Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Corbyn-economics?
Topic Started: Sep 7 2015, 07:27 AM (798 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Somebody has to kick this off as it looks like it could become official Labour policy.

Two things; higher tax rates and The People's QE.

The 50P or higher appeals to the Spite and Envy Brigade, but they present no evidence of how such will bring sustainable increases in revenues.
Quote:
 
Consider the early 1970s, I suggested, when Labour introduced its venal 83pc top rate of income tax, with an additional 15pc surcharge in some cases. The result was Britain’s “economic Suez” in 1976, when our government ended up insolvent, going “cap-in-hand” for a bail-out to the International Monetary Fund.
I cited contemporary France, where President Hollande’s gallery-pleasing 75pc tax rate has proved a disaster, and where heavy state bureaucracy and taxation has seen growth average just 0.2pc over the past five years.



The People's QE

Quote:
 
Corbyn’s new policy, “people’s quantitative easing”, the transmogrification of an emergency bank liquidity measure into a money-printing free-for-all, is a dangerous nonsense.
Having said that, QE as it currently stands, overused on a grotesque scale, to keep government borrowing costs artificially low, while pumping up share prices and flattering bank balance sheets, is also a dangerous nonsense.
The only difference is that we are retaining the pretence, for now, that the government paper that the Bank of England has bought will ultimately be repaid.
Ending that, and monetising deficit spending directly à la Corbyn, would send sovereign debt markets haywire, as anyone with even the remotest understanding of economics will instantly grasp.


LINK

Would those that support the above policies care to attempt to justify them and show how such would be beneficial to the vast majority of UK citizens?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yet another link top a newspaper article which as usual means nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Corbyn will be savaged by the RW press, the markets, ratings agencies will make assumptions and give us a downcast, businesses and jigh net worth individuals would get twitchy and might move their money out of the UK.

On that basis alone, poor old honest Corbyn stands little chance even if he were leader.

Our system needs people like Corbyn from time to time, to calm down the revolting peasants with their pitchforks from stringing Cam and co up by the lampposts. That's Corbyn's function in the system.

Few will trust Corbynomics unless he shows he has some real imagination and confidence. Think of Attlee and Wilson.. No? I doubt it too.

At least the LP of 1900 is making itself truer to its roots.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Hollande has been hampered by private sector business not wanting to support his policies and so have, like the very rich, sifted away the money they make by fair means or foul.
For near four years the UK economy was a flatline, and even today UK productivity is below what it was in 2007 - Hollande could argue that the UK example of austerity alone does not reduce the debts or improve living standards.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 7 2015, 07:36 AM
Yet another link top a newspaper article which as usual means nothing.
Great contribution that adds up to exactly nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:54 AM
Hollande has been hampered by private sector business not wanting to support his policies and so have, like the very rich, sifted away the money they make by fair means or foul.
For near four years the UK economy was a flatline, and even today UK productivity is below what it was in 2007 - Hollande could argue that the UK example of austerity alone does not reduce the debts or improve living standards.

Just look at what high rates of taxation in France has done for job creation. but that is off topic.

Here Corbyn supports the printing of money to fund infrastructure projects, these costs by definition include salaries and hence current consumption, as directed by Politicians. We know that any economy from time to time requires some stimulus, but at times it requires none. What do Politicians do to win votes?

A few points made by others:

As ex-BoE economist Tony Yates puts it, less temperately: 
Quote:
 
“Any attempt to hijack the printing presses for general deficit financing… will wreck monetary policy”. That’s because “the next time the government fancies winning an election by promising grand public works schemes, it will be expected that the BoE will print money to finance that” – leading to an inflationary spiral. “Corbyn’s QE is the first step along the road to undermining the social usefulness of money.”



Quote:
 
Corbyn’s idea is illegal under EU law, because it risks runaway inflation, debauching the currency, and crashing the economy.


Quote:
 
If the government wants to spend more on infrastructure, it can do so by issuing debt in the normal way. QE is not necessary.


Quote:
 
“QE for the people” is just populist sloganeering, built on false premises about the nature, purpose and impact of “ordinary” QE.


One other comment I noted that rings true is: the left will love The Peoples QE as they think it will print them into becoming rich, as they always attempt to vote themselves such.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 08:55 AM
Great contribution that adds up to exactly nothing.
But your links are what add exactly nothing, they are opinion in a newspaper by people with the same agenda as you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 7 2015, 09:33 AM
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 08:55 AM
Great contribution that adds up to exactly nothing.
But your links are what add exactly nothing, they are opinion in a newspaper by people with the same agenda as you.
So the report was an opinion worth nothing was it? Those like yourself that condemn everything you do not like the sound of out of hand are the ones with absolutely nothing but ignorant emotions on offer. I expect a big fat nothing from your extremely bigoted contributions. I know you read little before spouting as I have, in the past, checked your speed reading ability and your claims to have read such links indicate that you are a Savant with a photographic memory who can read individual pages with individual eyeballs. Mr Smurf you really are full of it.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 09:41 AM
So the report was an opinion worth nothing was it?
You didn't link to a report RJD, you linked to a newspaper article.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Corbynomics = Cuba without the Sun

It's not just the high tax to drive away job creating talent, it's not just the runaway inflation creating and economy destroying idiocy of one state printing money. He has made huge promises to fund worthy sounding policies with money that not only is not there now, there will be even less once you look at his raft of industry killing ideas that will kill off the money creators that pay for what we do now.

But then we should have known it was all bollocks when he had to get Richard Murphy to write his economic policy and then have the sheer dishonesty to claim the same Murphy as independent verification.

'Different' is never 'Better' just by dint of not being the same as now.

For the whole picture of Corbynuttery see http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/policy If you care about Britain, if you really care about welfare for the disadvantaged then read and weep

Edited by Steve K, Sep 7 2015, 10:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:08 AM
if you really care about welfare for the disadvantaged then read and weep

I do care about welfare for the disadvantaged , and the Tories callous attitude make me very, very, angry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:08 AM
if you really care about welfare for the disadvantaged then read and weep<br /><br />
I do care about welfare for the disadvantaged , and the Tories callous attitude make me very, very, angry. As does the Labour leadership complete lack of opposition to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 7 2015, 10:24 AM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:08 AM
if you really care about welfare for the disadvantaged then read and weep<br /><br />
I do care about welfare for the disadvantaged , and the Tories callous attitude make me very, very, angry. . . .
I'd stick at very angry but yes it is very wrong
Quote:
 
. . .As does the Labour leadership complete lack of opposition to it.
Well to a great extent they started the problems. I'd say completely inept opposition though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:41 AM
Well to a great extent they started the problems. I'd say completely inept opposition though.
Yep and there seems little any can do about either of those things
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 10:46 AM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:41 AM
Well to a great extent they started the problems. I'd say completely inept opposition though.
Yep and there seems little any can do about either of those things
Well to return to topic, not voting for Corbyn would help. Corbynomics would ensure even less money in real terms for the disadvantaged and Corbynistas are very likely to let the Torries drift to the further right ad still get elected
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 09:41 AM
papasmurf
Sep 7 2015, 09:33 AM
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 08:55 AM
Great contribution that adds up to exactly nothing.
But your links are what add exactly nothing, they are opinion in a newspaper by people with the same agenda as you.
So the report was an opinion worth nothing was it? Those like yourself that condemn everything you do not like the sound of out of hand are the ones with absolutely nothing but ignorant emotions on offer. I expect a big fat nothing from your extremely bigoted contributions. I know you read little before spouting as I have, in the past, checked your speed reading ability and your claims to have read such links indicate that you are a Savant with a photographic memory who can read individual pages with individual eyeballs. Mr Smurf you really are full of it.



