Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Glenda's Legs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1545370729323044865

Good. It was such a waste of time re-investigation when he had already been investigated and cleared.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Politically it is suicide, as any pain is projected onto the government (of any colour) and the misery and blame laid at their door.

However it is the noble thing to do. You pay your dues and accept that bad times can follow good. The problem is the 'good times' have artificially propped up for way too long on bubble after bubble. There should be only so much money to go round but they discarded that idea and in doing so everyone got 'wealthy' (in the main) by doing fudge all.

The problem is COVID, followed by the war (and to a lesser extent, in our case Brexit) has put sovereign wealth at risk via debt levels. Add this to corporate debt and personal debt and it's a pack of cards.

Whenever you increase the volume of money, people enjoy it at first, then you get inflation. It is tried and tested, through history we know this to be so. Inflation is damaging so we should act. Governments don't want to pull the plug, but eventually, someone has to. The BoE (which I thought was independent of government?) need to reduce the volume of money in circulation.

 

[JerusalemMan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1545299214636310529

 

[Jordinho]

Minor edit to add the second part above.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Boris... as corrupt as he wants to be.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Whenever you increase the volume of money, people enjoy it at first, then you get inflation. It is tried and tested, through history we know this to be so. Inflation is damaging so we should act. Governments don't want to pull the plug, but eventually, someone has to. The BoE (which I thought was independent of government?) need to reduce the volume of money in circulation.

It hasn't worked like that this time round. The steep increase in money supply has been with us for years and inflation has gone nowhere (just like Japan).. the difference in the last 2 years is all the recent magic money has actually been given (free) to the general public (during COVID) rather than sit on bank balance sheets and used to pump up asset bubbles or loaned to zombie companies.
It built up people's reserves and savings when locked down for ages and a pent up demand that has coincided with supply problems....pushing up prices. The perfect storm is energy and oil prices have ramped due to geopolitical issues as well.

QT is needed but do we trust central banks to get that right (not overshoot) , and to increase interest rates to cool inflation to put people off borrowing is another impossible balancing act as most people have already borrowed and will see it as another increase in their monthly outgoings (many have only known (artificially) low interest rates). On the flip side we are all losing money if we have savings at the moment.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

public spending needs to be cut, we had two years of giving money away and there was always going to be fall out, which is paying it back - people happy to spend it, not so happy to pay it back.

Johnson was happy to spend more and more

I agree. Let's get those corporations, especially the ones with their snouts in the public trough to pay more in tax to recoup some of that money.

 

[DTA]

People see

Whenever you increase the volume of money, people enjoy it at first, then you get inflation. It is tried and tested, through history we know this to be so. Inflation is damaging so we should act. Governments don't want to pull the plug, but eventually, someone has to. The BoE (which I thought was independent of government?) need to reduce the volume of money in circulation.

This is supply based inflation- constriction of the economy simply does not lead to a reduction in supply led inflation. Prices will still be increasing but fewer and fewer people would be able to afford the increases. That could lead to absolute catastrophe considering that a lot of the inflation is actually on essentials

 

[SpurMeUp]

It hasn't worked like that this time round. The steep increase in money supply has been with us for years and inflation has gone nowhere (just like Japan).. the difference in the last 2 years is all the recent magic money has actually been given (free) to the general public (during COVID) rather than sit on bank balance sheets and used to pump up asset bubbles or loaned to zombie companies.
It built up people's reserves and savings when locked down for ages and a pent up demand that has coincided with supply problems....pushing up prices. The perfect storm is energy and oil prices have ramped due to geopolitical issues as well.

QT is needed but do we trust central banks to get that right (not overshoot) , and to increase interest rates to cool inflation to put people off borrowing is another impossible balancing act as most people have already borrowed and will see it as another increase in their monthly outgoings (many have only known (artificially) low interest rates). On the flip side we are all losing money if we have savings at the moment.

Totally. But despite all that, when you strip it back, one thing has remained true over the centuries: a greater volume of money causes inflation. We have high inflation and have printed billions of extra pounds. Over a trillion pounds in fact! When you inject that volume of money into an economy, of course you will get inflation. Our GDP is 2.2 trillion. We've effectively printed well over a third of our yearly GDP (over 3 years or so).

