Its a funny old world.

MikeTV said:
We'd be in a much bigger mess, but that's a silly hypothetical - what would they have had to cut - schools, hospitals, pensions, and then what else? And how much unemployment and deprivation and hardship would £150bn cause?

But yes, the financial crisis would still have happened, and yes, it would have had the same devastating effect on our economy.

None. The economy was expanding, people were rich enough to begin shouldering their own burdens instead of frittering it away on houses, cars, holidays and furniture. The economy would have become stable and house prices would have risen at a slower pace.the economy wouldn't have been quite so supercharged. Less state spending would have encouraged more investment in businesses but in a far less super heated environment less poor investments would have been made.

We might still have had the downturn, but recovery would have been faster. Its just basic economics really. The politicians just forgot that when you lend and spend recklessly someone has to foot the bill. The more that is spent, the bigger the bill and the longer the pain continuous.
 
Amazing that you can be I stupid to think that £50bn borrowed to support banks can be much important than £600bn borrowed to fund public spending...!!
:suicide:

You forgot about the £100bn per year we are 'giving' to the banks, remember. :rolleyes:
 
Squiffy said:
You forgot about the £100bn per year we are 'giving' to the banks, remember. :rolleyes:

I'd already edited my post to add this!!
 
MikeTV said:
Now you're changing the goalposts. A minute ago you were blaming government spending levels - but now you're blaming the banks. I blame the banks too - that's my point!

The banks were the gun, the state pulled the trigger.

What part don't you get. Sidicks has outlined it perfectly. Until you understand the bank/state relationship is tied together inextricably then you will continue to reach the wrong conclusions.

The banks could never have reached the point they did without state complicity. That's because the Central Bank is controlled by the Politicians and the banks themselves obey the central bank. The state has been trying to control the economy by the use of the Central Bank. Its the apparent media created disconnect between the two that allows politicians off the hook. Neither Tory or Labour want you to know how it works, otherwise they would have to accept the blame and be honest about the central Banks real purpose. As it is, the money men can have the spotlight turned on them and the Central Bank acts out its role of being the wise old uncle and look all concerned. Its a big ****ing scam and you are falling for it.
 
We might still have had the downturn
This wasn't a cyclical economic downturn in demand. This was a complete collapse of the global banking system, plunging us into a catastrophic recession - the likes of which haven't been seen since the 30's!
 
MikeTV said:
This wasn't a cyclical economic downturn in demand. This was a complete collapse of the global banking system, plunging us into a catastrophic recession - the likes of which haven't been seen since the 30's!

How does the amount of public spending compare when you include the full picture (i.e. including the expensive PFI borrowing) not just your cherry-picked amount???
:hiya:
 
MikeTV said:
This wasn't a cyclical economic downturn in demand. This was a complete collapse of the global banking system, plunging us into a catastrophic recession - the likes of which haven't been seen since the 30's!

You have been well and truly fooled. A demand side downturn when demand is created by floods of cheap money is illusory demand. We never had the money, we shouldn't have been spending what we didn't make. You can only keep that Ponzi scheme going for so long. Its far more difficult to make things than to create the money to buy them. If you spend today what you are not going to make tomorrow you spend the future that will never happen.

I urge you to read Hazlett's book. Forget Labour/Tory ******, it isn't important in the scheme of things, just different sides of the same lolly.
 
The banks could never have reached the point they did without state complicity.
The state is complicit in that it wants the economy to be successful. That's not a scam or a conspiracy, Karkus - that's stated policy in the manifestos of all parties! They just disagree about how best to achieve it, and monumentally screwed up.
 
MikeTV said:
The state is complicit in thyat it wants the economy to be successful. That's not a scam or a conspiracy, Karkus - that's stated policy in the manifestos of all parties! They just disagree about how best to achieve it, and monumentally screwed up.

So encouraging cheap credit and hiding borrowing off balance sheet to distort spending ratios (and confuse the less well-informed...) to be paid for by future generations was in the Labour manifesto???
:confused:
 
So encouraging cheap credit and hiding borrowing off balance sheet to distort spending ratios (and confuse the less well-informed...) to be paid for by future generations was in the Labour manifesto???
:confused:

Well, they probably didn't word it quite like that..... :D
 
MikeTV said:
The only Ponzi scheme was the one being operated by the banks.

So the government borrowing to pay interest on debt isn't effectively a ponzi scheme?

Public sector pensions and state pensions aren't a ponzi scheme?
 
MikeTV said:
What, private ones, destroyed by the banks? Yes, I've heard of those.

How did banks destroy private pensions??

This should be good......
:hiya:
 
MikeTV said:
Firstly, spending was lower under labour than previous tory administrations as a proportion of GDP, as I have explained on numerous occasions (not mention compared to our current administration)


So what you are really claiming is that a ratio where the numerator is distorted (by omitting a significant amount of debt) and the denominator is distorted by public spending itself is a useful metric to use to compare against a similar ratio in the past??

