A New Political Movement or Uprising?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I can now see how your brexit vote was based on sound consideration of fact rather than a twisted set of beliefs created from snippets of daily mail articles.

Well done, not even midday and you've managed to whip out a Daily Mail insult. 

 

Gold star for you.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

Well done, not even midday and you've managed to whip out a Daily Mail insult. 

 

Gold star for you.

[Bows] I thank you sir.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Oh I don't have the answer to Greece's problems, I was just clarifying what caused them.  Personally I don't understand why once it became clear they'd swindled their way into the union the rest of the Eurozone didn't just kick them out until they got their house in order.

Because the punishment is keeping them in  

[Thracian]

 

Indulge me and explain what you'd do in relation to public spending and why, given that all our services seem to be at breaking point as it is and lots of people have already exhausted their credit and can't pay back even what they owe? 

 

I'm sceptical and have always been sceptical of quantitative easing as well with better brains  than mine seeming to confirm that view (this being just a random sample).

 

.https://www.ft.com/content/4905707a-57af-11e6-9f70-badea1b336d4

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

....or a result of people working, earning money, spending it on things and paying tax (for the greater economy). There are lots of theories in economics like there are in many areas, at the end of the day it is all down to human interpretation of these theories and I guess the person in charge (and team) are paid to make the decision.

 

IMO its wrong to think all money comes from debt and that debt is ok (I know some theories suggest this), again there are many economists and economic theories that support this globally. Real money comes from assets, as a country that is either gold (which Gordon sold) or some kind of natural resources we can sell or in the case of the UK at present using our skill set to sell our services to the world.

 

I have yet to see good sound evidence of excessive debt making a economy grow. Germany has low debt and a booming economy, Japan has massive debt and a stagnant economy.

Trouble is how do you ensure that the NHS (and others) doesn't spend its extra money on the wrong things? I would argue its pretty well funded now but is very inefficient, there are many layers of middle management and absolutely abhorrent procurement practices which need to be investigated.

 

Before more money is thrown at the public sector it needs to be better organised, we have councils now run be unaccountable  incompetent executives on never deliver on £100000-200000 per year, yet the same council can not spend £10000 on making a flat safe. The management structure is broken and there is evidence of that across all public sector organisations across the country (they are self preserving), the management is never cut its always the front line services when it should be the other way. Do we need office managers in Police Stations and Schools or could this be centralised? there are a lot of savings and I feel a massive review should be made to make sure the money is spent on the right things.

 

Bloody hell!! A first! I have to say I agree, this is a bigger issue now. This deal has to be good and the best for everyone in this country. Its beyond party politics. Personally I wanted to remain but now we have to accept the democratic vote and move on, but we need to move on in a way that does not cripple us for the future.

I gave you a rep for the last bit - i think anybody not at the extremes of the conversation can see that some form of political consensus needs to be arrived at and worked forward during the brexit negotiations.

 

Regarding the middle bit, there are certainly savings to be had in relation to things like procurement but I'm not convinced, having worked in the public sector for most of my adult life, that near maximum savings haven't been achieved through the systems that the government has put in place. Councils have nowhere near enough funding to do everything that is asked of them. Cutting management is a bit of a false argument that is always used. Without management there is nobody to drive forward all of the projects. People aren't going to take on more responsibility without seeing any increase in wage. You wouldn't expect that of the private sector. 

 

Regarding your first paragraph, economics really is about assets and services. But whenever you talk of selling these, we come back to the fact that the money to purchase these originates in debt somewhere down the chain. 

 

Regarding your second paragraph, national debt is a complex issue way beyond what we can realistically get into here. There is nothing wrong with national debt per se, as I've argued, but there obviously are conditions where it isn't preferable. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

Indulge me and explain what you'd do in relation to public spending and why, given that all our services seem to be at breaking point as it is and lots of people have already exhausted their credit and can't pay back even what they owe? 

 

I'm sceptical and have always been sceptical of quantitative easing as well with better brains  than mine seeming to confirm that view (this being just a random sample).

 

.https://www.ft.com/content/4905707a-57af-11e6-9f70-badea1b336d4

 

 

Put the money into the real economy. Build capital projects, increase public sector wages to match inflation, spend on schools and hospitals. These things put money into people's pockets who can then spend in local businesses etc.

