
Down by a third
See HofC briefing SN/EP/5745: Public sector borrowing, debt and debt interest payments: historical statistics
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 19 2014, 01:35 PM
Post #107
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 19 2014, 12:27 PM
The operative wording was 'as told it would' ...... and more pointedly, as we are being told again = "more austerity needed".
Is there a county in Europe, as disadvantaged as they are by being tied to the euro, that hasn't done better than a third reduction in the deficit? Never mind that this 1/3rd was largely a result of the measures taken by the previous government, combined with a natural recovery post recession (which is regardless of government interventions).
Something I have tried to get across before - this crisis was entirely about the FS sector, the losses from that sector being why the deficit appeared. It had nothing to do with the other 'Markets', those were performing OK. And want to carry on - what austerity has done is curtail consumer spending as well - and that is why there has been a lack of growth. Only through growth can the economy remove the deficit and start to pay off the debts - Osborne said it himself when the green shoots of a recovery were finally confirmed to be bearing leaf.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 19 2014, 02:22 PM
Post #108
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Yes but growth through printing more money is not real growth. You print £1 and a big chunk leaves the economy by buying in imports.
Economists will argue for years about the credibility of Darlings plan, with the higher borrowings needed esp in the early years it would have forced to pay higher interest rates. And higher interest rates can so so easily become a death spiral.
That Darling was reported to have wanted a tougher plan and was vetoed by Brown with an eye on that 2010 election fills me with little confidence his published plan would have ever worked.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 19 2014, 04:02 PM
Post #109
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 19 2014, 02:22 PM
Yes but growth through printing more money is not real growth. You print £1 and a big chunk leaves the economy by buying in imports.
Economists will argue for years about the credibility of Darlings plan, with the higher borrowings needed esp in the early years it would have forced to pay higher interest rates. And higher interest rates can so so easily become a death spiral.
That Darling was reported to have wanted a tougher plan and was vetoed by Brown with an eye on that 2010 election fills me with little confidence his published plan would have ever worked.
I have no idea of what plan you are referring to, or of any conversation between Brown and Darling of the sort you speak of. Their disagreements (publicised) were pre-crisis or rather when it first appeared in America. Brown initially believed the UK was insulated. All of which is pointless, because your comments here clearly refer to an imagined conflict about how to deal with the post recession economy and recovery. Their agreement was summed up by A Darling in when Opposition critics were saying the plan wasn't "fast enough."(2010) - Quote:
-
"My judgement is that halving the deficit over a four-year period with the structural deficit coming down by two-thirds, is the right [course of action]."
In hindsight, those aims were a lot better than what the coalition has actually delivered - these people intent on being quicker, but still lag. If Labour had said five years and took seven or eight I know what the opposition would be saying. The fact is that Labour knew it would take longer than one term - and their attention to delivering growth would I'm sure have seen the economy in a better state today than it is.
Compare An economy that over five years grew by 5% deficit reduced by 1/3rd -
An economy growing by 10% - deficit reduced by 2/3rds
And as justification I cite the US economy, which adopted a A Darling style recovery plan (US economy has grown by 13% real terms) - the plan Cameron went to Washington (or was it NY) to discus and came back saying "we agreed to disagree". That US stimulus has seen the NASDAQ index increase by near 200% since 2010.
Earlier I said that things have gotten worse under this government - austerity measures are after all an admission of the fact. Cameron and Osborne are still saying that things will have to get even worse - more austerity, more hardship, before they can get better. In the US it's been better all along.
I'm on a roll ....... I ask myself 'why would Cameron and Osborne exaggerate the difficulties, why are they so pessimistic, and why so insistent that Labour would wreck the country'.
The answer is of course two parts. Part 1 is this ideological urge to make the working class slaves to business. The other is because the guaranteed failure they are on course to deliver can only be excused if the public believe that the difficulties were unsurmountable. What they try to convince the electorate of is "it would have been worse" under Labour. In that they have many able allies, allies to the corporate hegemony.
Edited by Affa, Oct 19 2014, 04:06 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 19 2014, 04:27 PM
Post #110
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Stan Still
- Oct 19 2014, 06:35 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 18 2014, 09:46 AM
- Stan Still
- Oct 18 2014, 08:05 AM
- Lewis
- Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Our economy is not collapsing it is not a strong as one as one would like it but it is slowly improving and soon all being well will overtake France, what happens there may well effect us and those in the Euro zone according to economists . Frances economy is in serious trouble 10% unemployment, strike ridden right across the board so much so some pundits compare it to the days of the UK under Callaghan in the winter of discontent and the sick man of Europe, their entire economy is in grave danger of collapsing. The advice the economists give to anyone with money in France is very simple get it out quick, they see the UK as a much safer more stable option, the French community in London is growing and has been for the last few years as they leg it.