Only another five days to go before the result is declared.{Sigh}
Then we will all know and the speculation will end.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:58 AM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 10:46 AM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:41 AM
Well to a great extent they started the problems. I'd say completely inept opposition though.
Yep and there seems little any can do about either of those things
Well to return to topic, not voting for Corbyn would help. Corbynomics would ensure even less money in real terms for the disadvantaged and Corbynistas are very likely to let the Torries drift to the further right ad still get elected
I am still struggling to understand why QE is OK for bailing out the banks but not OK as peoples QE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Sep 7 2015, 02:30 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:58 AM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 10:46 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well to return to topic, not voting for Corbyn would help. Corbynomics would ensure even less money in real terms for the disadvantaged and Corbynistas are very likely to let the Torries drift to the further right ad still get elected
I am still struggling to understand why QE is OK for bailing out the banks but not OK as peoples QE.
Who claims it was the right solution for bailing out Banks? By the way they are not the same the similarity stops with the use of the acronym QE.





For the ignorant QE = Quantitative Easing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 09:02 AM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:54 AM
Hollande has been hampered by private sector business not wanting to support his policies and so have, like the very rich, sifted away the money they make by fair means or foul.
For near four years the UK economy was a flatline, and even today UK productivity is below what it was in 2007 - Hollande could argue that the UK example of austerity alone does not reduce the debts or improve living standards.

Just look at what high rates of taxation in France has done for job creation. but that is off topic.

Here Corbyn supports the printing of money to fund infrastructure projects, these costs by definition include salaries and hence current consumption, as directed by Politicians. We know that any economy from time to time requires some stimulus, but at times it requires none. What do Politicians do to win votes?

A few points made by others:

As ex-BoE economist Tony Yates puts it, less temperately: 
Quote:
 
“Any attempt to hijack the printing presses for general deficit financing… will wreck monetary policy”. That’s because “the next time the government fancies winning an election by promising grand public works schemes, it will be expected that the BoE will print money to finance that” – leading to an inflationary spiral. “Corbyn’s QE is the first step along the road to undermining the social usefulness of money.”



Quote:
 
Corbyn’s idea is illegal under EU law, because it risks runaway inflation, debauching the currency, and crashing the economy.


Quote:
 
If the government wants to spend more on infrastructure, it can do so by issuing debt in the normal way. QE is not necessary.


Quote:
 
“QE for the people” is just populist sloganeering, built on false premises about the nature, purpose and impact of “ordinary” QE.


One other comment I noted that rings true is: the left will love The Peoples QE as they think it will print them into becoming rich, as they always attempt to vote themselves such.



As I have indicated before, these criticisms are all basically conjecture, with some for certain biased for political reasons. Scaremongering is a well tried tactic and undoubted past success ....... if the analysis were in the nation's interest and not the Establishment's we could be reassured.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 04:22 PM
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 09:02 AM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:54 AM
Hollande has been hampered by private sector business not wanting to support his policies and so have, like the very rich, sifted away the money they make by fair means or foul.
For near four years the UK economy was a flatline, and even today UK productivity is below what it was in 2007 - Hollande could argue that the UK example of austerity alone does not reduce the debts or improve living standards.

Just look at what high rates of taxation in France has done for job creation. but that is off topic.

Here Corbyn supports the printing of money to fund infrastructure projects, these costs by definition include salaries and hence current consumption, as directed by Politicians. We know that any economy from time to time requires some stimulus, but at times it requires none. What do Politicians do to win votes?

A few points made by others:

As ex-BoE economist Tony Yates puts it, less temperately: 
Quote:
 
“Any attempt to hijack the printing presses for general deficit financing… will wreck monetary policy”. That’s because “the next time the government fancies winning an election by promising grand public works schemes, it will be expected that the BoE will print money to finance that” – leading to an inflationary spiral. “Corbyn’s QE is the first step along the road to undermining the social usefulness of money.”



Quote:
 
Corbyn’s idea is illegal under EU law, because it risks runaway inflation, debauching the currency, and crashing the economy.


Quote:
 
If the government wants to spend more on infrastructure, it can do so by issuing debt in the normal way. QE is not necessary.


Quote:
 
“QE for the people” is just populist sloganeering, built on false premises about the nature, purpose and impact of “ordinary” QE.


One other comment I noted that rings true is: the left will love The Peoples QE as they think it will print them into becoming rich, as they always attempt to vote themselves such.



