-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="515547" data-time="1442170389">
<div>
<p>Yep this threads been "Wingered" you can point out holes in his argument and he will either twist what you said ( see my comment about Greece) ignore it or try and deflect ( oh it's Venezuela now isit? Well it's a reasonably fair comparison so why not ?).<br><br>
On the plus side at least by showing similar sort of devotion to Corbyn as he had for Mathewson we now know why he's so devoted to red peak . Not because he likes it from any asthetic point of view but because he thinks it winds Key up.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, I've got that. I'm not going to engage with someone whose debating style is to call everyone who disagrees with him an idiot. As a rule I never trust the arguments of anyone who tells you what things won't do but never puts their neck on the line and says what will happen.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you're interested in why the QE plan won't work I'll tell you what I think but it's one of the driest things you'd ever read. </p> -
<p>Winger doesn't strike me as a young guy, I thought people were supposed to grow out of socialist fantasies. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.â€</span></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="515570" data-time="1442178013"><p>Yeah, I've got that. I'm not going to engage with someone whose debating style is to call everyone who disagrees with him an idiot. As a rule I never trust the arguments of anyone who tells you what things won't do but never puts their neck on the line and says what will happen.<br>
<br>
If you're interested in why the QE plan won't work I'll tell you what I think but it's one of the driest things you'd ever read.<br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Please post it! -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kirwan" data-cid="515578" data-time="1442180405"><p>
Winger doesn't strike me as a young guy, I thought people were supposed to grow out of socialist fantasies. <br><br><span style="color:#333333;">[font=Helvetica Neue']“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.â€[/size][/font]</span></p></blockquote>
Corbyns not young either , maybe they think it keeps them " form with the young people"? Never minds Corbyns politics are as fresh and relevant as a hyper colour t shirt. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515525" data-time="1442152523"><p>
Where did Corbyn mention 1 million green jobs?<br><br>
There are various papers that have investigated where these house could be built<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306</a><br><br>
It may be in their business interest to do this, says Henderson. But what it means for the country is that developers are sitting on land for houses that could be put on the market and relieve the housing shortage. It shows the need for the state to take charge of developing large sites so that not all the homes are under the control of the big housebuilders, she says.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Its on his own bloody website. <br><br>
That's what makes comments about the "propaganda media" all the more ridiculous. To his credit, and refreshingly for a politician, Corbyn is completely open about his bat shit crazy policies. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="515580" data-time="1442180840">
<div>
<p>Please post it! :-)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>My guess is it will not be posted. Or will be so long no one will read it</p>
<p> </p>
<p>QE is an asset swap. QE for the people just means using BoE reserves to fund a deficit instead of Govt bonds. There is no reason at all why this can not be done except for self imposed rules to prevent it i.e. at present Govt like the UK are required to drain reserves to cover spending by either taxes, selling Govt assets or selling bonds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But this rule is got around by doing QE. That is swapping / using BoE reserves to buy back previously issued bonds. The result of this is exactly the same as using reserves to fund deficit spending.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it can and is being done right now.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="515584" data-time="1442183081"><p>Its on his own bloody website. <br>
That's what makes comments about the "propaganda media" all the more ridiculous. To his credit, and refreshingly for a politician, Corbyn is completely open about his bat shit crazy policies.</p></blockquote>
<br>
The greens posted a report by an economist about their policies , he said they were doable but did not take into account the flight of capital from nz if they were to ever get into power. If Corbyn got in the money would flow out of the Uk at a great rate of knots and he'd have to start printing money I guess, he wouldn't be able to pay for his lunatic ideas. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kirwan" data-cid="515578" data-time="1442180405">
<div>
<p>Winger doesn't strike me as a young guy, I thought people were supposed to grow out of socialist fantasies. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.â€</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>So what have we got now. Govt spending of around 40% of GNP. The US Govt some years running a $1 trillion deficit. QE worth trillions of $ ETC</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Govt already has a massive influence in our life's and the economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Our NET saving today come 100% from Govt debt. As do a large % of company profits (Govt debt increases flow directly into company profits or non company savings)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We can continue to life in a make pretend neo-liberal world (where so far the rich have grown richer and the poor poorer) or accept the role and important that the Govt has in our life's. Or we all pay the price with future suffering and a totally unneccesssary depression.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="515588" data-time="1442183848">
<div>
<p>The greens posted a report by an economist about their policies , he said they were doable but did not take into account the flight of capital from nz if they were to ever get into power. If Corbyn got in the money would flow out of the Uk at a great rate of knots and he'd have to start printing money I guess, he wouldn't be able to pay for his lunatic ideas.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The UK is monetary sovereign.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So money can't flow out of the UK. (unlike Euro countries) as only UK banks can hold UK money</p>
<p> </p>
<p>if someone wants to reduce their holding of Uk pounds they need a buyer of those pounds to swap for the currency they want. This is what determines the exchange rates. So the currency might fall but money stays in the UK</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="515584" data-time="1442183081">
<div>
<p>Its on his own bloody website.<br><br>
That's what makes comments about the "propaganda media" all the more ridiculous. To his credit, and refreshingly for a politician, Corbyn is completely open about his bat shit crazy policies.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Where on his website</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Please give me a direct link</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="515570" data-time="1442178013">
<div>
<p>Yeah, I've got that. I'm not going to engage with someone whose debating style is to call everyone <span style="color:#ff0000;">who disagrees with him an idiot</span>. As a rule I never trust the arguments of anyone who tells you what things won't do but never puts their neck on the line and says what will happen.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you're interested in why the QE plan won't work I'll tell you what I think but it's one of the driest things you'd ever read. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Where\ have I done this?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515516" data-time="1442148019">
<div>
<p>I understand what money is and how the UK treasury pay their bills. You don't based on this comment. .</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>And your comment re investing in housing is idiotic</strong>. It's not spending on welfare so that the poor can afford to eat and pay for their power etc. This is another topic to debate. It's investing in a valuable asset that will almost certainly increase in value over time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But the brainwashed have been convinced that a company or person running up debt is OK if this debt finance is invested wisely. But not the Govt doing the same re housing. Even though the UK Govt's deficit spending can be financed by zero interest BoE reserves. This is just a fact as is being done INDIRECTLY by QE.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Umm, right there Winger.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515591" data-time="1442184753"><p>The UK is monetary sovereign.<br>
<br>
So money can't flow out of the UK. (unlike Euro countries) as only UK banks can hold UK money<br>
<br>
if someone wants to reduce their holding of Uk pounds they need a buyer of those pounds to swap for the currency they want. This is what determines the exchange rates. So the currency might fall but money stays in the UK</p></blockquote>
<br>
So investors might not balk at he prospect of funding Corbyns fantasies through higher taxes and take their business elsewhere? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-time="1442184972" data-cid="515592" data-author="Winger"><p>Where on his website<br> <br>Please give me a direct link</p></blockquote><br>Here you go Winger:<br><br><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future'>http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future</a><br><br>•A modern, green, resource-efficient economy - creating 1 million new green climate jobs<br><br>More lies from the propaganda media?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kirwan" data-cid="515596" data-time="1442185457">
<div>
<p>Umm, right there Winger.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I said his COMMENT was idiotic. Not that he was an idiot</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But I have been called a moron on this thread. But I accept that as part of a robust debate. Although it does reflect on the poster.</p> -
<p>OK, at the risk of patronising everybody here goes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>QE is actually a managed form of debt monetisation, by which central banks issue currency that becomes part of the government's debt. It's not in itself a bad thing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a lot of sound economic theory that suggests that in principle running government debts of many multiples of GDP is reasonably harmless for an economy that is fundamentally sound and growing. So for example the US's current level of debt, despite what the politicians tell everyone, isn't necessarily bad. People tend to think of governments as bigger versions of individuals and interpolate govt debt down to their own level. That leads them to perform largely meaningless calculations which say each person's share of the debt is [insert a frightening number]. But governments aren't individuals. If you had a debt of 10 times your income that you had to repay over time there would be 2 main hurdles, first you'd need to make sure that in any given term the amount you repaid exceeded the amount of interest accrued, otherwise the interest would compound and you'd have an increasing debt. But if you can manage that the other issue is enough years to make the repayments before your income source dries up (i.e. you retire or die).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But governments don't retire or die, so the time to repay is, in theory, never an issue, and the minimum repayments can be taken care of because the government can simply create money whenever they have to make an interest payment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The argument is very seductive in an abstract sense. If you can simply roll the debt on and pay the interest at no cost you can use the debt you manufacture to fund all sorts of things. And it won't have escaped the notice of Corbyn that QE has pumped in £350 to £400bn without hyperinflation resulting, with the US and EU having similar "success", so he appears to think that is a trick that can be repeated ad infinitum. But I reckon he's wrong on a couple of fronts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First, nobody knows yet just what the long-run impacts of QE will be. The data's just not there. But inflation may yet set in. (If you've done any economics, draw yourself an aggregate supply and demand curve for the scenario with output on the x axis and inflation rate on the y axis, QE pushes the aggregate demand up and to the right, where inflation is raised. But output now exceeds potential output and the short-run aggregate supply curve will begin to shift up and to the left to compensate, so that output comes back to where it should be. You'll see that the inflation rate (where the demand and supply curves cross) is now significantly higher.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Second, there is a good argument that the absence of inflation in QE environments is in fact a bad sign, in that the QE has masked an underlying severe contraction of the economies. Again, we don't yet know.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Third the debt issued through QE will one day or another need to be honoured and that will mean the QE funds will be taken back out the economy. That will potentially mean disinflation which the markets will punish the government for, and maybe a reduction in government programs as they simply have less to spend for a time on social programs. Both would be politically unpopular, so successive governments will try to defer it. But the debt is still there on the balance sheet. It continually tests the resolve of the FX markets and just because so far they have been lenient doesn't mean that will continue indefinitely. The UK is benefiting - for now - from a lack of credible alternatives (i.e. most of the rest are worse) and a belief that the Bank of England is basing its QE decision purely on money supply and not for political expediency. I can tell you from hard experience that the moment that perception changes the goodwill will go and they will sell off. Then you'd see a crash in the value of Sterling and marked inflation. </p>