Utter nonsense and an indication of your lacklustre understanding of business. We have taxpayer subsidies for banks, house builders, big business and a host of others who must not be exposed to the cold winds of financial reality, capitalism in the UK is broken, on top of this we have plummeting productivity and as an employer myself I can state categorically that if you want a part time, insecure and poorly paid workforce you can kiss goodbye to that oh so important productivity. The current "boom" is built on sand, the march of the manufacturers has slowed to a backward shuffle and we are running up debt at ever increasing amounts, perhaps Stan you can explain how we solve these problems? Although if you know the answer I suspect you won't like it.
I do not pretend unlike you to know what the answers are but I do know what the problems are, and you certainly have no answers to them either. But as and when and if you ever realize that that there is a world outside of your small pond it may just dawn on you that we are part of a global world and market that will continue as it is with or without us or you, there is no option of doing without it. I've pointed out several times what the answer is but for some reason it does not stick in your mind.
We bring back real capitalism, that is capitalism that allows bad institutions to die, it punishes shareholders for not taking an interest in what their company is up to, and we break up cartels and start jailing white collar crooks, we do not slap these groups on the wrist and then give them a virtual blank cheque to do it all again!
We need to concentrate some minds at the top end of society because that is where the real problems are Stan.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 19 2014, 04:31 PM
Post #111
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.
The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.
And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million.
I really do not know what else you expected? Big Nanny remains morbidly obese. We still place a high tax on unemployment. There is a shortage of skilled Labour, however, their are legions willing to take on jobs at NMW. Why are there so many people here chasing these low value adding jobs that deliver little for our recovery? We now see the on going cost of not putting Big Nanny into rapid weight loss. Stuck with her intolerable costs and declining revenues. Well done all those that prefer future generations to fund our selfish consumption, well done they must be proud. I warned not to rely on growth but to cut out the running costs, but the crypto-keynsians screamed blue murder. Now we are doomed unless Slasher is freed up to do his dirty work. It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly. Perhaps you can have a word with big nanny and ask her among other things why the housing benefit bill is out of control?
When you get back from your "free market" brainwashing session feel free to explain.
Oh, and the biggest problem we have in retaining staff is the cost of housing in this region.
Edited by Tigger, Oct 19 2014, 04:32 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Oct 19 2014, 06:00 PM
Post #112
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 19 2014, 04:31 PM
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.
The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.
And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million.
I really do not know what else you expected? Big Nanny remains morbidly obese. We still place a high tax on unemployment. There is a shortage of skilled Labour, however, their are legions willing to take on jobs at NMW. Why are there so many people here chasing these low value adding jobs that deliver little for our recovery? We now see the on going cost of not putting Big Nanny into rapid weight loss. Stuck with her intolerable costs and declining revenues. Well done all those that prefer future generations to fund our selfish consumption, well done they must be proud. I warned not to rely on growth but to cut out the running costs, but the crypto-keynsians screamed blue murder. Now we are doomed unless Slasher is freed up to do his dirty work. It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
Perhaps you can have a word with big nanny and ask her among other things why the housing benefit bill is out of control? When you get back from your "free market" brainwashing session feel free to explain. Oh, and the biggest problem we have in retaining staff is the cost of housing in this region. Totally agree. Mr erudite refers to lancing a boil, however was there one to lance in the first instance. We are told that there was, but the evidence doesn't back up that supposition.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 19 2014, 08:26 PM
Post #113
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 19 2014, 04:02 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 19 2014, 02:22 PM
Yes but growth through printing more money is not real growth. You print £1 and a big chunk leaves the economy by buying in imports.
Economists will argue for years about the credibility of Darlings plan, with the higher borrowings needed esp in the early years it would have forced to pay higher interest rates. And higher interest rates can so so easily become a death spiral.
That Darling was reported to have wanted a tougher plan and was vetoed by Brown with an eye on that 2010 election fills me with little confidence his published plan would have ever worked.
I have no idea of what plan you are referring to, or of any conversation between Brown and Darling of the sort you speak of. Their disagreements (publicised) were pre-crisis or rather when it first appeared in America. . . . Dec 2009. Post crisis and pre election. Darling is preparing his plan in the form of a pre budget report
Alistair Darling wanted tougher Pre-Budget report but was 'overruled by Gordon Brown'
And same time frame from The Guardian:
- Quote:
-
Darling intended to bring in a specific package that would have protected the poor since VAT as a flat tax is seen as a regressive tax. There had been no plan to extend the existing VAT exemptions.
It also emerged there is anger in parts of the cabinet over the decision not to be specific about the degree of spending cuts that will be required in the later years to bring the deficit under control.
Some government sources said they found Brown still in denial about the scale of the cuts required. Predicting that the budget would be deeply unpopular, they argued politicians would be given greater respect if they showed leadership and honesty about the difficulties the country faced and the need to cut spending.
