Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A news article mirroring what I and others on here were saying before the general election about the debt... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644471/Britain-can-afford-to-live-with-high-debt-forever-says-IMF.html "George Osborne's obsession with reducing Britain's debt mountain may do more harm than good, research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suggested." We had a good thought provoking discussion about this but I couldn't find it "I don't see any policies designed to reduce our debt, merely to stop us increasing it further | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A news article mirroring what I and others on here were saying before the general election about the debt... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644471/Britain-can-afford-to-live-with-high-debt-forever-says-IMF.html "George Osborne's obsession with reducing Britain's debt mountain may do more harm than good, research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suggested." We had a good thought provoking discussion about this but I couldn't find it "Greece isn't doing too well. Economics is a strange thing but if I spend more than I have then I reckon I will end up bankrupt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Economics is a strange thing but if I spend more than I have then I reckon I will end up bankrupt." Not if it's legal for you to print more of it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Economics is a strange thing but if I spend more than I have then I reckon I will end up bankrupt. Not if it's legal for you to print more of it "It depends on the extent of the indebtedness. If you owe your bank £100,000 and can't pay - you have a problem. If you owe your bank £100,000,000 and can't pay - THEY have a problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever?" Which banks are they? 
A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever?" We're still paying back money loaned from other countries, who in turn have borrowed against something else. We're not giving money to anyone in interest alone. It's all a big circular scheme which those players have some power to change. Their philosophy and the money that is earned on all of these bits of dealings keep the whole thing going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't find that odd at all. In fact if you care to check the last thread I said that growth is linked to debt! I think if you look at the libdem coalition they suspended austerity for the last 18 months and low and behold the UK had growth! I will tell you on this one, if the Tories restart austerity the UK will go back into recession!" When was austerity suspended? As far as I'm aware we've had 5 years of it and now the conservatives are saying were going to have at least another 4 years of austerity measures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A"The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?"You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?
You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis?
"It would be interesting to know who owns all of the government debt, there are some interesting conspiracy theories surrounding it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?
You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis?
It would be interesting to know who owns all of the government debt, there are some interesting conspiracy theories surrounding it "Copy from "WhatDoTheyKnow" site The UK's National Debt (the sum representing its internal and external borrowing, or more accurately the sum representing the difference between its income and expenditure) is quite a complex issue. The short answer to your questions would be: (i) The UK borrows from various institutions, including banks, investment houses, other States and its own projected future income (from itself in effect). A comprehensive list of external lenders or sources of credit (included because not all lending is in hard currencies) would be too long to provide in this annotation, but the IMF and BIS would feature on it - along with many of the well known lending houses on both Wall Street and in the City. (ii) UK Gov also 'borrows' from itself, through both the Treasury and Bank of England. This form of borrowing is based on projected future income, generated by taxation, returns on investments and funds resulting from membership of the EU (in the form of various grants/contributions/subsidies). (iii) Like the majority of other States, the UK also lends money and extends lines of credit to other States and part of the internalional network of lending/borrowing that underpins the world financial markets. This lending, in part, serves to promote the UK's foreign policy and includes humanitarian aid/trade subsidies and similar 'credits' to developing Nations - it also includes loans/credit agreements intended simply to generate future income (just like any other investor in the private/commercial markets). (iv) Like all States, the UK already prints its own currency (although the actual act of printing may be undertaken by commercial companies sub-contracted in to do this on behalf of Government). The physical act of puting ink on paper should not however be confused with the concept of printing money as an economic tool to reduce or eliminate debt. Past and recent experience shows that such an act has exactly the opposite affect - consider the Wiemar Republic and Zimbabwe as two examples of what happens when a State adopts that particular financial policy. Currency that is not secured by anything in 'real' terms is pointless. All mediums of exchange derive their value from what the currency can be exchanged for - without this they are just pieces of paper, or worth only their 'scrap' value as pieces of metal in the case of coinage. States that have adopted the practice of trying to 'print themselves out of debt' very quickly discover that their currencies are not accepted by other States and have no external value. International Trade becomes impossible without 'buying in' other currencies and increasing their National Debt accordingly. Runaway inflation and economic collapse are the inevitable result of such policies. In today's markets/economies the finances of all States are so interconnected and complex that 'going it alone' is no longer a viable option for any State. Hence the general panic when it seemed that a global banking collapse was on the horizon. Such a collapse would be truely apocalyptic - resulting in the total disruption of international trade, with all that this entails. Remember that the majority of States are dependant on imports to feed their populations and fuel their industry/manufacturing processes. Stop those imports and social disorder on a massive scale results. I think it was Wilber Wright who said 'humanity is only three meals away from anarchy', although the specific number is open to debate, the principle is sound - hungry people only care about where the next meal is coming from, how to ensure they get it and who will give it to them. Zimbabwe being an almost perfect example of what results (I say 'almost' only because international aid has extended the suffering by effectively propping up the current regime). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?