As I have indicated before, these criticisms are all basically conjecture, with some for certain biased for political reasons. Scaremongering is a well tried tactic and undoubted past success ....... if the analysis were in the nation's interest and not the Establishment's we could be reassured.
But the sum total of the analysis is that such adventures are not in the nation's interest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bruv
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists

Quote:
 
"The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate's statements or policies.His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity."


Another less biased opinion
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 04:25 PM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 04:22 PM
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 09:02 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
As I have indicated before, these criticisms are all basically conjecture, with some for certain biased for political reasons. Scaremongering is a well tried tactic and undoubted past success ....... if the analysis were in the nation's interest and not the Establishment's we could be reassured.
But the sum total of the analysis is that such adventures are not in the nation's interest.
thanks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Sep 7 2015, 02:30 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:58 AM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 10:46 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well to return to topic, not voting for Corbyn would help. Corbynomics would ensure even less money in real terms for the disadvantaged and Corbynistas are very likely to let the Torries drift to the further right ad still get elected
I am still struggling to understand why QE is OK for bailing out the banks but not OK as peoples QE.
QE wasn't used to bail out the banks. The tax payers did with subsequent increase in State/Public debt.

The QE process and the downfalls of QE are the same regardless of the recipients of the new magicked up currency. Obviously pro Capitalist right wing fantasists who are dependent on stock markets will tell you otherwise to scare you. They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM
They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.

As is evidenced by the coalition attempts to restore/increase liquidity to the banks in return for them lending to SMEs ....... three different approaches, and the banks just used the money in ways that were best for them.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Bruv
Sep 7 2015, 05:02 PM
Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists

Quote:
 
"The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate's statements or policies.His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity."


Another less biased opinion
We did that piece of media misrepresentation ages ago

Here is the key line in the letter

Quote:
 
We the undersigned are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn



So in a country with thousands of economists he couldn't even get 40 to back him

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 06:03 PM
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM
They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.

As is evidenced by the coalition attempts to restore/increase liquidity to the banks in return for them lending to SMEs ....... three different approaches, and the banks just used the money in ways that were best for them.

Err it was Gordon Brown who did that.

Rightly imho as the banks would otherwise have to have reacted to the downturn and hiked reserve requirements by driving businesses into liquidation by calling in the loans.

The BofE has some very good notes on QE. Here's one http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/qe/qe_faqs.aspx#

It was a one off £375B while other countries were doing the same so the £ did not collapse. Richard Murphy pretending to be Corbyn thinks we can go it alone and continually print money to sustain increased welfare payments and not even think thatthe £ might collapse, interest of gov bonds go Sky High and the economy tank.

He's an arse and Corbyn's a bigger one for signing up to Murphy's plan to destroy the UK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
The markets rule our economy, if you buck the market they won't tolerate it.

Yes, they don,t want the govt printing money and giving it to normal people, they want it to go to institutions that are, in their eyes, trustworthy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 07:06 PM
The markets rule our economy, if you buck the market they won't tolerate it.

Yes, they don,t want the govt printing money and giving it to normal people, they want it to go to institutions that are, in their eyes, trustworthy.
Nope

The market is slave to no one be they rich, poor, individual or corporate.

Been to buy a fridge at Comet lately?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 06:56 PM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 06:03 PM
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM
They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.

As is evidenced by the coalition attempts to restore/increase liquidity to the banks in return for them lending to SMEs ....... three different approaches, and the banks just used the money in ways that were best for them.

Err it was Gordon Brown who did that.

Err I said 'Coalition' and I meant Coalition ...
George Osborne Announces Boost for SMEs 2014

Merlin 2011

Funding For Lending 2013

Three failed persuasions ..... each one giving the banks assistance with funding, and no appreciable benefits to SMEs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 07:18 PM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 07:06 PM
The markets rule our economy, if you buck the market they won't tolerate it.

Yes, they don,t want the govt printing money and giving it to normal people, they want it to go to institutions that are, in their eyes, trustworthy.
Nope

The market is slave to no one be they rich, poor, individual or corporate.