 

Quantitative easing pumped vast sums into the banks but has only really led to them using the funds in such a way that the stock market has grown to record levels. Despite what the government says publically, banks don't need QE to lend as they are allowed to create debt. That clearly hasn't helped ordinary people become more properous, however, as falling wages show and increased personal debt shows.

[leicsmac]

Tbh I think the main problem with economics and therefore economic arguments is that it's a subjective soft science masquerading as a hard one.

 

There's too much of a human element in economics for any argument using it to be passed off as fact rather than carefully considered opinion, and as such you get way too many folks (not really here but out in the wider world) asserting their economic argument is objectively correct when is really anything but.

[Rincewind]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

It's not really rather a disparate and desperate bunch of people who think they all believe in the same needs and wants but I suspect underneath there will be vast differences of opinion.

 

As for the political scene 40 years ago it was more or less two groups of intransigents that brought us down to our knees and left us with the Blair years (ok a bit of a simplification)

 

I fear this current group of desperate people will be easily manipulated into a new group of intransigents by outsiders seeking to cause mayhem and will come head on with the equivalent right wing politicos and nothing much will be achieved, there will still be those with so much money they don't know what to do with it and an ongoing .underclass 

Well that renders my post a waste of time. Just call them desperate and ignore the reasons why they have emerged in the last five years. I wish there was no need for Corbyn and friends. In a fair society he would have no voice. For the first time in four decades someone has listened to the disabled, disadvantaged and young of our society and has spoken for them. There should be no need for this. Then we get somebody sitting in a Westminster office telling people through the media living in Liverpool or Newcastle that their standard of living is wonderful.Is it any surprise that people have become apathetic and mistrusting towards politicians?

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Well that renders my post a waste of time. Just call them desperate and ignore the reasons why they have emerged in the last five years. I wish there was no need for Corbyn and friends. In a fair society he would have no voice. For the first time in four decades someone has listened to the disabled, disadvantaged and young of our society and has spoken for them. There should be no need for this. Then we get somebody sitting in a Westminster office telling people through the media living in Liverpool or Newcastle that their standard of living is wonderful.Is it any surprise that people have become apathetic and mistrusting towards politicians?

I think you've rendered my post pointless as you've  completely misunderstood what I was saying.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Beggars belief that people actually seem to think Corbyn's election promises were based on principles as opposed to polling. Ideology is dead in mainstream British politics (thanks largely to Blair and New Labour) and yes, sorry to break it to you, JC is nothing but a mainstream politician. Wake up ffs

[Thracian]

21 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What? You cannot compare an individual entity to the monetary system - this is why people don't understand the nature of national debt. The point would be that the owner's savings are an accumulation of debts elsewhere in the economy. In your example the accumulated debts of people with sky packages, the debts of sky, credit used to buy season tickets, credit used to purchase king power duty free goods etc. You can't seperate bit of money from the whole economy. 

But even within your own argument that's not the whole story - you've ignored the assets (or lack of them) of those who've gone into "debt" which leads into the separate argument concerning responsible or asset-backed credit and reckless, uncovered credit.

 

And that would likely expose the folly of expanding the debt of an economy and thus creating more credit, unless it is based on the irresponsible notion of not ever repaying that debt and either creating negative consequences elsewhere or effectively paying the bill through some kind of theft (from inheritances, for instance - on death or otherwise) and that would give carte-blanche for us all to become criminals and to forget any kind of conduct code

 .

 

 

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

It's not really a new political movement rather a disparate and desperate bunch of people who think they all believe in the same needs and wants but I suspect underneath there will be vast differences of opinion.

 

As for the political scene 40 years ago it was more or less two groups of intransigents that brought us down to our knees and left us with the Blair years (ok a bit of a simplification)

 

I fear this current group of desperate people will be easily manipulated into a new group of intransigents by outsiders seeking to cause mayhem and will come head on with the equivalent right wing politicos and nothing much will be achieved, there will still be those with so much money they don't know what to do with it and an ongoing .underclass 

Ever perceptive.  

[davieG]

On 6/18/2017 at 11:48, davieG said:

.....and the old get chastised for living beyond 65 in house that has gone up through no fault of their own. 