<p> </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="515598" data-time="1442185558">
<div>
<p>So investors might not balk at he prospect of funding Corbyns fantasies through higher taxes and take their business elsewhere?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't agree with higher tax</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do agree with higher deficits (by either lower taxes esp for the low income or higher spending esp on housing) to stop a depression. That is inevitable is Govt continue to cut their deficit</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="515602" data-time="1442186512">
<div>
<p>Here you go Winger:<br><br><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future'>http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future</a><br><br>
•A modern, green, resource-efficient economy - creating 1 million new green climate jobs<br><br>
More lies from the propaganda media?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is fantasy. Labor hopefully does not go there and will not generate 1 million jobs. Its a fantasy</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But both main parties almost 100% backed this idiotic Ed Miliband climate change Act. I would support repealing this foolish act but neither party will do it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="515605" data-time="1442186868">
<div>
<p>OK, at the risk of patronising everybody here goes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>QE is actually a managed form of debt monetisation, by which central banks issue currency that becomes part of the government's debt. It's not in itself a bad thing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a lot of sound economic theory that suggests that in principle running government debts of many multiples of GDP is reasonably harmless for an economy that is fundamentally sound and growing. So for example the US's current level of debt, despite what the politicians tell everyone, isn't necessarily bad. People tend to think of governments as bigger versions of individuals and interpolate govt debt down to their own level. That leads them to perform largely meaningless calculations which say each person's share of the debt is [insert a frightening number]. But governments aren't individuals. If you had a debt of 10 times your income that you had to repay over time there would be 2 main hurdles, first you'd need to make sure that in any given term the amount you repaid exceeded the amount of interest accrued, otherwise the interest would compound and you'd have an increasing debt. But if you can manage that the other issue is enough years to make the repayments before your income source dries up (i.e. you retire or die).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But governments don't retire or die, so the time to repay is, in theory, never an issue, and the minimum repayments can be taken care of because the government can simply create money whenever they have to make an interest payment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The argument is very seductive in an abstract sense. If you can simply roll the debt on and pay the interest at no cost you can use the debt you manufacture to fund all sorts of things. And it won't have escaped the notice of Corbyn that QE has pumped in £350 to £400bn without hyperinflation resulting, with the US and EU having similar "success", so he appears to think that is a trick that can be repeated ad infinitum. But I reckon he's wrong on a couple of fronts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First, nobody knows yet just what the long-run impacts of QE will be. The data's just not there. But inflation may yet set in. (If you've done any economics, draw yourself an aggregate supply and demand curve for the scenario with output on the x axis and inflation rate on the y axis, QE pushes the aggregate demand up and to the right, where inflation is raised. But output now exceeds potential output and the short-run aggregate supply curve will begin to shift up and to the left to compensate, so that output comes back to where it should be. You'll see that the inflation rate (where the demand and supply curves cross) is now significantly higher.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Second, there is a good argument that the absence of inflation in QE environments is in fact a bad sign, in that the QE has masked an underlying severe contraction of the economies. Again, we don't yet know.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Third the debt issued through QE will one day or another need to be honoured </span>and that will mean the QE funds will be taken back out the economy. That will potentially mean disinflation which the markets will punish the government for, and maybe a reduction in government programs as they simply have less to spend for a time on social programs. Both would be politically unpopular, so successive governments will try to defer it. But the debt is still there on the balance sheet. It continually tests the resolve of the FX markets and just because so far they have been lenient doesn't mean that will continue indefinitely. The UK is benefiting - for now - from a lack of credible alternatives (i.e. most of the rest are worse) and a belief that the Bank of England is basing its QE decision purely on money supply and not for political expediency. I can tell you from hard experience that the moment that perception changes the goodwill will go and they will sell off. Then you'd see a crash in the value of Sterling and marked inflation. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This is where you go wrong</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It MUST NOT ever be paid back. Just keep on rolling it over</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Govt DEBT increases = Non Govt SAVINGS increases. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Govt DEBT decreases = Non Govt SAVINGS decreases.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is factual. and this saving is initially reflected in either company profits or non company income. so reducing debt worldwide would result in a depression. This is guaranteed and totally unnecessary</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And as we age we want to save. So an aging population needs another entity to take on debt. Without this = no savings</p>
British Politics