Been to buy a fridge at Comet lately?
And I never said it was, but credit rating agencies and huge financial institutions do dtermine a lot of what's allowed.

If you disagree, why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 07:56 PM
. .credit rating agencies and huge financial institutions do dtermine a lot of what's allowed.

If you disagree, why?

They report the market, the don't control it.

Affa
Sep 7 2015, 07:44 PM
Err I said 'Coalition' and I meant Coalition ...
George Osborne Announces Boost for SMEs 2014

Merlin 2011

Funding For Lending 2013

Three failed persuasions ..... each one giving the banks assistance with funding, and no appreciable benefits to SMEs.

Funding for Lending scheme was small beer compared to QE

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/FLS/extensiondata.aspx

The data always looks like all the money went to the banks because FLS money goes through the banks. It is often misrepresented that that's where it stayed. If there is one thing you can always rely on SMEs to do in life it is to whine that they aren't getting enough subsidised rides.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bruv
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 06:45 PM
Bruv
Sep 7 2015, 05:02 PM
Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists

Quote:
 
"The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate's statements or policies.His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity."


Another less biased opinion
We did that piece of media misrepresentation ages ago

Here is the key line in the letter

Quote:
 
We the undersigned are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn



So in a country with thousands of economists he couldn't even get 40 to back him

They DON'T back Corbyn, just his economic policies............................or did I miss something ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 08:22 PM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 07:56 PM
. .credit rating agencies and huge financial institutions do dtermine a lot of what's allowed.

If you disagree, why?

They report the market, the don't control it.

Affa
Sep 7 2015, 07:44 PM
Err I said 'Coalition' and I meant Coalition ...
George Osborne Announces Boost for SMEs 2014

Merlin 2011

Funding For Lending 2013

Three failed persuasions ..... each one giving the banks assistance with funding, and no appreciable benefits to SMEs.

Funding for Lending scheme was small beer compared to QE

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/FLS/extensiondata.aspx

The data always looks like all the money went to the banks because FLS money goes through the banks. It is often misrepresented that that's where it stayed. If there is one thing you can always rely on SMEs to do in life it is to whine that they aren't getting enough subsidised rides.
They substantially influence it. Groups of people who make enormous decisions.

And some live up to their names, moodys.. s&p..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 03:27 PM
ACH1967
Sep 7 2015, 02:30 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am still struggling to understand why QE is OK for bailing out the banks but not OK as peoples QE.
Who claims it was the right solution for bailing out Banks? By the way they are not the same the similarity stops with the use of the acronym QE.





For the ignorant QE = Quantitative Easing.

I'm so glad you are trying to educate us all by explaining all those obscure abreiviations. It has made things so much easier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 7 2015, 07:27 AM
Somebody has to kick this off as it looks like it could become official Labour policy.

Two things; higher tax rates and The People's QE.

The 50P or higher appeals to the Spite and Envy Brigade, but they present no evidence of how such will bring sustainable increases in revenues.
Quote:
 
Consider the early 1970s, I suggested, when Labour introduced its venal 83pc top rate of income tax, with an additional 15pc surcharge in some cases. The result was Britain’s “economic Suez” in 1976, when our government ended up insolvent, going “cap-in-hand” for a bail-out to the International Monetary Fund.
I cited contemporary France, where President Hollande’s gallery-pleasing 75pc tax rate has proved a disaster, and where heavy state bureaucracy and taxation has seen growth average just 0.2pc over the past five years.



The People's QE

Quote:
 
Corbyn’s new policy, “people’s quantitative easing”, the transmogrification of an emergency bank liquidity measure into a money-printing free-for-all, is a dangerous nonsense.
Having said that, QE as it currently stands, overused on a grotesque scale, to keep government borrowing costs artificially low, while pumping up share prices and flattering bank balance sheets, is also a dangerous nonsense.
The only difference is that we are retaining the pretence, for now, that the government paper that the Bank of England has bought will ultimately be repaid.
Ending that, and monetising deficit spending directly à la Corbyn, would send sovereign debt markets haywire, as anyone with even the remotest understanding of economics will instantly grasp.


