Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Politics and Economics-2017 Election
+ Reply to discussion
Options
jvl
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:03:05(UTC)
#161

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,125

Thanks: 1062 times
Was thanked: 1924 time(s) in 754 post(s)
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.

Apart from their genuine austerity, they also let banks go bust. They kept the moral hazard.

Here we lost the moral hazard, turning people against capitalism (whereas, in fact, we'd just perverted one of its necessary tenets).

Then we made them angrier and poorer by getting them to 'bail out' banks in which they had no stake. To add to that, people in charge kept awarding themselves huge pay packets (while taking no risk - that's another capitalism breaker).

Finally there was no austerity here (on the government level). The government's still borrowing £1bn a week (and because people are suffering personal austerity, they still demand more public spending).

What a mess.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked jvl for this post.
King Lodos on 14/06/2017(UTC), Guest on 14/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:24:53(UTC)
#166

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 11,046

Thanks: 6166 times
Was thanked: 30411 time(s) in 8333 post(s)
Gordon Brown, of course, putting together the £500bn (wound up at £850bn) bailout package, and effectively bankrupting the country .. Absolutely, it was a completely anti-Capitalism solution.

What's really crazy is one of the lesser known causes of the subprime crisis was a lawsuit brought against Citibank in the mid-90s by Democrats (including a young Obama) to ease lending practices in order to help more people get on the property ladder.

So even that can be traced back (to some extent) to left-wing financial engineering.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 14/06/2017(UTC)
dyfed
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:56:02(UTC)
#163

Joined: 01/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 453
jvl;47929 wrote:
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.


What a mess.



It certainly is a mess. Not sure about letting the banks go bust: fine in principle but unintended consequences? People loose faith in "money"? certainly some of that around now anyway - bitcoin, my husband talking about getting in some gold coins for ready currency in case of armageddon...

Just hope our "money tree" aka the stock market, keeps flowering!
Back to top Quote
Vince.
Posted: 14 June 2017 09:50:00(UTC)
#167

Joined: 09/05/2013(UTC)
Posts: 178
Watch this for an alternative view of Teresa May's Tory Magic Money Tree :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo

Vince
Back to top Quote
Guest
Posted: 14 June 2017 13:45:49(UTC)
#162

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 557

Thanks: 1543 times
Was thanked: 585 time(s) in 278 post(s)
jvl;47929 wrote:
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.

Apart from their genuine austerity, they also let banks go bust. They kept the moral hazard.

Here we lost the moral hazard, turning people against capitalism (whereas, in fact, we'd just perverted one of its necessary tenets).

Then we made them angrier and poorer by getting them to 'bail out' banks in which they had no stake. To add to that, people in charge kept awarding themselves huge pay packets (while taking no risk - that's another capitalism breaker).

Finally there was no austerity here (on the government level). The government's still borrowing £1bn a week (and because people are suffering personal austerity, they still demand more public spending).

What a mess.

You could add to that list the pay rise for MP's, MP's pension fixed to RPI whilst they shifted everyone else to CPI, failure to cut the number of MP's as promised, failure to sort out the House of Lords etc, Huge cuts to Public Services such as the Police, Fire etc. Governments of all sorts have continued to look after themselves and create more and more political posts such as highly paid Mayors and Police & Crime Commissioners with their expensive entourages.

No wonder so many are willing to support change at whatever cost.

Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Guest for this post.
Jon Snow on 22/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 18:30:29(UTC)
#168

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 11,046

Thanks: 6166 times
Was thanked: 30411 time(s) in 8333 post(s)
The problem I get with Labour supporters is they can never tell me which public services we should impose cuts on.

And if we don't make cuts and run the economy at a surplus, we'd soon wind up paying more to service debt than we do on things like education – which is a situation we were in following the Post-Napoleonic depression, and which becomes a major constraint on growth.

Labour keep selling this Keynesian idea that you can always grow the economy so long as you keep spending .. But if that were true, the global economy would be a much simpler thing to manage.
Back to top Quote
Prof Eman
Posted: 14 June 2017 21:30:45(UTC)
#169

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 480

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 30 post(s)
On the issue of bots
The Independent reports that a You Gov poll of over 5k people taken 3 days after the election gave the following results.
-The majority of readers of the Conservative backing Daily Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun voted Tory.
-Readers of the Labour backing Guardian and Mirror mainly voted Labour (73% and 68%)
The Independent which did not express a voting preference had its readers voting 66% Labour and Tory 15%
The Conservative backing Financial Times had 40% voting Tory and 39% Labour.
Bots rule OK!
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Prof Eman for this post.
Guest on 15/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 21:47:41(UTC)
#171

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 11,046

Thanks: 6166 times
Was thanked: 30411 time(s) in 8333 post(s)
I'm not quite sure how that's an example of bots? (or what issue of bots, for that matter)
Back to top Quote
jvl
Posted: 15 June 2017 07:50:59(UTC)
#172

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,125

Thanks: 1062 times
Was thanked: 1924 time(s) in 754 post(s)
I think Prof Eman is admitting that it is a bot, not a person.
Back to top Quote
Guest
Posted: 15 June 2017 08:15:49(UTC)
#170

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 557

Thanks: 1543 times
Was thanked: 585 time(s) in 278 post(s)
Prof Eman;47949 wrote:
The Independent which did not express a voting preference had its readers voting 66% Labour and Tory 15%

Reading the Independent I would say that it is anything but independent, more a softer version of the Guardian with a clearly left leaning opinion every day.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Guest for this post.
jvl on 15/06/2017(UTC)
18 Pages«Previous page15161718Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets