Buce Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: Yes I've decided to stay because I have a pathological need to seek attention by talking shit on the internet. 1
The Doctor Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, Buce said: That's this forum as a whole tbf 2
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Out of interest fox, who do you think the national debt is owed to? I know who its owed to: Mainly: Bank of England Banks Other Countries Insurance and Pension Funds
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 3 minutes ago, Buce said: Your such a comedian. So pathetic really, like playground stuff. Very predicable: 1. Piss poor gif off the Internet 2. Take comment and change it (hahaha) Who is the one allegedly seeking attention? Not the believer in kind caring policitics I am sure.
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: I know who its owed to: Mainly: Bank of England Banks Other Countries Insurance and Pension Funds And would policy makers really want to remove securities from the economy?
Izzy Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: That's good to hear mate.fair play to those success stories. But looking at the whole economy would you agree that the picture doesn't average out that way? I don’t pay much attention to the big picture mate to be honest. All I try and do is work with businesses to be the best they can be and control what they can control. Those businesses that ignore the noise and don’t blame external factors seem to be doing well in my experience...
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: And would policy makers really want to remove securities from the economy? In relation to what? The BofE? Edited 24 November 2017 by Foxin_mad
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: I don’t pay much attention to the big picture mate to be honest. All I try and do is work with businesses to be the best they can be and control what they can control. Those businesses that ignore the noise and don’t blame external factors seem to be doing well in my experience... Are these businesses primarily working with other businesses, exporting or relying on consumer confidence? I'd have thought the last would be the toughest at the moment?
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: In relation to what? Government gilts act as securities for bank lending. Where your pension is invested in government gilts it is the returns that make the schemes feasible. Where the BoE is owed money it is because it has bought government bonds effectively taking debt out of circulation as it's just accounting. King (not that that is his username anymore but I can't remember that) would know more about this stuff than me but I wouldn't think removing securities is in itself a good thing. I remember reading something by a us economist who spoke to us policy makers. He asked who'd want to get rid of the national debt and had a lot of agreement. He then asked how they would get rid of securities and suddenly there was a lot of grumbling. Even policy makers don't all know how the economy really works!
Rogstanley Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 If the government want to borrow some more money from me at a nice interest rate then I'm all ears. Why on earth would I as an individual not want that investment opportunity open to me? It's like asking banks to lower their interest rates so they can give their bosses a pay rise. Cucky McCuck.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 In more positive news Buce and Toddy should be able to ride out the next recession comfortably with their salt mining business. 3
Izzy Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: Are these businesses primarily working with other businesses, exporting or relying on consumer confidence? I'd have thought the last would be the toughest at the moment? One is a plant hire company near Portsmouth and the other a private health insurance intermediary in Cheshire. Both employ around 80 staff and turnover about £15m. What they rely on is recruiting good people, training them well, creating a great culture and delivering world class service. None of the external stuff gets discussed really...
Guest Kopfkino Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 hour ago, toddybad said: No I'm talking about the current situation. The increase in private debt now is a direct consequence of austerity. Clearly government expenditure was much higher under the labour government. As we have been told many, many times, it was a fault of banks to recognise the risks of lending that was a huge contributor. That said, it is true that personal debt was ridiculously high. At that time it wasn't required for growth due to government policy but where perhaps the government was lax was in also not recognising the risks associated with high personal debt. Presumably this may have been over confidence given how well the economy performed under that government. I know you're too intelligent to argue that any government could have stopped the global crisis affecting the uk. So right now personal debt could be lower if government borrowed more, but before the crisis, when personal debt was at record levels, the government couldn't have borrowed more to bring personal debt down? And current record borrowing has nothing to do with a sustained period of ridiculously low interest rates and expansionary monetary policy, just a consequence of austerity? And again, 2008 was the result of banks misjudging risk but that won't be a factor in the future credit crunch you anticipate? I'm not even trying to be difficult here, I genuinely don't understand why in your head the government could prevent a credit crunch now by borrowing more but that wasn't the case in the 2000s And also seem to discount the central bank's influence on such things.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Government gilts act as securities for bank lending. Where your pension is invested in government gilts it is the returns that make the schemes feasible. Where the BoE is owed money it is because it has bought government bonds effectively taking debt out of circulation as it's just accounting. King (not that that is his username anymore but I can't remember that) would know more about this stuff than me but I wouldn't think removing securities is in itself a good thing. I remember reading something by a us economist who spoke to us policy makers. He asked who'd want to get rid of the national debt and had a lot of agreement. He then asked how they would get rid of securities and suddenly there was a lot of grumbling. Even policy makers don't all know how the economy really works! I don't think anyone would want to remove the securities as it would make it all a bit too risky IMO.
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 16 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: One is a plant hire company near Portsmouth and the other a private health insurance intermediary in Cheshire. Both employ around 80 staff and turnover about £15m. What they rely on is recruiting good people, training them well, creating a great culture and delivering world class service. None of the external stuff gets discussed really... What do you do mate? Management consultant?