LINK

Would those that support the above policies care to attempt to justify them and show how such would be beneficial to the vast majority of UK citizens?



Apparently, Mr Corbyn is under the impression that he can pay for all of his projected policies by "ordering" the IR (inland revenue) to sequester ALL unpaid evaded taxes.

David Blunketts reply?...........If Jeremy thinks it is that easy then the Labour party would already have done so whilst in office, he is a dreamer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06bg6ty/panorama-jeremy-corbyn-labours-earthquake

It begins at 19 mins and 10 secs in.
Edited by Rich, Sep 7 2015, 09:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 08:22 PM


Affa
Sep 7 2015, 07:44 PM


Three failed persuasions ..... each one giving the banks assistance with funding, and no appreciable benefits to SMEs.

Funding for Lending scheme was small beer compared to QE

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/FLS/extensiondata.aspx

The data always looks like all the money went to the banks because FLS money goes through the banks. It is often misrepresented that that's where it stayed. If there is one thing you can always rely on SMEs to do in life it is to whine that they aren't getting enough subsidised rides.
Read post 24 again .......... which was not a direct reference to QE, but you knew that when posting, or should have.

What I further replied with was additional evidence to support what Gee444 had posted, and that does stand as claimed. ......... and the remainder of your above post declaring that the bankers did not take advantage of these measures for their own benefit (as implied when saying)
Quote:
 
The data always looks like all the money went to the banks because FLS money goes through the banks. It is often misrepresented that that's where it stayed.
indicates that you are/were aware of what was being expressed (and not a reference to QE).
None of the three measures introduced made an appreciable difference to or for SMEs as intended, and that is the verdict of SMEs themself.

Quote:
 
During 2014 FLS suffered a severe decline in activity, with net lending decreasing by over £800m during the final economic quarter.
In total, the FLS suffered a £2bn decline during 2014, increasing calls for the scheme to be scrapped.
SME Insider sic
Edited by Affa, Sep 7 2015, 10:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Bruv
Sep 7 2015, 08:29 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 06:45 PM
Bruv
Sep 7 2015, 05:02 PM
Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists


Quoting limited to 3 levels deepAnother less biased opinion
We did that piece of media misrepresentation ages ago

Here is the key line in the letter

Quote:
 
We the undersigned are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn



So in a country with thousands of economists he couldn't even get 40 to back him

They DON'T back Corbyn, just his economic policies............................or did I miss something ?
Read the letter, they clearly did not back his economic policies. They just said that they had been unfairly criticised

BIG difference

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 10:21 PM
Read post 24 again .......... which was not a direct reference to QE, but you knew that when posting, or should have. . .
Well I can see now you meant it that way but post 24 was quoting a point made about QE so I took the obvious inference that you were using SME's as a viewpoint about that. So no I don't see I should have

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM
ACH1967
Sep 7 2015, 02:30 PM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 10:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am still struggling to understand why QE is OK for bailing out the banks but not OK as peoples QE.
QE wasn't used to bail out the banks. The tax payers did with subsequent increase in State/Public debt.

The QE process and the downfalls of QE are the same regardless of the recipients of the new magicked up currency. Obviously pro Capitalist right wing fantasists who are dependent on stock markets will tell you otherwise to scare you. They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.
You know that is not true. The two processes are not the same. The similarity stops with the words QE. Anyway there is no reason that we could not take the creation of debt out of the hands of the Banks and institute full reserve rather than fractional Banking. The following is worthy of your study:
TOWARDS A TWENTY-­‐FIRST CENTURY BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEM SUBMISSION TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON BANKING
by Ben Dyson, Tony Greenham, Josh Ryan-­‐Collins and Richard A. Werner
Joint submission by the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development University of Southampton, School of Management
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 8 2015, 09:58 AM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 10:21 PM
Read post 24 again .......... which was not a direct reference to QE, but you knew that when posting, or should have. . .
Well I can see now you meant it that way but post 24 was quoting a point made about QE so I took the obvious inference that you were using SME's as a viewpoint about that. So no I don't see I should have

Oh dear "SME" what's that?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply