Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well 2 of those papers are by a Professor who teaches one of my courses, got them from his reading list. But yes a man who studied and worked at Columbia, is now a Professor at LSE and has won awards for being the best economist under 40.

 

Then John Cochrane is a distinguished economist at Stanford.

 

One is an aggregation of various sources.

 

But yes it's definitely them that have dubious credentials and not Rog on Foxestalk. 

Yeah but Rog says we borrow low and then inflation pays for it. We aren't Zimbabwe are we, or Venezuela, you see.

 

Speculate to accumulte innit. Easy. Pays for itself. 

 

You are talking shit mate, Corbyn innit. McDonnell yeah, gonna tell em at Davos it's over, deficit down? Nah. Doesn't matter anyway. Pays for itself, 500 billion at 1.3%? Inflation yeah.

 

50million in interest we are paying? How do you explain us paying off the debt from WW2? Inflation innit. 

[Rogstanley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

Errr...because the average life expectancy was about 70 and we had just lost millions of young men?

 

How did that slip your mind?

 

It's frightening people think it's comparable, desperation. 

Humour me, how does the fact we lost millions of young men affect debt and what is the difference between debt in 1950 and debt now?

[Rogstanley]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Well 2 of those papers are by a Professor who teaches one of my courses, got them from his reading list. But yes a man who studied and worked at Columbia, is now a Professor at LSE and has won awards for being the best economist under 40.

 

Then John Cochrane is a distinguished economist at Stanford.

 

One is an aggregation of various sources.

 

But yes it's definitely them that have dubious credentials and not Rog on Foxestalk. 

Warren Buffett is more successul than your teacher or any of the others and he says you can inflate away debt.

 

I don't think you've actually looked at the papers. If you had you'd realise that they are saying a government shouldn't aim for inflating away debt because in getting to that situation there would be negative consequences. We are already there, so it's a totally different situation.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Humour me, how does the fact we lost millions of young men affect debt and what is the difference between debt in 1950 and debt now?

Why did you miss the bit I stated about life expentancy?

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yeah but Rog says we borrow low and then inflation pays for it. We aren't Zimbabwe are we, or Venezuela, you see.

 

Speculate to accumulte innit. Easy. Pays for itself. 

 

You are talking shit mate, Corbyn innit. McDonnell yeah, gonna tell em at Davos it's over, deficit down? Nah. Doesn't matter anyway. Pays for itself, 500 billion at 1.3%? Inflation yeah.

 

50million in interest we are paying? How do you explain us paying off the debt from WW2? Inflation innit. 

Zimbabwe and Venezuala

 

What next, inflating away debt is DANGEROUS?

 

See in the post war period we had real national pride, real confidence in our ability, confidence to go out there and build the NHS, build the welfare state, build the motorway network despite debt to GDP of well over 100%. Forget your poets, if you want to be proud of something British be proud of the fact that we once had the balls to back ourselves to build a better country. Now all people like you want to do is cut down the trees and pillage whatever rotten fruit is left. And then you dare to describe yourself as proud to be British. Shameful.

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Warren Buffett is more successul than your teacher or any of the others and he says you can inflate away debt.

 

I don't think you've actually looked at the papers. If you had you'd realise that they are saying a government shouldn't aim for inflating away debt because in getting to that situation there would be negative consequences. We are already there, so it's a totally different situation.

 

Brilliant. So basically, you're now telling me that because Jeff Bezos is the self-made richest man in the world, his word on any matter is right. 

 

I have looked at them and seen it explained by the person that wrote it. And that's not what's said. 

[Rogstanley]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Brilliant. So basically, you're now telling me that because Jeff Bezos is the self-made richest man in the world, his word on any matter is right. 

 

I have looked at them and seen it explained by the person that wrote it. And that's not what's said. 

No I'm demonstrating that anybody can drop names. 

 

Explain to us then how, if the government borrows now at 1% while inflation is running at 3%, is that debt not partially inflated away. I don't want to know about other factors, i don't want google links, just explain your principle of how borrowing at a lower rate than inflation does not inflate away the debt.

Edited 26 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Kopfkino]

On 22/11/2017 at 09:43, Rogstanley said:

 

Studies carried out by reputable organisations are better evidence than your anecdotal experience.

 

 

On 17/11/2017 at 19:38, Rogstanley said:

It’s like, once you’ve made your mind up on something that’s it, forever, there’s literally no amount or quality of evidence that will ever get you to even consider reconsidering.

 

 

On 20/11/2017 at 14:45, Rogstanley said:

You've been presented with properly carried out studies with clear methodologies and conclusions and you describe them as "woolly"

 

 

[Kopfkino]

56 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

No I'm demonstrating that anybody can drop names. 

 

Explain to us then how, if the government borrows now at 1% while inflation is running at 3%, is that debt not partially inflated away. I don't want to know about other factors, i don't want google links, just explain your principle of how borrowing at a lower rate than inflation does not inflate away the debt.

 

If you have no regard for the writings of top academic economists then what is the use of me saying anything? I mean the first point to make is government debt is increasing at £50bn a year, or 2.94%. You're right, it will be inflated away in not time at this rate. 

Edited 27 January 2018 by Kopfkino

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Can you expand on this and tell us which areas you'll invest in?

Well I won't be investing in any, as I'm not likely to be in government. It's really up to labour to do this, not me. But as you like playing these stupid games, I'll play along for a moment.

 

Housing - as already stated you can build housing to retain an asset with rental income and also allow right to buy with profits being used to key the scheme funded.

 

Roads/transport - motorways and major roads are clogged. I'd seek to implement policies to encourage business to help alleviate this where possible through home/agile/flexible working initiatives. I'd also look at how logistics can be handled differently and if there's any way of reducing the amount of heavy goods vehicles on the roads, particularly during peak travel times. That won't be anything like enough on its own though so better funding for transport and road maintenance and expansion will have some positive effects on productivity as materials/goods will be moved quicker, as well as providing significant numbers of jobs.

 

I haven't got the will to write you a while pretend manifesto but those sorts of things. I'd add that investment is also needed for be hospitals/schools which will provide jobs and a boom for businesses providing architectural/technical/construction support. Whilst they may not have the same after-benefits as pure buildings, we can't just not replace or maintain schools and hospitals.

 

 

 

 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

If you have no regard for the writings of top academic economists then what is the use of me saying anything? I mean the first point to make is government debt is increasing at £50bn a year, or 2.94%. You're right, it will be inflated away in not time at this rate. 

And what interest rate does the government pay on recent debt? We both know it's a lot lower than the current rate of inflation.

 

You've not been able to explain why it isn't possible for inflation to reduce debt. The blogs you posted from journalists are looking at it from a different perspective. Nothing you've posted has come close to providing a clear path of reasoning.

 

I'm more than happy to change my mind if you can prove that I'm wrong. But you can't, because it's obvious that if the rate of interest on your borrowing is lower than inflation then inflation will lower the real value of the debt over time.

 

Let's not forget that on properly targeted investment you also get a return. We started building the motorway network when debt to GDP was a lot higher than it is now. I don't know the exact methodology you'd use to calculate it, but I think we can all appreciate that the return on investment of the motorways has been absolutely massive. The UK without motorways is simply unimaginable.

 

We're at the point again now where we have fallen well behind most comparable countries on a range of measures and we are ripe for a renewed programme of serious investment. Like the motorways such investment has the potential to deliver huge returns.

 

Let's not forget that investment in infrastructure is also Tory policy. The only reason they aren't doing more of it is because they set idiotic deficit reduction targets and to u-turn on austerity without it having achieved anything would be an admittance of failure and hence political suicide.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

And what interest rate does the government pay on recent debt? We both know it's a lot lower than the current rate of inflation.

 

You've not been able to explain why it isn't possible for inflation to reduce debt. The blogs you posted from journalists are looking at it from a different perspective. Nothing you've posted has come close to providing a clear path of reasoning.

 

I'm more than happy to change my mind if you can prove that I'm wrong. But you can't, because it's obvious that if the rate of interest on your borrowing is lower than inflation then inflation will lower the real value of the debt over time.

 

Let's not forget that on properly targeted investment you also get a return. We started building the motorway network when debt to GDP was a lot higher than it is now. I don't know the exact methodology you'd use to calculate it, but I think we can all appreciate that the return on investment of the motorways has been absolutely massive. The UK without motorways is simply unimaginable.

 

We're at the point again now where we have fallen well behind most comparable countries on a range of measures and we are ripe for a renewed programme of serious investment. Like the motorways such investment has the potential to deliver huge returns.

 

Let's not forget that investment in infrastructure is also Tory policy. The only reason they aren't doing more of it is because they set idiotic deficit reduction targets and to u-turn on austerity without it having achieved anything would be an admittance of failure and hence political suicide.

 

And what will it pay on future debt issuance, what will inflation be?

 

No, what has happened is, as per usual with you, you've got your idea and then any evidence to the contrary is irrelevant. We're now at the stage where strong academic economists have dubious credentials, are journalists, and should just bow to the words of Warren  Buffet. If only you cared to read the words of a Stanford economist, he's written it so even you might wrap your head around it. 