Just out of interest MikeTV - what does the ratio look like when you include all of the debt (to give a fair and accurate picture)??
:hiya:
 
MikeTV said:
The state is complicit in that it wants the economy to be successful. That's not a scam or a conspiracy, Karkus - that's stated policy in the manifestos of all parties! They just disagree about how best to achieve it, and monumentally screwed up.

Be careful with that conspiracy stick you like to wave around.

However it is patently a scam, because, in a scam, the side that wasn't in on it gets to pay the bill. The mugs being you and I.

The manifesto states that they want to improve the economy. Never have I heard it stated that the Bank of England is actually controlled by the State directly and that it is the state which decides monetary policy through the instrument of a cartelised banking system. Neither do they like explaining the system by which money is created, or that there is really no money in the banks even though they like to charge for lending it. They don't explain that inflation is kept above 3% as a deliberate Government act to deprive people of their income and to reduce its own loans. They like to say the BoE is attempting to maintain inflation at 3%, they don't add that it is their policies that maintain it at that level through money printing and state spending and that far from preventing it rising, they are preventing it falling. They don't explain why the pound is falling, or why the cost of fuel is rising.

No, they firmly discourage the greater population from understanding these things, because if they ever understood the degree to which this trick has been perpetrated their would be some very angry faces.

In the House of Commons, neither side mentions these things. They know they cannot make that common knowledge. Most people, they hope, are not really interested as long as they get what they want out of the state.
 
MikeTV said:

There is a difference in declaring something a conspiracy these days. Its regarded as tin foil hat wearing as you well know. A smoke and mirrors scam is something that is often very obvious, nothing is hidden. Its like small print on a contract. If you don't read it you lose out. The idea is to make it so unattractive to read that people don't bother. Its perfectly legal, but it is a bit of a deception.
 
MikeTV said:
I think you'll find it's the "hiding" bit that involves the smoke and the mirrors!

It's not hidden though. I mean its easy to read about and understand if someone has a mind to do so. For instance, most people haven't a clue about APR interest rates. Most don't want to know. As long as they get the car, the furniture or whatever else and they have a job which pays them enough to spin out the payments they are happy. It goes wrong, only when they lose their job or the price of other items increases and pits pressure on repayments.

This is the way most of the voting public and the Government itself works.

It is far fewer people who factor in the danger of taking on increasing debt. Getting the things they want have taken precedence. Its become a huge Keynesian experiment in which everyone has participated. Its really very simple. Back in the day you made stuff and swapped it for other stuff. That's real wealth, all the stuff that is produced. The reason to borrow is to gain. It should be seen as a high risk strategy, but somehow all that has been forgotten.

If you have everybody raiding the future to fund the present, then the end result is that not enough things get produced in the present. Its only then, when the cheap money stops flowing that this mistake is realised. If you look through the chain of something like a washing machine you can see that the machine has been produced but nothing has been produced in the present to pay for it. The manufacture has been paid with an IOU. The manufacture then uses that IOU to buy the components. This is exactly what the state has done. In effect it has acted as a borrower and decided to borrow on everyone's behalf. It borrowed more an more by leveraging on the private borrowing. You can't borrow money more than once, but that is what is happening. Round and round it goes.
 
gazbarber said:
Actually those are not Ponzi AFAIK, try again.

Looks like yet another claim that can't be backed up...!
:(
 
MikeTV said:
What, private ones, destroyed by the banks? Yes, I've heard of those.

Who prints the money ? Who controls the interest rates and supposedly inflation ? Do the banks print money and inflate the money supply ? No they don't. They are just like any other business in that respect.
 
So, that little diversion was fun :rolleyes:

back on topic.

I was watching an episode of the Simpsons the other day, the one in which Marge becomes a jobbing carpenter in a man's world and it was the sub story that made me laugh. One of the other children in the school was found to have a peanut allergy and so all the bags were being searched as the kids went in for contraband that may contain peanuts. The kids were in a queue and Willy was checking bags and removing those things which may contain nuts.
Now, I know, of course, that the Simpson's isn't "true" but it is founded in an accurate observation of American Life and its functioning/ malfunctioning, so its plausible (and probably quite acceptable) that that kind of thing should happen. A peanut allergy is a serious thing and steps should be taken to avoid an incident. That's not unreasonable and removing potentially dangerous peanut butter sandwiches etc is probably quite acceptable.


There was a shooting incident in an American school recently in which many pupils and staff were shot dead. This incident was rapidly followed by an enthusiastic and well supported call for more guns in schools to protect the children and staff.

It just struck me as odd that guns are encouraged in schools but peanut butter sandwiches could be excluded with such vigour.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom