|
Replies:
|
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:17 PM
Post #161
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:00 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 11:28 AM
An obsession with Gordon Brown is unhealthy!
Well so many here prefer his approach to the economy over Osborne's the truth has to be told every now and then - Affa
-
Small and medium enterprises employed 14,424,000 people in the UK in 2013. ... Review estimates the Gross Value Added of SMEs as €473 billion or 49.8% of the UK economy
So you don't deny their bankruptcy rate or their subsidies. Have you looked at their record on treating employees fairly? - Affa
-
You whined when I described your take on what Welfare reforms should be taken - said I was wrong. Now you prove me correct. We have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'. Do you need this explained to you in simpler terms? - Affa
-
You place trust in Tories after everything you have learnt...
On that particular point yes I could. - Quote:
-
... what's the term again - cognitive dissonance. or should that just read 'dense'?
I'll leave the last bit here, having considered removing it. My reason is that the term 'dense' more adequately describes what 'cognitive dissonance' actually means!
Pot calling kettle black.You try so hard Affa to land a punch on me, I know not why but here's a tip: if you do't wat to be shown up as an air puncher first check your allegation is based on fact not anger fuelled imaginings You declared SMEs "a minor part of the economy". Almost 50% of GDP is not minor, 14.4 million jobs is not minor.
I've answered your assertion that over spending on welfare was a major fault of the Labour government and a cause of our current difficulties ( post 156)....... it is BS to say any of that.
You admit to placing trust on the economy in the Conservatives - even knowing that they have failed on every front. Which leads me to the last complaint, the one where I mention CD, or an inability to change, to see what's in front of you.
I have no intention to lay punches on anyone posting here - if you feel assaulted it is because you are reeling from being face to face with something you'd rather ignore. We both seek truth ...... and neither of us know all the truth.
Edited by Affa, Nov 10 2015, 12:21 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:18 PM
Post #162
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:04 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 10 2015, 11:32 AM
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 11:18 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
In the 1920s the defence budget was reduced to a point of leaving us defenceless, whilst Hitler was increasing his and growing his armed forces. It was a Labour Government that increased spending and built up the RAF just in time to give Britain a fighting chance in the Battle of Britain. Modern technology cannot be built in a day , and we need to be prepared and protected not only from potential enemies, but from pacifists like Corbyn, and it seems from yourself and those like you. Our potential enemies are NOT pacifists.
yes it seems skwirked would renege on agreements, leave us defenceless, throw many into unemployment and cut welfare. Nice? I'd go with Osborne's ideas instead but I'm sure there is a third way OK spell it out.
The Tories are reducing defence to 17bn anyway and prob further. I just brang forward the inevitable.
OK it'd cause unemployment but I see it as pref to putting innocent lives at risk...
And cut welfare? No no I'd use the cash saved on admin costs to boost tax cred-style neg inc taxes. I'd also scrap our being shafted by ATOS et al and save bns there. Just use a very well qualified dr with no prior experience of the patient in Q.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:25 PM
Post #163
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:14 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:04 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 10 2015, 11:32 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
yes it seems skwirked would renege on agreements, leave us defenceless, throw many into unemployment and cut welfare. Nice? I'd go with Osborne's ideas instead but I'm sure there is a third way
If you are sure of a third way then I would suspect you have already evaluated such, therefore, why not share? I could agree that there are differing targets for cuts in public spending. I could agree that phasing could be changed, with myself in the sooner deeper group, but I see no alternative other than cutting the deficit to zero, generating a surplus and seeking to get the mountain of debt to a more acceptable level. Brown said ~40% of GDP was OK, I would like less, but would be happy to achieve Gordon's target for a safe-zone. The problem we have is that many appear to allow themselves, willingly, to be bamboozled into the concept that it is OK to live on borrowed money and expect future generations to pay. They do not see or care that such a strategy cannot be continued forever, so if not when is the best time to stop it? With a growing economy the answer is yesterday. I think my main point on this is that by and large in 2010 Osborne was right to continue Browns QE and to stick by the welfare commitments. Inevitably the debt would rise.
I also support the principle of welfare cut backs but where I differ is that they should not be applied retrospectively (people can not un-have children) and have to be accompanied by serious action to let the economy create more worthwhile paid jobs.
The only way out of the deficit with any social fairness is to properly tax wealth and seriously reduce unemployment. He's done little on either.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:28 PM
Post #164
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 12:18 PM
Just use a very well qualified dr with no prior experience of the patient in Q.
It makes so much sense it is almost impossible not to do it - and yet. Rotten politicians of all colours out of touch with reality just keep on messing up.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:28 PM
Post #165
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 12:18 PM
. . The Tories are reducing defence to 17bn anyway and prob further. I just brang forward the inevitable. . . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33448383
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
Post #166
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 12:17 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:00 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 11:28 AM
An obsession with Gordon Brown is unhealthy!
Well so many here prefer his approach to the economy over Osborne's the truth has to be told every now and then - Affa
-
Small and medium enterprises employed 14,424,000 people in the UK in 2013. ... Review estimates the Gross Value Added of SMEs as €473 billion or 49.8% of the UK economy
So you don't deny their bankruptcy rate or their subsidies. Have you looked at their record on treating employees fairly? - Affa
-
You whined when I described your take on what Welfare reforms should be taken - said I was wrong. Now you prove me correct. We have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'. Do you need this explained to you in simpler terms? - Affa
-
You place trust in Tories after everything you have learnt...
On that particular point yes I could. - Quote:
-
... what's the term again - cognitive dissonance. or should that just read 'dense'?
I'll leave the last bit here, having considered removing it. My reason is that the term 'dense' more adequately describes what 'cognitive dissonance' actually means!
Pot calling kettle black.You try so hard Affa to land a punch on me, I know not why but here's a tip: if you do't wat to be shown up as an air puncher first check your allegation is based on fact not anger fuelled imaginings
You declared SMEs "a minor part of the economy". Almost 50% of GDP is not minor, 14.4 million jobs is not minor. I've answered your assertion that over spending on welfare was a major fault of the Labour government and a cause of our current difficulties ( post 156)....... it is BS to say any of that. You admit to placing trust on the economy in the Conservatives - even knowing that they have failed on every front. Which leads me to the last complaint, the one where I mention CD, or an inability to change, to see what's in front of you. I have no intention to lay punches on anyone posting here - if you feel assaulted it is because you are reeling from being face to face with something you'd rather ignore. We both seek truth ...... and neither of us know all the truth. SMEs are an important part of the GDP because they employ so many people, but in the added value chain they tend to be at the lower end. Lets take the example of our resident Jobbing Plumber; he is employed with others to do a job, they buy in the bits mainly from outside the UK, they then quickly satisfy the contract with a few Quickfits. The added value is low but those ganged together for that job are, I hope, not claiming welfare. However I doubt that they are paying VAT because clearly our resident Jobbing Plumber has little understanding of the process, I doubt that they pay and taxes on profits as he has already declared that they whack out the proceeds of each job on some cooperative basis. So good that we have such, but not going to make us rich or pay anything towards running the State are they. Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:32 PM
Post #167
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:28 PM
Another Tory reneging then. I read in the telegraph, not long ago, that there were serious plans to roughly halve the defence budget to about 19-17bn.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:34 PM
Post #168
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
"our resident Jobbing Plumber" Can we avoid idiot jibes please
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:36 PM
Post #169
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 12:17 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepapproachWe have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'
You declared SMEs "a minor part of the economy". Almost 50% of GDP is not minor, 14.4 million jobs is not minor. I've answered your assertion that over spending on welfare was a major fault of the Labour government and a cause of our current difficulties ( post 156)....... it is BS to say any of that. You admit to placing trust on the economy in the Conservatives - even knowing that they have failed on every front. Which leads me to the last complaint, the one where I mention CD, or an inability to change, to see what's in front of you. I have no intention to lay punches on anyone posting here - if you feel assaulted it is because you are reeling from being face to face with something you'd rather ignore. We both seek truth ...... and neither of us know all the truth.
SMEs are an important part of the GDP because they employ so many people, but in the added value chain they tend to be at the lower end. Lets take the example of our resident Jobbing Plumber; he is employed with others to do a job, they buy in the bits mainly from outside the UK, they then quickly satisfy the contract with a few Quickfits. The added value is low but those ganged together for that job are, I hope, not claiming welfare. However I doubt that they are paying VAT because clearly our resident Jobbing Plumber has little understanding of the process, I doubt that they pay and taxes on profits as he has already declared that they whack out the proceeds of each job on some cooperative basis. So good that we have such, but not going to make us rich or pay anything towards running the State are they. Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country. VA for SMEs at 49% of all VA in the country?
Did I read that properly?
Then just what is RJD banging on about..?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:39 PM
Post #170
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 9 2015, 07:28 PM
- C-too
- Nov 9 2015, 07:00 PM
- gansao
- Nov 9 2015, 04:52 PM
1. Not just nonsense but now your assessment of Greenspan is dishonest nonsense. 2. Yes exactly. So ? 3. Ponzi is not in dispute. 4. The warnings suggesting economic problems seemed to arrive in the 2005/06 period when NL were already beginning to cut back. i.e. Such warnings as those posted were TOO LATE to be of any use.
Nope, if you take your head out of your arse and read a bit about Greenspan you will realise not only that Greenspan was a committed objectivist but that he could not even disown his objectivist financial philosophy post meltdown. He was a chancer . He extolled the self regulating financial free market. Great for financial institutions run by sociopaths but not for the rest of us . Your political heroes were spivs riding on the back of a system that was bound to fail. Their problem was that it failed on their watch and all they have now is the occasional old delusional codger to make excuses for them. As far as I'm concerned there is no dispute over Greenspan. But because you have "your head up your arse" you miss the relevant fact which is that he was a soul mate of Thatcher and he influenced the setting up of Thatcher's economic approach. So it's time you stopped arguing with yourself over Greenspan.
The rest of your post is typical of your over active imagination.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:45 PM
Post #171
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
SMEs are an important part of the GDP because they employ so many people, but in the added value chain they tend to be at the lower end. Lets take the example of our resident Jobbing Plumber; he is employed with others to do a job, they buy in the bits mainly from outside the UK, they then quickly satisfy the contract with a few Quickfits. The added value is low but those ganged together for that job are, I hope, not claiming welfare. However I doubt that they are paying VAT because clearly our resident Jobbing Plumber has little understanding of the process, I doubt that they pay and taxes on profits as he has already declared that they whack out the proceeds of each job on some cooperative basis. So good that we have such, but not going to make us rich or pay anything towards running the State are they. Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country.
I wasn't aware that the self employed, unregistered for VAT, were included as SMEs.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:51 PM
Post #172
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 11:06 AM
More the opposite. I'd trust them to privatise same thereby re-exposing private investors to the risks banks take. Didn't happen.
Won't happen.
We've seen what happens when the private banks fuck up - the taxpayer bails them out then suffers decades of "austerity" to cover the losses.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:52 PM
Post #173
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 12:34 PM
"our resident Jobbing Plumber"  Can we avoid idiot jibes please Why is that a jibe? That is the known description of that type of work? He is a self declared Plumber who takes on jobs and the emoluments from such are, according to him, whacked out between those employed to do the job on some agreed basis. That is what a Jobber does. Compared to other titles on offer I would have thought such more like praise.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:54 PM
Post #174
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 12:36 PM
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 12:17 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep approachWe have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'post 156)....... it is BS to say any of that. You admit to placing trust on the economy in the Conservatives - even knowing that they have failed on every front. Which leads me to the last complaint, the one where I mention CD, or an inability to change, to see what's in front of you. I have no intention to lay punches on anyone posting here - if you feel assaulted it is because you are reeling from being face to face with something you'd rather ignore. We both seek truth ...... and neither of us know all the truth.
SMEs are an important part of the GDP because they employ so many people, but in the added value chain they tend to be at the lower end. Lets take the example of our resident Jobbing Plumber; he is employed with others to do a job, they buy in the bits mainly from outside the UK, they then quickly satisfy the contract with a few Quickfits. The added value is low but those ganged together for that job are, I hope, not claiming welfare. However I doubt that they are paying VAT because clearly our resident Jobbing Plumber has little understanding of the process, I doubt that they pay and taxes on profits as he has already declared that they whack out the proceeds of each job on some cooperative basis. So good that we have such, but not going to make us rich or pay anything towards running the State are they. Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country.
VA for SMEs at 49% of all VA in the country? Did I read that properly? Then just what is RJD banging on about..? Do not confuse VA with GDP
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
Post #175
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Nov 9 2015, 08:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 9 2015, 07:15 PM
slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWOCarry on! Can you prove that people in the international financial markets KNEW, before the meltdown, that toxic debts had been placed in packages and slipped into the international financial markets ?
After the meltdown the packages were described as "sausages" because no one knew what was in them.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:58 PM
Post #176
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 12:45 PM
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
SMEs are an important part of the GDP because they employ so many people, but in the added value chain they tend to be at the lower end. Lets take the example of our resident Jobbing Plumber; he is employed with others to do a job, they buy in the bits mainly from outside the UK, they then quickly satisfy the contract with a few Quickfits. The added value is low but those ganged together for that job are, I hope, not claiming welfare. However I doubt that they are paying VAT because clearly our resident Jobbing Plumber has little understanding of the process, I doubt that they pay and taxes on profits as he has already declared that they whack out the proceeds of each job on some cooperative basis. So good that we have such, but not going to make us rich or pay anything towards running the State are they. Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country.
I wasn't aware that the self employed, unregistered for VAT, were included as SMEs. You might be correct as there is now a new category of micro for less than 10 people. Anyway VAT is not a matter for numbers of employees.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 12:59 PM
Post #177
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Nov 10 2015, 12:51 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 11:06 AM
More the opposite. I'd trust them to privatise same thereby re-exposing private investors to the risks banks take.
Didn't happen. Won't happen. We've seen what happens when the private banks fuck up - the taxpayer bails them out then suffers decades of "austerity" to cover the losses. All The Best But because such occurred in the past that is no logical reason to conclude, after Banking Reforms that such will always transpire. However best be cynical.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 10 2015, 01:00 PM
Post #178
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:54 PM
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 12:36 PM
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep approachWe have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'post 156
VA for SMEs at 49% of all VA in the country? Did I read that properly? Then just what is RJD banging on about..?
Do not confuse VA with GDP
Affa: Small and medium enterprises employed 14,424,000 people in the UK in 2013. ... Review estimates the Gross Value Added of SMEs as €473 billion or 49.8% of the UK economy
You did not dispute this so I assume he is correct.
As I asked: what are you talking about?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 01:08 PM
Post #179
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 01:00 PM
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:54 PM
- skwirked
- Nov 10 2015, 12:36 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep approachWe have a winner of today's 'Didn't read the post so just made up a false story award'post 156
Do not confuse VA with GDP Affa: Small and medium enterprises employed 14,424,000 people in the UK in 2013. ... Review estimates the Gross Value Added of SMEs as €473 billion or 49.8% of the UK economy You did not dispute this so I assume he is correct. As I asked: what are you talking about? I stand corrected. But again you do not differentiate between high value added and total amounts. How much Corp tax does this sector contribute is the real question.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 05:10 PM
Post #180
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 12:17 PM
You declared SMEs "a minor part of the economy". Almost 50% of GDP is not minor, 14.4 million jobs is not minor.
I did?
But lets agree that those figures are not minor. Still doesn't support your assertion that they should be THE big focus for investment and the government should control banking to make that so.
Perhaps I'm biased on SME's having seen how they bled the research budgets and have that record of so many going bankrupt just to reappear with an almost identical name and same BMW driving owners.
- Quote:
-
I've answered your assertion that over spending on welfare was a major fault of the Labour government and a cause of our current difficulties ( post 156)....... it is BS to say any of that. Yes you did post a chart that spectacularly showed it had ballooned horribly under Labour. It was an own goal I thought you'd appreciate me not laughing at but if you insist:

And notice how the 2008 spending is so much higher than the 2000 spending in real terms despite them saying how unemployment was so low. And then there were the other increases, all worthy no doubt but no discipline about making ends meet.
- Quote:
-
You admit to placing trust on the economy in the Conservatives - even knowing that they have failed on every front.
I do? What about those criticisms I've posted then? You know ,the ones you chose to forget about hoping everyone else would
- Quote:
-
Which leads me to the last complaint, the one where I mention CD, or an inability to change, to see what's in front of you. You need a mirror
- Quote:
-
I have no intention to lay punches on anyone posting here - if you feel assaulted it is because you are reeling from being face to face with something you'd rather ignore. . .
Yes you are Air Punch Affa and I claim my £5. Why don't you do your part of that "We both seek truth"
Edited by Steve K, Nov 10 2015, 05:10 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Malum Unus
|
Nov 10 2015, 05:38 PM
Post #181
|
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
- Posts:
- 1,389
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #24
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
- Tigger
- Nov 9 2015, 08:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 9 2015, 07:15 PM
slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWOCarry on!
Can you prove that people in the international financial markets KNEW, before the meltdown, that toxic debts had been placed in packages and slipped into the international financial markets ? After the meltdown the packages were described as "sausages" because no one knew what was in them.
Because of you, they've now stuck swivel wheels on the bottom of the goalposts, just so people don't have to listen to the constant screeching of you moving them.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 10 2015, 05:48 PM
Post #182
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Malum Unus
- Nov 10 2015, 05:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
- Tigger
- Nov 9 2015, 08:38 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWOCarry on!
Can you prove that people in the international financial markets KNEW, before the meltdown, that toxic debts had been placed in packages and slipped into the international financial markets ? After the meltdown the packages were described as "sausages" because no one knew what was in them.
Because of you, they've now stuck swivel wheels on the bottom of the goalposts, just so people don't have to listen to the constant screeching of you moving them. Watch out as those shekels might just get clogged up with far too many dollop of white wash.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 10 2015, 07:55 PM
Post #183
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Malum Unus
- Nov 10 2015, 05:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
- Tigger
- Nov 9 2015, 08:38 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWOCarry on!
Can you prove that people in the international financial markets KNEW, before the meltdown, that toxic debts had been placed in packages and slipped into the international financial markets ? After the meltdown the packages were described as "sausages" because no one knew what was in them.
Because of you, they've now stuck swivel wheels on the bottom of the goalposts, just so people don't have to listen to the constant screeching of you moving them. I don't mind laughing at most of your comments but you are stooping low when you resort to this sort of lying. Still no evidence of course.
I'm still waiting for one of those of your ilk to name someone, anyone who warned of the toxic debts being slipped into the international financial markets. No one has, I wonder why  I wonder why so many ignore this vital fact, perhaps because it conflicts with their biased agenda ?
Edited by C-too, Nov 10 2015, 07:56 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 10 2015, 08:02 PM
Post #184
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 05:48 PM
- Malum Unus
- Nov 10 2015, 05:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepAND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWO
Because of you, they've now stuck swivel wheels on the bottom of the goalposts, just so people don't have to listen to the constant screeching of you moving them.
Watch out as those shekels might just get clogged up with far too many dollop of white wash. Put your money where your mouth is and name someone who, before 2007, revealed that toxic debts were being slipped into the international financial markets.
If you can't then I suggest you quit the smart-mouthing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 08:39 PM
Post #185
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 05:10 PM
Yes you did post a chart that spectacularly showed it had ballooned horribly under Labour. It was an own goal I thought you'd appreciate me not laughing at but if you insist:  And notice how the 2008 spending is so much higher than the 2000 spending in real terms despite them saying how unemployment was so low. And then there were the other increases, all worthy no doubt but no discipline about making ends meet. Yes you are Air Punch Affa and I claim my £5. Why don't you do your part of that "We both seek truth"
The chart is indeed Welfare Spending in REAL terms, as you noticed. It does not show a "ballooning" increase prior to the crisis hitting. Then onto the 'modest increase' after year 2000 which you claim was "so much higher" ..... but seem not aware that the economy doubled in size over those years, the Treasury close on 40% richer. What we see is that Welfare spending remained relatively low under Labour and that the economy grew year on year. Prior to EU enlargement the Welfare bill was actually falling. What is not true in this Steve?
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Nov 10 2015, 09:20 PM
Post #186
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 08:39 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 05:10 PM
Yes you did post a chart that spectacularly showed it had ballooned horribly under Labour. It was an own goal I thought you'd appreciate me not laughing at but if you insist:  And notice how the 2008 spending is so much higher than the 2000 spending in real terms despite them saying how unemployment was so low. And then there were the other increases, all worthy no doubt but no discipline about making ends meet. Yes you are Air Punch Affa and I claim my £5. Why don't you do your part of that "We both seek truth"
The chart is indeed Welfare Spending in REAL terms, as you noticed. It does not show a "ballooning" increase prior to the crisis hitting. Then onto the 'modest increase' after year 2000 which you claim was "so much higher" ..... but seem not aware that the economy doubled in size over those years, the Treasury close on 40% richer. What we see is that Welfare spending remained relatively low under Labour and that the economy grew year on year. Prior to EU enlargement the Welfare bill was actually falling. What is not true in this Steve? I think it only fair to say that welfare costs began to rise when Gordy became by default a faux PM, one can tell that he was not confident of his fan base as he refused to hold an election that may or may not have given him a mandate to carry on carte' blanche, instead, he decided to cement his position in a cowardly way by creating a client base of voters that would be dependent on a continued Labour government to continue their nice comfy laid back lifestyle funded by those that could and did work.
It did not take the electorate very long to see where this would lead and hence the welfare budget grew under Brown like topsy (the rest is history, but not forgotten) and the present govt is tasked with reducing that bill at the same time as cutting costs to reduce the national debt and return to a surplus by the end of this Parliament, some say...faster deeper, some say it is ruining the country whilst the debt gets larger still, if those in opposition have any better ideas than the man whom the country tasked with sorting out this nightmare....then just let them propose this in the house and show their working' out as to how they will go about doing so, I am sure we are ALL open to credible plans that will reduce the deficit.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 09:44 PM
Post #187
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 08:39 PM
The chart is indeed Welfare Spending in REAL terms, as you noticed. It does not show a "ballooning" increase prior to the crisis hitting. Then onto the 'modest increase' after year 2000 which you claim was "so much higher" ..... but seem not aware that the economy doubled in size over those years, the Treasury close on 40% richer. What we see is that Welfare spending remained relatively low under Labour and that the economy grew year on year. Prior to EU enlargement the Welfare bill was actually falling. What is not true in this Steve?
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase"
Yes the economy grew, there was a (false) boom. Generally booms are associated with increased employment and wages so reduced need for welfare - so something went wrong this time. I see you want to blame that on the 2004 EU enlargement - could you perhaps remind us who agreed to that?
Actually don't bother, we all know and it's hardly relevant as you would still have to explain why welfare went up 19% between 2001 and 2004 before the enlargement. Rather a lot for an economy you say was mid doubling. And then of course there was Education increasing 41% in real terms 2001-8 while hiding the buildings cost under his turbo PFI programme
Believe what you like, the rest of us will choose to believe the bleeding obvious that Gordon was spending away money the sustainable economy wasn't generating, that the coalition inherited that plus QE and they had two choices: let the debt increase or really viciously cut welfare.
I'll criticise Osborne and co for a lot but I won't criticise them for letting the debt rather than abject misery increase and I'll go further. It's rank hypocrisy for the far left to accuse them of incompetence for them being lumbered with that spending programme and choosing not to be vicious.
Edited by Steve K, Nov 10 2015, 09:46 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 10 2015, 09:58 PM
Post #188
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 10:47 AM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 10:38 AM
Nationalise banking! It prevents this ever happening again, removes the problem of who best to lend to (SMEs), and keeps reserves to tide over the downturns.
But would you trust a Tory not to try to privatise it again?
Why would nationalising Banking be beneficial? Do you believe that Bank Managers on the Public Payroll will make better investment decisions? Do you believe there is evidence that Politicians are better at picking winners? Sounds a bonkers idea too me. Private Banks provide excellent services in the open market, internationally, and as a consequence drive costs down and revenues to the Exchequer up. Surely it is the risks associated with Casino Banking we wish to stop? If this is true then why believe State control the only viable option? Unless of course one is fully signed up to Marxism where on the State, State controls and dictatorship of the Prols counts. I'd say strict regulation and proper US style prison sentences for bankers and other assorted parasites who break the law, plus outlawing utter nonsense like high frequency trading and short selling which are no more than gambling and offer no gain to the wider society.
Note. The City and it's institutions are by far the biggest sponsors of the Tory Party.
So fuck all chance of any reform then.]
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:05 PM
Post #189
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 09:44 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 08:39 PM
The chart is indeed Welfare Spending in REAL terms, as you noticed. It does not show a "ballooning" increase prior to the crisis hitting. Then onto the 'modest increase' after year 2000 which you claim was "so much higher" ..... but seem not aware that the economy doubled in size over those years, the Treasury close on 40% richer. What we see is that Welfare spending remained relatively low under Labour and that the economy grew year on year. Prior to EU enlargement the Welfare bill was actually falling. What is not true in this Steve?
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase" Yes the economy grew, there was a (false) boom. Generally booms are associated with increased employment and wages so reduced need for welfare - so something went wrong this time. I see you want to blame that on the 2004 EU enlargement - could you perhaps remind us who agreed to that? Actually don't bother, we all know and it's hardly relevant as you would still have to explain why welfare went up 19% between 2001 and 2004 before the enlargement. Rather a lot for an economy you say was mid doubling. And then of course there was Education increasing 41% in real terms 2001-8 while hiding the buildings cost under his turbo PFI programme Believe what you like, the rest of us will choose to believe the bleeding obvious that Gordon was spending away money the sustainable economy wasn't generating, that the coalition inherited that plus QE and they had two choices: let the debt increase or really viciously cut welfare. I'll criticise Osborne and co for a lot but I won't criticise them for letting the debt rather than abject misery increase and I'll go further. It's rank hypocrisy for the far left to accuse them of incompetence for them being lumbered with that spending programme and choosing not to be vicious. Surely part of the increase in welfare was down to a redistribution of wealth. The rich were apparently getting very much richer, so it seems only fair that those at the bottom of the economic pile should taste some of that increase in wealth ? (false boom or not)
Wouldn't 2007/08 include some of the meltdown period which would be likely to increase welfare claims ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:18 PM
Post #190
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 09:44 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 08:39 PM
The chart is indeed Welfare Spending in REAL terms, as you noticed. It does not show a "ballooning" increase prior to the crisis hitting. Then onto the 'modest increase' after year 2000 which you claim was "so much higher" ..... but seem not aware that the economy doubled in size over those years, the Treasury close on 40% richer. What we see is that Welfare spending remained relatively low under Labour and that the economy grew year on year. Prior to EU enlargement the Welfare bill was actually falling. What is not true in this Steve?
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase" Yes the economy grew, there was a (false) boom. Generally booms are associated with increased employment and wages so reduced need for welfare - so something went wrong this time. I see you want to blame that on the 2004 EU enlargement - could you perhaps remind us who agreed to that? Actually don't bother, we all know and it's hardly relevant as you would still have to explain why welfare went up 19% between 2001 and 2004 before the enlargement. Rather a lot for an economy you say was mid doubling. And then of course there was Education increasing 41% in real terms 2001-8 while hiding the buildings cost under his turbo PFI programme Believe what you like, the rest of us will choose to believe the bleeding obvious that Gordon was spending away money the sustainable economy wasn't generating, that the coalition inherited that plus QE and they had two choices: let the debt increase or really viciously cut welfare. I'll criticise Osborne and co for a lot but I won't criticise them for letting the debt rather than abject misery increase and I'll go further. It's rank hypocrisy for the far left to accuse them of incompetence for them being lumbered with that spending programme and choosing not to be vicious.
- Quote:
-
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase"
So you conveniently abandon real term spending to introduce inflation into the argument. Nice trick. I argue that what increase there was, not forgetting that 2001 was the low point in Welfare spending chosen by you, modest as a proportion of GDP = was more affordable than the level of welfare spending we had seen under the Tories (who you prefer on the economy).
- Quote:
-
so something went wrong this time. I see you want to blame that on the 2004 EU enlargement - could you perhaps remind us who agreed to that?
I of course do not believe EU expansionism has been good for the UK worker - the increase in unemployment AND hence welfare spending are in part a consequence of it. If you believe that a Tory government would have blocked these entries you are losing it big time.
As for the rest ....... the praise you give for Osborne not reducing welfare payments - 'What's HE DOING now'. What has IDS been up to for now eight years if not working out how to cut welfare?

But the fact is that Spending on Welfare ALWAYS goes up, becomes unaffordable, when the Tories are in government.
Edited by Affa, Nov 10 2015, 10:26 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:32 PM
Post #191
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 10:18 PM
- Quote:
-
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase"
So you conveniently abandon real term spending to introduce inflation into the argument. Nice trick. Is that your idea of honest debate?
Which part of "in real terms" do you seek to ignore?
In £2005 terms Welfare spend increased from £69.1B to £90.4B actually 30.7% increase in real terms
Link
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:34 PM
Post #192
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- Tigger
- Nov 10 2015, 09:58 PM
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 10:47 AM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 10:38 AM
Nationalise banking! It prevents this ever happening again, removes the problem of who best to lend to (SMEs), and keeps reserves to tide over the downturns.
But would you trust a Tory not to try to privatise it again?
Why would nationalising Banking be beneficial? Do you believe that Bank Managers on the Public Payroll will make better investment decisions? Do you believe there is evidence that Politicians are better at picking winners? Sounds a bonkers idea too me. Private Banks provide excellent services in the open market, internationally, and as a consequence drive costs down and revenues to the Exchequer up. Surely it is the risks associated with Casino Banking we wish to stop? If this is true then why believe State control the only viable option? Unless of course one is fully signed up to Marxism where on the State, State controls and dictatorship of the Prols counts.