 

A Stanford economist v Rog. An LSE economist v Rog. Rog wins in Rog land. Sorry Buce, who was it with the 'massively over-inflated opinion of their intellect' or whatever nonsense it was.

 

And finally, I would love you to find where I've ever said anything different about investment. This point was you just saying government can inflate debt. In fact, it's almost daft that you'd want that considering the effect that would have on insurance companies and pension funds. Anyway, the investment point I have never disagreed on. The only thing I have pointed out is it's not quite as simple as Toddy's belief of complete government infallibility. Fact has always been that governments waste money on political vanity projects or spend the money where it produces the best electoral returns. Hinkley Point is a wondrous example of shit government decisions. Please don't bother with the inevitable but Corbyn and McDonnell will get it exactly right. I am already aware of their ability to fix everything.

[Rogstanley]

The two I described as journalists are journalists. Look them up. One is actually just a blogger, not even a proper journalist. So you’ve got some teachers, a journalist of no real distinction and someone who writes an online blog on your side, and I’ve got the greatest investor of all time on mine. Ok, an investor isn’t an economist, but I know which of those i’d trust with my money. 

 

Not sure about Hinkley Point, it seems to me like a necessary stop gap between the fazing out of coal and the emergence of properly reliable renewables that don’t require government subsidies to be financially viable. But it does look like the Tories got screwed over on the strike price. Right idea in principle, not so good execution maybe. Although in fairness all the risk of cost overruns on construction is with the French, so you never know, we might end up being glad they did it this way.

Edited 27 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

The two I described as journalists are journalists. Look them up. One is actually just a blogger, not even a proper journalist. So you’ve got some teachers, a journalist of no real distinction and someone who writes an online blog on your side, and I’ve got the greatest investor of all time on mine. Ok, an investor isn’t an economist, but I know which of those i’d trust with my money. 

 

Not sure about Hinkley Point, it seems to me like a necessary stop gap between the fazing out of coal and the emergence of properly reliable renewables that don’t require government subsidies to be financially viable. But it does look like the Tories got screwed over on the strike price. Right idea in principle, not so good execution maybe. Although in fairness all the risk of cost overruns on construction is with the French, so you never know, we might end up being glad they did it this way.

So it’s, leading economist professor vs evil rich investment guy? I thought all these money hording CEOs were self interested and only interested in preserving and adding to their own personal wealth? 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

So it’s, leading economist professor vs evil rich investment guy? I thought all these money hording CEOs were self interested and only interested in preserving and adding to their own personal wealth? 

If you want to look at it like that then sure. 

 

I don’t know who produces the league tables to determine which professors are leading nor whether they show that kopf’s guy is leading or not.

 

I rarely have a problem with self-made wealth as long as it’s made within legal and moral boundaries. Buffett seems like a decent chap, lives a simple life despite the wealth, is loyal to his employees and treats them like a family. He has also argued against lower taxes for himself and was responsible for igniting a healthy debate in the US when he pointed out that his secretary pays a higher rate of tax than he does. He will be welcome to join us on the right side of history when the revolution happens.

Edited 27 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And what will it pay on future debt issuance, what will inflation be?

 

No, what has happened is, as per usual with you, you've got your idea and then any evidence to the contrary is irrelevant. We're now at the stage where strong academic economists have dubious credentials, are journalists, and should just bow to the words of Warren  Buffet. If only you cared to read the words of a Stanford economist, he's written it so even you might wrap your head around it. 

 

A Stanford economist v Rog. An LSE economist v Rog. Rog wins in Rog land. Sorry Buce, who was it with the 'massively over-inflated opinion of their intellect' or whatever nonsense it was.

 

And finally, I would love you to find where I've ever said anything different about investment. This point was you just saying government can inflate debt. In fact, it's almost daft that you'd want that considering the effect that would have on insurance companies and pension funds. Anyway, the investment point I have never disagreed on. The only thing I have pointed out is it's not quite as simple as Toddy's belief of complete government infallibility. Fact has always been that governments waste money on political vanity projects or spend the money where it produces the best electoral returns. Hinkley Point is a wondrous example of shit government decisions. Please don't bother with the inevitable but Corbyn and McDonnell will get it exactly right. I am already aware of their ability to fix everything.

I don't believe in government infallibility but I also don't believe that the private sector does necessarily create efficiencies.