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: I don't think anyone would want to remove the securities as it would make it all a bit too risky IMO. And this is my point - the securities ARE national debt To be clear, I'm NOT saying that ongoing high deficits are good things. But national debt is not in itself the end of the world. The deficit is at a fairly sensible level so if we could grow the economy we are able to spend as the deficit would be smaller. Borrowing to invest is sensible economics. Particularly when interest rates are so low. I don't disagree with the tories that the deficit needed to come down, I just disagree with the means of achieving that. If we'd done it by investing to grow the economy back to where it was the deficit would have shrunk by itself. Instead we've taken money out of the economy, put the pressure of achieving growth into personal debt, sucked the life out of growth and are in danger of having done it for nothing if personal debt tips us back into a credit crisis. Edited 24 November 2017 by Guest
Izzy Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: What do you do mate? Management consultant? Yeah pretty much mate. Prefer to call myself a Business Coach these days. I mainly work with Exec teams to help them create their strategy and become better leaders and coaches for their people. Good fun..
katieakita Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: If the government want to borrow some more money from me at a nice interest rate then I'm all ears. Why on earth would I as an individual not want that investment opportunity open to me? It's like asking banks to lower their interest rates so they can give their bosses a pay rise. Cucky McCuck. They tried that mate under the coalition, it was called Project Merlin where the taxpayer lent billions to the banks to lend to SME to stimulate the economy and generate profit for the banks. Sadly nobody could afford the interests rates offered by the banks so they continually missed targets and it was pulled. Corbyn and those commies at the CWU are proposing something called a Post Bank where the taxpayer lends money to SME via this National Bank with rates and criteria set by the government of the day and worryingly all profits going back to the taxpayer and not the banks, crazy
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: So right now personal debt could be lower if government borrowed more, but before the crisis, when personal debt was at record levels, the government couldn't have borrowed more to bring personal debt down? And current record borrowing has nothing to do with a sustained period of ridiculously low interest rates and expansionary monetary policy, just a consequence of austerity? And again, 2008 was the result of banks misjudging risk but that won't be a factor in the future credit crunch you anticipate? I'm not even trying to be difficult here, I genuinely don't understand why in your head the government could prevent a credit crunch now by borrowing more but that wasn't the case in the 2000s And also seem to discount the central bank's influence on such things. The government was already borrowing. Credit was largely due to high consumer confidence at that time. The economy had been buoyant for years. The situation now is very clearly not that of a buoyant economy. We're closer to depression than boom. Growth rates are at record lows and consumer confidence appears low going on today's figures. Cuts cannot help consumer confidence can they? Edited 24 November 2017 by Guest
Guest MattP Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 32 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: If the government want to borrow some more money from me at a nice interest rate then I'm all ears. Why on earth would I as an individual not want that investment opportunity open to me? It's like asking banks to lower their interest rates so they can give their bosses a pay rise. Cucky McCuck. You realise the government borrows it on behalf of you surely? Not from you. It's more likely to be the blue chip companies getting a solid investment rather that you. What % would gilts have to arrive at before you said no out of interest?
Rogstanley Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: You realise the government borrows it on behalf of you surely? Not from you. It's more likely to be the blue chip companies getting a solid investment rather that you. What % would gilts have to arrive at before you said no out of interest? When I buy government bonds, that's me lending my money to them, for which they pay me a rate of interest. What do you mean? What percentage interest rate would be too low for me to consider lending at?
Buce Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Your You're such a comedian. So pathetic really, like playground stuff. Very predicable: 1. Piss poor gif off the Internet 2. Take comment and change it (hahaha) 3. Correct schoolboy grammar. 4. Return to reading Das Kapital and plotting violent revolution with Corbyn and McDonnell (very dangerous men) 40 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: In more positive news Buce and Toddy should be able to ride out the next recession comfortably with their salt mining business. In your dreams - global warming means it's not gonna be needed on the roads and it's constantly being cut from food. I'm optimistic about my Food Bank futures, though... Edited 24 November 2017 by Buce 1
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 7 minutes ago, MattP said: You realise the government borrows it on behalf of you surely? Not from you. It's more likely to be the blue chip companies getting a solid investment rather that you. What % would gilts have to arrive at before you said no out of interest? 3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: When I buy government bonds, that's me lending my money to them, for which they pay me a rate of interest. What do you mean? What percentage interest rate would be too low for me to consider lending at? Matt's point is fair in that there clearly is a limit to the debt you can take on without it affecting yields and costing the government more. There is a need for balance. But we clearly don't have any issues at this moment.
Rogstanley Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: One is a plant hire company near Portsmouth and the other a private health insurance intermediary in Cheshire. Both employ around 80 staff and turnover about £15m. What they rely on is recruiting good people, training them well, creating a great culture and delivering world class service. None of the external stuff gets discussed really... Private health insurance companies doing well might be seen as a consequence of the NHS being ran into the ground (emphasise the word 'might' there, I'm happy to admit I know SFA about the NHS, on the face of it, it seems like a money pit to me). Plant hire companies should have being doing well as construction has been doing well, but there are signs things are weakening in that industry as the government fails to deliver on its infrastructure plan. Edited 24 November 2017 by Rogstanley
Guest Posted 24 November 2017 Posted 24 November 2017 1 minute ago, Rogstanley said: Private health insurance companies doing well might be seen as a consequence of the NHS being ran into the ground (emphasise the word 'might' there, I'm happy to admit I know SFA about the NHS, it seems like a money out to me). Plant hire companies should have being doing well as construction has been doing well, but there are signs things are weakening in that industry as the government fails to deliver on its infrastructure plan. There's a plan?!?
Recommended Posts