You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis?
It would be interesting to know who owns all of the government debt, there are some interesting conspiracy theories surrounding it "Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?
You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis?
It would be interesting to know who owns all of the government debt, there are some interesting conspiracy theories surrounding it
Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what.
"That is my point, who is the money behind the money.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have operated this country on quite high levels of debt for at least 300 years. " As a plain fact that is true but, and it's a big BUT. The three major spikes in the debt were when Britain was fighting wars when there was a very real threat of invasion. In times of emergency of course caution has to be thrown to the wind and whatever is needed to get the job done has to be found. If you look at the charts you will see that once the emergency was over government debt was greatly reduced in the Victorian period (after the Napoleonic wars) and in the 50's to the 90's (after WW1 and WW2) The difference today is that the debt is being accumulated for day to day spending which is unsustainable at its current levels and has to be reduced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't find that odd at all. In fact if you care to check the last thread I said that growth is linked to debt! I think if you look at the libdem coalition they suspended austerity for the last 18 months and low and behold the UK had growth! I will tell you on this one, if the Tories restart austerity the UK will go back into recession! When was austerity suspended? As far as I'm aware we've had 5 years of it and now the conservatives are saying were going to have at least another 4 years of austerity measures." . You want to study the government borrowings and spendings!. You may have experienced personal austerity! While actual total austerity was eased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?"So far as I understand it - a variety of sources - not 'banks'. The below is replicated on many websites and as far as I know is as simple a summary as any. "To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: Pension funds Building societies. Investment trusts Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by the Bank of England." So again - which banks were you referring to? A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to pay £46bn in gross debt interest payments this year on its debt pile of £1.48 trillion. That's more than we're spending on Tax Credits (the biggest spend) and Social housing. Do we really want to be giving such a large amount of money to the banks for ever? Which banks are they?
A
The ones the money has been borrowed from. Where do you think it's come from?
You remember if was us that bailed out the banks? Where did that money come from in a global banking crisis?
It would be interesting to know who owns all of the government debt, there are some interesting conspiracy theories surrounding it
Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what.
That is my point, who is the money behind the money.... ". Central banks are swapping bonds! You'll never prove it but it's highly likely, they don't call it the lender of last resort for nothing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have operated this country on quite high levels of debt for at least 300 years. The argument I have objected to is this rhetoric of comparing the running of the country to that of a household. It's not the same thing. However, if you want to use that argument then let's accept that the household budget may well include a mortgage, borrowing from a relative or friend in times of trouble and using other assets to secure loans to do things we might want to do. " Yes but I will have to earn enough to service the mortgage and loans. Greece does not. If I am unable to pay what I owe (subject to repayment contracts), I am bankrupt. Its not too difficult to understand. When I was 10, I got pocket money. I could buy sweeties (or save it up to buy something more expensive). When my money was gone, I could not have anymore sweeties. No matter the fancy economic theories, I don't think you can beat the basics. No money, no spend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + " And therein lies the conspiracy theories.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories.... "It's all IOU's on post it notes. If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded. And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be. Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises" To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have operated this country on quite high levels of debt for at least 300 years. The argument I have objected to is this rhetoric of comparing the running of the country to that of a household. It's not the same thing. However, if you want to use that argument then let's accept that the household budget may well include a mortgage, borrowing from a relative or friend in times of trouble and using other assets to secure loans to do things we might want to do. Yes but I will have to earn enough to service the mortgage and loans. Greece does not. If I am unable to pay what I owe (subject to repayment contracts), I am bankrupt. Its not too difficult to understand. When I was 10, I got pocket money. I could buy sweeties (or save it up to buy something more expensive). When my money was gone, I could not have anymore sweeties. No matter the fancy economic theories, I don't think you can beat the basics. No money, no spend. " On that basis we have no money and should shut up shop. The reality is that we're big enough that someone will give us a sub to see us through. I always find it funny (peculiar and a bit ha ha) that the very rich get given things for free. We're essentially operating on the principle of The Million Pound Note (it's a film for those who haven't seen it). As long as the note exists then everyone is happy, even though they don't get a penny from it. As soon as there is speculation the note is a myth there is a problem and everyone wants a share of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A"Well that works great if you are the one that owes the money but if you are the one that is owed the money (Pension funds for example) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work?" Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have operated this country on quite high levels of debt for at least 300 years. The argument I have objected to is this rhetoric of comparing the running of the country to that of a household. It's not the same thing. However, if you want to use that argument then let's accept that the household budget may well include a mortgage, borrowing from a relative or friend in times of trouble and using other assets to secure loans to do things we might want to do. Yes but I will have to earn enough to service the mortgage and loans. Greece does not. If I am unable to pay what I owe (subject to repayment contracts), I am bankrupt. Its not too difficult to understand. When I was 10, I got pocket money. I could buy sweeties (or save it up to buy something more expensive). When my money was gone, I could not have anymore sweeties. No matter the fancy economic theories, I don't think you can beat the basics. No money, no spend. On that basis we have no money and should shut up shop. The reality is that we're big enough that someone will give us a sub to see us through. I always find it funny (peculiar and a bit ha ha) that the very rich get given things for free. We're essentially operating on the principle of The Million Pound Note (it's a film for those who haven't seen it). As long as the note exists then everyone is happy, even though they don't get a penny from it. As soon as there is speculation the note is a myth there is a problem and everyone wants a share of it. " Gregory Peck:- Great actor.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work? Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. " I'm not getting it; I've got it and have for a long time. I just don't fully understand it yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "George Osborne's obsession with reducing Britain's debt mountain may do more harm than good, research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suggested." " That will be the same IMF that a year ago abandoned its criticism of George Osborne’s economic strategy and finally agreed that his deficit reduction plan is “appropriate” I presume? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello all, to go back to the original point, yes we can live with a high debt (as long as we don't go into a long recession), but the real point is that we should not as it costs each and all of us money in taxes. Bear in mind the debt is three quarters of what Britain produces annually. Imagine how a household would manage with a short term debt of three quarters of income? And before those that think that is not a valid anology, see if you can find a large multinational business with that sort of debt/income ratio? Alec " Corporates often operate with much higher debt ratios. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello all, to go back to the original point, yes we can live with a high debt (as long as we don't go into a long recession), but the real point is that we should not as it costs each and all of us money in taxes. Bear in mind the debt is three quarters of what Britain produces annually. Imagine how a household would manage with a short term debt of three quarters of income? And before those that think that is not a valid anology, see if you can find a large multinational business with that sort of debt/income ratio? Alec " . Technically Alec.... The bank of England is insolvent, so is the ECB the FED and so are nearly every British bank and most American financial institutions! They don't play by your rules they make the rules that you play by | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. " The actual debt is there because we owe money. Trade in imaginary crap then you well know what will happen. What is wrong with the simplistic approach? It is what most of us have to use to manage our budgets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work? Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. " So where is the ACTUAL debt? China. It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. It can't unless you can service the debt. If the debt gets too high the interest payments wipe out the tax receipts. Unbridled welfare cannot go on forever. Big full stop. If you are in any doubt ask a Greek. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work? Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. So where is the ACTUAL debt? China. It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. It can't unless you can service the debt. If the debt gets too high the interest payments wipe out the tax receipts. Unbridled welfare cannot go on forever. Big full stop. If you are in any doubt ask a Greek." It may as well all be Greek for the sense you can make out of it. It's certainly Greek to me.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Isn't economics fun?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone tried to imagine a world without money? How much a better place it would be!" There's a star trek film and the woman from the present(ish) says to Kirk that the enterprise must have cost a lot and he replies that they use a different type of economics or something. I decided they traded in penguins. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone tried to imagine a world without money? How much a better place it would be! There's a star trek film and the woman from the present(ish) says to Kirk that the enterprise must have cost a lot and he replies that they use a different type of economics or something. I decided they traded in penguins. " it would be a world where technology is created for the benefit of mankind rather than commercial gain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A". What right would anyone have to just write off debt ?. Every penny borrowed has to be repaid with interest . I detest anyone who defaults on a debt . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A. What right would anyone have to just write off debt ?. Every penny borrowed has to be repaid with interest . I detest anyone who defaults on a debt ."If the currency was sweetcorn, and i had the only sweetcorn farm in the country. Every time people borrow from me they have to pay back my corn with interest. Eventually the sweetcorn will run out for someone. Bankruptcy is an innevitable part of money lending and creation as long as interest is involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A. What right would anyone have to just write off debt ?. Every penny borrowed has to be repaid with interest . I detest anyone who defaults on a debt .
If the currency was sweetcorn, and i had the only sweetcorn farm in the country. Every time people borrow from me they have to pay back my corn with interest. Eventually the sweetcorn will run out for someone. Bankruptcy is an innevitable part of money lending and creation as long as interest is involved.". How can bankruptcy be inevitable .? It only happens if people borrow too much. Why should we subsidize the irresponsible . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A. What right would anyone have to just write off debt ?. Every penny borrowed has to be repaid with interest . I detest anyone who defaults on a debt .