The other issue is how quantitative easing props up the housing market. Probably stops a natural correction occuring.

 

[SpurMeUp]

QA should be used in times of crisis to stabile an economy. It sends a powerful message to markets and keeps interest rates low. But outside of these freak events like covid and the banking crisis, I think global economies are kidding themselves that they can get away with printing money indefinitly. Yes use QA to stabilise an economy, but then reign it in. Just because markets and economies are more complex now, it does not follow that the core principles of economics go out the window. That is: when you print money, short-term everyone enjoys it, and then you get inflation. Humans just innovate and complicate to kid themselves that things are different this time. Are they?

 

[SpurMeUp]

People see


This is supply based inflation- constriction of the economy simply does not lead to a reduction in supply led inflation. Prices will still be increasing but fewer and fewer people would be able to afford the increases. That could lead to absolute catastrophe considering that a lot of the inflation is actually on essentials

I have no economic training, so I'm learning: an economy's size is not measured by the amount of money in it, however. Right? Taking money out of an economy will just make money more valuable. What we've done over Covid is dilute money's value. Which is fine when people are staying home and not spending. But when they are it results in inflation.

I guess what is fascinating is economists are still finding out. We know how these things work in a simple economy. You get more volume of money and inflation follows suit. But when you have so many inputs and variables to consider in a modern economy it is hard to know how it shakes down. It's a human phenomenon ultimately, about mass behaviors, so we should be able to model it.

Ultimately no one believes you can just print money indefinitely. We've seen the outcome of that many times. What we've discovered more recently is you can print money short-term to offset times of trouble when money supply becomes more limited - when banks couldn't lend or economies partially close due to covid. But what I'm saying is that in normal times it seems a dangerous thing to keep the money tap on. The fundamentals of economics haven't changed even if markets are far more complex now with 'pools' of money able to be stored etc - effectively taken out of the economy, aging populations storing wealth etc. Who knows what all the variable are...

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

What all this shows very clearly is that the Tories are fundamentally composed of self interested, morally bankrupted pygmies. The other parties not so much. It has always been thus, but with the power of the mass media in their corner, they have always been able to convince a substantial segment of the British people to vote for them and against their own economic interests. The Keir Starmer allegations are a clear example of how the mass media have been complicit in propping these arseholes up. You know things are getting desperate for the elite, when they play the false moral equivalence card.

 

[Mikey10]

What all this shows very clearly is that the Tories are fundamentally composed of self interested, morally bankrupted pygmies. The other parties not so much. it has always been thus, but with the power of the mass media in their corner, they have always been able to convince a substantial segment of the British people to vote for them and against their own economic interests. The Keir Starmer allegations are a clear example of how the mass media have been complicit in propping these arseholes up. You know things are getting desperate for the elite, when they play the moral equivalence card.

The Mail (who’ve had a terrible couple of days, with Johnson going, their loss of a court case against Prince Harry, and now the Beergate verdict) are reporting the Durham police’s decision as ‘an establishment stitch-up.’

Frighteningly, their readership will lap it up.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The attempt by the Daily Mail and the Tories to smear Starmer reinforces the contempt that they have for the British people, in thinking that they would see Starmer in the same light as Johnson.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The Mail (who’ve had a terrible couple of days, with Johnson going, their loss of a court case against Prince Harry, and now the Beergate verdict) are reporting the Durham police’s decision as ‘an establishment stitch-up.’

Frighteningly, their readership will lap it up.

The gall in attempting to smear Labour as the 'establishment,' but not themselves and the Tories. Ha, ha.

 

[Lost Mango]

The attempt by the Daily Mail and the Tories to smear Starmer reinforces the contempt that they have for the British people, in thinking that they would see Starmer in the same light as Johnson.

They are using a meaningless smear by Fabriclam to try and make it sound authentic. Anything that Boris mini-me taco has to say just undermines any credibility.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

QA should be used in times of crisis to stabile an economy. It sends a powerful message to markets and keeps interest rates low. But outside of these freak events like covid and the banking crisis, I think global economies are kidding themselves that they can get away with printing money indefinitly. Yes use QA to stabilise an economy, but then reign it in. Just because markets and economies are more complex now, it does not follow that the core principles of economics go out the window. That is: when you print money, short-term everyone enjoys it, and then you get inflation. Humans just innovate and complicate to kid themselves that things are different this time. Are they?