 

It's the politicians and media lauding over and welcoming higher house prices not the oldies. I've never understood this obsession with how good it is that house prices keep going up it's certainly no benefit to me and only comes something when I die, I've not planned for it to be a legacy for my kids but I really don't see why it should be used against me when I've made many sacrifices in the first place to get hold of it.

Oh and just to add higher house prices have actually been a hindrance as I've moved home numerous times during this period of inflation because all it does is increase the cost of moving as most estate agents, solicitors and Stamp Duty are all based on the price of the house irrespective of actual business costs or inflation. 

 

So as well as house prices making it difficult to get on the ladder it's increasingly more difficult to move home either to up-size or down-size.

[Thracian]

56 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

 I wish there was no need for Corbyn and friends. In a fair society he would have no voice. 

 

 

Can't believe you've written this. Delusions are one thing but blatant denial, that's serious. 

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

Here's the rub: 

All 'money' at macroeconomic level is created through debt. All of it. 

This debt can either be national debt or personal/private debt.

The economy grows when there is more money in the economy.

Our economy is growing slower than any other G7 nation.

We have seen some growth over the last few years but this councided with personal debt increasing to near record levels.

With near record personal debt, interest rates getting closer to increasing and wages falling, as well as the uncertainty of Brexit for business, increasing personal debt further would be extremely risky.

This leaves the only option to increase public spending.

As long as you only count the last quarter and ignore the last 7 years.

[Buce]

Just now, Webbo said:

As long as you only count the last quarter and ignore the last 7 years.

 

A boxer is only as good as his last fight..

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

A boxer is only as good as his last fight..

How convenient 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

How convenient 

 

Not if you're the Boxer..

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Put the money into the real economy. Build capital projects, increase public sector wages to match inflation, spend on schools and hospitals. These things put money into people's pockets who can then spend in local businesses etc.

 

Quantitative easing pumped vast sums into the banks but has only really led to them using the funds in such a way that the stock market has grown to record levels. Despite what the government says publically, banks don't need QE to lend as they are allowed to create debt. That clearly hasn't helped ordinary people become more properous, however, as falling wages show and increased personal debt shows.

 

I wish you'd stop peddling this line that banks can just create money and thus debt. Whilst yes that is what they can and do do, they can't just endlessly do so.

 

Market forces constrain lending

Risk has to be mitigated

Regulatory restrictions exist

Money creation is constrained by the actions of households and firms. They may destroy money immediately by undertaking transactions to do so. Repaying a debt with new debt for example

And at the end of the day, it is all constrained by monetary policy for which QE is an expansionary instrument 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

I wish you'd stop peddling this line that banks can just create money and thus debt. Whilst yes that is what they can and do do, they can't just endlessly do so.

 

Market forces constrain lending

Risk has to be mitigated

Regulatory restrictions exist

Money creation is constrained by the actions of households and firms. They may destroy money immediately by undertaking transactions to do so. Repaying a debt with new debt for example

And at the end of the day, it is all constrained by monetary policy for which QE is an expansionary instrument 

 

Tbf i only added the sentence in about debt because i feared not doing so would cause people to question how the backs would have led without qe. Qe should be an expansionary instrument but my understanding is that it isn't as clear as it should be that it has acted in this way - not in comparison to the level of qe - in recent times. 

[Guest]

Clinging to austerity will kill this government – the small-state dream has evaporated

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/clinging-to-austerity-will-kill-this-government-paul-mason

[yorkie1999]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

A boxer is only as good as his last fight..

Apart from Ali.

[Rincewind]

11 hours ago, Thracian said:

 

 

Can't believe you've written this. Delusions are one thing but blatant denial, that's serious. 

A fair society is delusional?. I wonder who says that the most? 

[Thracian]

52 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

A fair society is delusional?. I wonder who says that the most? 

Oh dear - I think that fell on stony ground. 

[Rincewind]

5 hours ago, Thracian said:

Oh dear - I think that fell on stony ground. 

Ok then I will ask in another way. Who benefits maintaining the status quo in an unfair society?

 

Pur another way a horse that gives up before the first hurdle is unlikelt to win the race.

 

If the City players had given up before the Man City game last year they would not have won the league. The ones gaining most from a City failure would have been the likes of Man Utd Arsenal rtc. The media pundits and money people in football were not prepared for a small club having success. It upset the status quo.