I'd say strict regulation and proper US style prison sentences for bankers and other assorted parasites who break the law, plus outlawing utter nonsense like high frequency trading and short selling which are no more than gambling and offer no gain to the wider society. Note. The City and it's institutions are by far the biggest sponsors of the Tory Party. So fuck all chance of any reform then.] As long as they affect to be changing banking, most foolks will fall for their BS sadly
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:39 PM
Post #193
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 10:05 PM
Wouldn't 2007/08 include some of the meltdown period which would be likely to increase welfare claims ? Arguable but 2001-6 it went up in real terms at just under 5% a year
- Quote:
-
Surely part of the increase in welfare was down to a redistribution of wealth. The rich were apparently getting very much richer, so it seems only fair that those at the bottom of the economic pile should taste some of that increase in wealth ? (false boom or not) Only if it was sustainable. The increase for the rich wasn't preserved in statute, in fact they lost out big time 2008-12, but Osborne inherited a default that the welfare spend per claimant in real terms would be preserved. And by and large he did through the crisis years.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 10 2015, 10:58 PM
Post #194
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 10 2015, 10:32 PM
- Affa
- Nov 10 2015, 10:18 PM
- Quote:
-
So 28% in real terms increase 2001 to 2008 is a "modest increase"
So you conveniently abandon real term spending to introduce inflation into the argument. Nice trick.
Is that your idea of honest debate? Which part of "in real terms" do you seek to ignore? In £2005 terms Welfare spend increased from £69.1B to £90.4B actually 30.7% increase in real terms Link
UK population 2001 = 59.1 ml ........... 2008 = 61.81ml = +2.7ml
You missed presenting the evidence. Here it is.
 And here
Edited by Affa, Nov 10 2015, 11:20 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 10 2015, 11:20 PM
Post #195
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|

|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 10 2015, 11:22 PM
Post #196
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:52 PM
Why is that a jibe? That is the known description of that type of work? He is a self declared Plumber who takes on jobs and the emoluments from such are, according to him, whacked out between those employed to do the job on some agreed basis. That is what a Jobber does. Compared to other titles on offer I would have thought such more like praise.
But I'm not a jobbing plumber these days, although I do like to keep my hand in, I also invest in specialist construction companies that alas have turnovers well in excess of the VAT threshold. 
And we do indeed import lots of stuff we fit and build, sadly the wankstains in the City that you idolise have been flogging off our industries that used to supply so much for jobbing plumbers like me, so even more money flows out of the country!
Our two biggest brick makers for example are owned by a US hedge fund and a German conglomerate, many slates and tiles are imported from Spain and Germany after takeovers of domestic producers, and despite having an early lead in solar, ground and air source heating we again sold the lot off, think Danish, Japanese and once again German!
As we say in the trade we can only make the best of the available materials!
File under special rates for constipated pensioners.
Edited by Tigger, Nov 10 2015, 11:23 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 10 2015, 11:30 PM
Post #197
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Nov 10 2015, 12:56 PM
- Tigger
- Nov 9 2015, 08:38 PM
- C-too
- Nov 9 2015, 07:15 PM
slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WHICH WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE TOXIC DEBT AND FACILITATE MADOFF AND ENRON TO NAME BUT TWOCarry on!
Can you prove that people in the international financial markets KNEW, before the meltdown, that toxic debts had been placed in packages and slipped into the international financial markets ? After the meltdown the packages were described as "sausages" because no one knew what was in them. The "markets" only see what is under their noses at that instant.
However, and as we proved beyond any doubt several very high profile economists did indeed issue warnings, but sadly the "markets" ignored them in much the same way you ignored the evidence when it was shoved under your nose!
And Blair was probably involved as well, because he did a runner and handed a croc of shit to Gordon.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 10 2015, 11:44 PM
Post #198
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 10 2015, 12:30 PM
Most are similar and are what Economists call "Life Style Businesses" which are generally worth nowt or nearly nowt, certainly not as important as the services provided by the City of London. So pleased that they exist, but not going to get excited about their contribution to the country.
Apart from the fact that these "life style businesses" employ millions of ordinary people who in many cases do proper and worthwhile jobs, the locusts in the City can then fleece these wealth creators thus making themselves feel both important and wealthy.
File under drivel derivatives and insider idiocy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Nov 10 2015, 11:56 PM
Post #199
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
"As we say in the trade we can only make the best of the available materials!"
Yes mate, and those materials include personnel also, and whilst we are importing foreigners who will work for peanuts and "fudge" their way into jobs we will never become a highly expertised economy, investment in training and skills is what is needed for our own home grown kids, and whilst UK employers use this very dirt cheap form of Labour then that will not happen, of course, there is a very decisive way out of this predicament and that is to leave the EU and just have a trading partnership with it....oh blimey, I almost forgot, we used to have one called EFTA.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 11 2015, 12:05 AM
Post #200
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Nov 10 2015, 11:56 PM
I almost forgot, we used to have one called EFTA. But what was EFTA is no longer on offer is it? Most of the other members moved on too.
|
|
|
| |
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|