I have no economic training, so I'm learning: an economy's size is not measured by the amount of money in it, however. Right? Taking money out of an economy will just make money more valuable. What we've done over Covid is dilute money's value. Which is fine when people are staying home and not spending. But when they are it results in inflation.

I guess what is fascinating is economists are still finding out. We know how these things work in a simple economy. You get more volume of money and inflation follows suit. But when you have so many inputs and variables to consider in a modern economy it is hard to know how it shakes down. It's a human phenomenon ultimately, about mass behaviors, so we should be able to model it.

Ultimately no one believes you can just print money indefinitely. We've seen the outcome of that many times. What we've discovered more recently is you can print money short-term to offset times of trouble when money supply becomes more limited - when banks couldn't lend or economies partially close due to covid. But what I'm saying is that in normal times it seems a dangerous thing to keep the money tap on. The fundamentals of economics haven't changed even if markets are far more complex now with 'pools' of money able to be stored etc - effectively taken out of the economy, aging populations storing wealth etc. Who knows what all the variable are...

The point you are missing is QE isn't a Covid, war or Brexit thing (that's just made things worse)..it's been going on for years (2008)

Read about MMT ...that's the theory they're hanging their hat on (probably because it suits the direction theyve been taking)

 

[SpurMeUp]

The point you are missing is QE isn't a Covid, war or Brexit thing (that's just made things worse)..it's been going on for years (2008)

Read about MMT ...that's the theory they're hanging their hat on (probably because it suits the direction theyve been taking)

2008 was the credit crunch when banks fell apart and the world needed liquidity. That really propelled QA globally. But unless you are saying we can just print money with no consequence, there has to be a limit and there have to be implications for increasing the volume of money. It might be offset by changes to how much cash banks must hold, an ageing population etc but sooner or later it will have an affect - like now. Really we are following the same pattern as always - more money first leads to good times before leading to inflation. When people discovered gold reserves and flooded to get rich quick hundreds of years ago all that extra currency led to a boom first of all, before inflation kicked in. Then the gold got taken into bank vaults and out of circulation. History repeats.

Thanks for the tip I’ll check out MMT…

 

[Legohamster]

you haven’t answered my question at all.

what you are suggesting won’t solve any of the problems with the economy, in fact they are very likely to make them much worse.

Continuing to print more money will lead to more inflation, giving people inflation matching pay rises will extend the inflation levels, we are living way beyond our means as a country - private and public debt massive.

Public spending and reforms on areas like the NHS wastage needs to be looked at.

Everyone wanted free money and cheered on lockdowns/free tests/Go hard on Russia etc and no one wants the pay back to affect them

 

[Legohamster]

So cut tax breaks and loop holes for the wealthy and corporate entities. Don’t subsidise companies in order to pay dividends. If the govt wants to take the limits off bankers pay then that top end bankers pay should be taxed accordingly. Make it illegal to book sales to clients in this country through tax havens. Our tax system is so broken that not only can enormously profitable companies get away with paying no tax, they are even able to obtain tax rebates on “losses” in Uk transactions (ignoring all those sales squirrelled away in tax havens). Here is but one example…https://www.theguardian.com/busines...maker-uk-corporation-tax-rockstar-north-games

In general peoples ideas of restraints on public expenditure always start and end with benefits and public sector pay, but we need a leader who can we the bigger picture. The wealthy need to pay their due. Inequality is the biggest problem in our society and it’s only getting worse. That has to stop, austerity mk2 will only make it worse.

the largesse that the rich and mega rich receive from the tories is no longer tenable. The idea that ceos earn 300 times their average employees wage is complete and utter flimflam, sheer corporate greed (prior to thatcher it the average ceo pay was circa 20 times avg employee pay).

and are these clams worth it? Clearly not on most cases because they are unable to buck market trends.

Everyone should be paying their fair share, you will have no argument from me.