 

I've seen first hand how public sector contracting works and the only reason that the private sector create presumed savings in MOST cases is that it minimises service provision, reduces staffing costs through reductions in staff and staff benefits (which had a knock on cost to the state) and maximises charging for extra which would previously have just been provided in-house. Providing a worse service for less money does not equal efficiencies imo.

 

My experience had shown that competition, far from acting as a spur to innovate, actually acts as a spur to reduce costs -and service level- still further in a race to the bottom. I recognize this isn't what your market theory says but that is the reality I have seen multiple times in my own working life.

 

I challenge anybody to provide an argument that the likes of Carillion, G4S, Capita and even the accountancy firms font act in this way, time and time again.

 

Part of the reason for this is that there aren't more than a handful of private company's that can provide the level of service three public sector does on the same scale. It's the reason that I've heard first hand from a large private sector healthcare provider that they can't operate NHS services for NHS cost. 

 

This isn't to say that the private sector can't innovate and can't be effective. I've nothing against the private sector per se and you only have to look in the tech sector to see fantastic innovation. 

 

I just happen to believe, based on the evidence I've seen from different stages of my working life where I've worked in the public sector, put together tenders seeking to win public sector contracts and worked for a large outsourcing company. 

 

I'm also not saying that the private sector can't do particular jobs for the public sector but these should be small discreet areas of work, ripe for small local businesses, rather than huge services which the private sector had shown itself to be poor at delivering for the reasons already stated.

 

 

Edited 27 January 2018 by Guest

[Rogstanley]

Not really sure where to put this. It’s more social than political I suppose. Walk on women being banned in the darts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620

 

I understand that the charity event that has blokes “groping” hostesses was a bit ridiculous, but I struggle to get my head around why it is considered immoral to enjoy the sight of skantily clad, beautiful women. It’s a short term admiration of a physical characteristic in much the same way as say a bodybuilding competition. As long as the participants are willing I don’t really see why it should be a problem to temporarily admire a person’s physical form. At the risk of sounding a bit UKIP if we carry on down this road it won’t be long before women are all wearing veils.

 

Open to people explaining why I’m wrong.

[Countryfox]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Not really sure where to put this. It’s more social than political I suppose. Walk on women being banned in the darts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620

 

I understand that the charity event that has blokes “groping” hostesses was a bit ridiculous, but I struggle to get my head around why it is considered immoral to enjoy the sight of skantily clad, beautiful women. It’s a short term admiration of a physical characteristic in much the same way as say a bodybuilding competition. As long as the participants are willing I don’t really see why it should be a problem to temporarily admire a person’s physical form. At the risk of sounding a bit UKIP if we carry on down this road it won’t be long before women are all wearing veils.

 

Open to people explaining why I’m wrong.

I agree with you Roger ...   no one is hurting anyone  ...    worlds gone mad !

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Not really sure where to put this. It’s more social than political I suppose. Walk on women being banned in the darts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620

 

I understand that the charity event that has blokes “groping” hostesses was a bit ridiculous, but I struggle to get my head around why it is considered immoral to enjoy the sight of skantily clad, beautiful women. It’s a short term admiration of a physical characteristic in much the same way as say a bodybuilding competition. As long as the participants are willing I don’t really see why it should be a problem to temporarily admire a person’s physical form. At the risk of sounding a bit UKIP if we carry on down this road it won’t be long before women are all wearing veils.

 

Open to people explaining why I’m wrong.

[Sharpe's Fox]

I'm on team Toby lads cause I'm proud to be British **** team pret

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I'm on team Toby lads cause I'm proud to be British **** team pret

To be fair all of those are for plebs. But especially Toby Carvery which is the restaurant equivalent of a flat-roofed pub. 

[Guest]

Another key service being destroyed

 

Top academy schools sound alarm as cash crisis looms

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/27/schools-academy-trusts-warn-pay-staffing-public-spending?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Buce]

 

Looks like there could be a major policy shift on its way from Labour regarding Brexit:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/27/jeremy-corbyn-pressure-change-of-direction-on-brexit

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Looks like there could be a major policy shift on its way from Labour regarding Brexit:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/27/jeremy-corbyn-pressure-change-of-direction-on-brexit

Could still wait it out a while more for me but obviously the party wants to see a shift so it will likely happen. Absolutely make the Tories own a hard brexit if they oust May to get one.

 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Could still wait it out a while more for me but obviously the party wants to see a shift so it will likely happen. Absolutely make the Tories own a hard brexit if they oust May to get one.

 

That would be brilliant, we need both parties to move away from the boring position asap. Tories go hard and labour super soft. Then call a GE, Soft brexit is the worst of both worlds. In or out for me.