Whichever side of the media spectrum you pick, the published Darling plan was clearly half baked
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 19 2014, 09:15 PM
Post #114
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 19 2014, 08:26 PM
Whichever side of the media spectrum you pick, the published Darling plan was clearly half baked
So you focus on the media interest in the Cabinet struggles to agree a common policy. A complete reversal of the usual Tory argument that G Brown was controlling, all powerful.
- Quote:
-
Predicting that the budget would be deeply unpopular, they argued politicians would be given greater respect if they showed leadership and honesty about the difficulties the country faced and the need to cut spending
Something in contrast to the spin of the then opposition - who were dishonest. Has Osborne ruled with an iron grip?
Darling's plan wasn't half baked, it was half a plan .... the half they didn't publish was their tax raids. You knew that, didn't you.
In his March 2010 budget Darling put up taxes (worth £8bn pa to the Treasury) - Osborne did not reverse any of them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 19 2014, 09:34 PM
Post #115
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
"In his March 2010 budget Darling put up taxes (worth £8bn pa to the Treasury) - Osborne did not reverse any of them."
And your point is?
|
|
|
| |
|
Gnikkk
|
Oct 19 2014, 09:42 PM
Post #116
|
- Posts:
- 1,162
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 17 2014, 08:44 AM
- Gnikkk
- Oct 17 2014, 05:54 AM
But, but, but,..., but we were screwed by the last government. What chance has a country that despite good news there will always be some who cannot move on from their childhood indoctrination.
We were screwed by the Tory voting? so called financial experts in the international financial markets who were far more concerned with the thickness of their wallets than in the value of what they were dealing with. Blaming the last government is either a case of ignorance or pure political bias. I have no political allegiance, shame on you for a cheap shot. Best engage brain before attacking I find. Maybe you don't understand that some don't need to rely on allegiances, we just get on and make do. I did pretty well under T Blair et al, but by anyone's reckoning he screwed the country in terms of economics and our ability to govern ourselves. Try and debate rather than attack.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 20 2014, 12:17 AM
Post #117
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 19 2014, 09:34 PM
"In his March 2010 budget Darling put up taxes (worth £8bn pa to the Treasury) - Osborne did not reverse any of them."
And your point is?
The only point that can be made ....... Budget in March, Election in May, New Government - no reversal of the taxes introduced ........... ergo there was no Tax & Spend from Labour unless you want to include the Tories who DID increase taxes by increasing VAT.
This exchange started when you said
- Quote:
-
Economists will argue for years about the credibility of Darlings plan, with the higher borrowings needed esp in the early years it would have forced to pay higher interest rates. And higher interest rates can so so easily become a death spiral.
All of it conjecture, and I have tried to indicate that the basis for this negative regard is baseless. The economy was recovering - that recovery stopped within a year of the Coalition taking over, and hasn't improved until recently. Labour's plans were the exact opposite - to secure growth, and bring back stability. Much as Obama has in the US - they are comparing growth there with when Reagan was President, their boom period.
I'm quite prepared to have a go at Labour, though reluctantly at A Darling who deserves a lot of credit imo. I have more belief in what he could have achieved (getting the Banks to start lending to SMEs for example) than has GO.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
Post #118
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 19 2014, 08:38 AM
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
That is OK for you, you would not be effected. Do you care about the consequences for others or not? It is exactly for that reason and no other. You seem to be disinterested in the plight of those that are unemployed, capable and willing to work. My impression is that you have already written off employment as a life style. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs. I do not wish to condemn people to the high levels of unemployment experienced by France which seems to be the objective of the UK left today.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Oct 20 2014, 07:16 AM
Post #119
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 19 2014, 08:38 AM
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
That is OK for you, you would not be effected. Do you care about the consequences for others or not?
It is exactly for that reason and no other. You seem to be disinterested in the plight of those that are unemployed, capable and willing to work. My impression is that you have already written off employment as a life style. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs. I do not wish to condemn people to the high levels of unemployment experienced by France which seems to be the objective of the UK left today. One of your leadership, namely Iain Duncan Smith, is obviously pulling your strings this time. Note the false concern for the unemployed, so obvious it is almost laughable.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 20 2014, 07:28 AM
Post #120
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Lewis
- Oct 20 2014, 07:16 AM
- RJD
- Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 19 2014, 08:38 AM
- RJD
- Oct 19 2014, 06:44 AM
It would, as I said, been cheaper and less painful to lance the boil quickly.
That is OK for you, you would not be effected. Do you care about the consequences for others or not?
It is exactly for that reason and no other. You seem to be disinterested in the plight of those that are unemployed, capable and willing to work. My impression is that you have already written off employment as a life style. Open your eyes and see that economies that have a large Public Sector as a portion of GDP are not creating jobs. I do not wish to condemn people to the high levels of unemployment experienced by France which seems to be the objective of the UK left today.
One of your leadership, namely Iain Duncan Smith, is obviously pulling your strings this time. Note the false concern for the unemployed, so obvious it is almost laughable. Tripe you should have noted by now, if you had an open mind, that from day one my priority has been for jobs, real ones mind.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|