If the currency was sweetcorn, and i had the only sweetcorn farm in the country. Every time people borrow from me they have to pay back my corn with interest. Eventually the sweetcorn will run out for someone. Bankruptcy is an innevitable part of money lending and creation as long as interest is involved.. How can bankruptcy be inevitable .? It only happens if people borrow too much. Why should we subsidize the irresponsible ."Because if more money is owed (through the addition of interest) than is actually in circulation - money created through loans, then the debt can never be paid back. Its like musical chairs. The money runs out for someone. Not saying we should subsidise the irresponsible! The amount of money the us government spent on bailing out AIG years back is enough to make anyone sick! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To finance the National debt, bonds are sold through the Debt Management Office (DMO) on behalf of the government to the private sector. Most of this government debt is bought by financial institutions such as: •Pension funds •Building societies. •Investment trusts •Private individuals Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts. Since 2008, The Bank of England has purchased 21% of government gilt holdings. This means a significant proportion of UK debt is being financed by Bank of England. The Bank of England has now taken nearly 30% of gilt holdings. A percentage of UK government bonds are bought by foreign financial institutions. this is currently £400,000,000,000 + And therein lies the conspiracy theories....
It's all IOU's on post it notes.
If they were all lined up we'd probably find everybody owed everyone else money and the most could be shredded.
And those left over could be ignored the same way payments to loan sharks should be.
Then after a bit of shouting and sabre rattling, threats of this and that and promises never to deal with each other again - we could all start over again from square one.
A. What right would anyone have to just write off debt ?. Every penny borrowed has to be repaid with interest . I detest anyone who defaults on a debt .". That is the exact point of capitalism. You borrow you try to make more you fail, your punished, the debt is wiped and you learn from your mistake and try again. But and it's a big one The people who lend to you are meant to fail for lending to you with your shit idea? Socialism failed to bail out poor people and it will fail to bail out rich people! The system isn't interested in your personal fucking morals or who deserves what and how unlucky you were. It's just a system and it's why I hate it, but by God I seem to be the only person who understands it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone tried to imagine a world without money? How much a better place it would be! There's a star trek film and the woman from the present(ish) says to Kirk that the enterprise must have cost a lot and he replies that they use a different type of economics or something. I decided they traded in penguins. it would be a world where technology is created for the benefit of mankind rather than commercial gain. " Or a world where nothing gets created because what's the point! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone tried to imagine a world without money? How much a better place it would be! There's a star trek film and the woman from the present(ish) says to Kirk that the enterprise must have cost a lot and he replies that they use a different type of economics or something. I decided they traded in penguins. it would be a world where technology is created for the benefit of mankind rather than commercial gain. Or a world where nothing gets created because what's the point!" The benefit of mankind......not everything has to be done with money as the sole objective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The system isn't interested in your personal fucking morals or who deserves what and how unlucky you were. It's just a system and it's why I hate it, but by God I seem to be the only person who understands it." Don't worry you're not the only one. Seeing as we raked over much of this before I thought I'd just sit back and let others duke it out this time. Money is a mechanism. You have to generate value somehow... and for most people that's through expending human energy. You can also get in debt... but debt only comes with the threat of violence. If you don't pay it back you'll be beaten up, have your home stripped off you, or have all your public services raped and pillaged. The money you asked for didn't exist before you asked for it. Instead what happened is you said you were prepared to generate X amount of human energy and the banks printed money worth that amount and gave it to you ahead of time under the threat of violence that you must then go and generate that promised energy and more so in order to pay the interest. The system gets clogged up from time to time because those on the right insist upon implementing policies which help the money to trickle up out of the poorest people's pockets and up to the rich. After a while the poor get so poor that they can't afford to pay their debts, meanwhile the rich are so super rich that the countries money is just sitting in a bank somewhere when it should be out circulating. This is when right-wing capitalism just stalls. Either the poor people's debt needs to be written off so that they can go and get more debt out so that money can start ciurculating again or the rich need to be super taxed. The system is scared of both of these options so it choses a third; to exact pain and suffering upon the poor over a protracted period of time, slowly milking their life force from them for a whole generation, to wreak violence until the young 20-something investment bankers up in the city are satisfied they've seen enough blood and start lending money again Money is a mechanism supported by the threat of violence and valued only in accord to how much you're willing to sacrifice to pay for it. Think about it... we work our butts off in this country, often missing weekends, wearing ourselves down to the ground in order to try having a good quality of life. Then, just across the channel, there is France, where people take the whole of fucking August off for a holiday, where half the country is asleep for half the day every day through summer, where people shut up shop early just to stroll through the streets to enjoy the warm evening air. Are they a third world country? No. Are they noticeably worse off than us? Not particularly. We're simply prepared to sacrifice more to get the same result. Maybe I'm being completely crackers here... but this has been my experience of life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone tried to imagine a world without money? How much a better place it would be! There's a star trek film and the woman from the present(ish) says to Kirk that the enterprise must have cost a lot and he replies that they use a different type of economics or something. I decided they traded in penguins. it would be a world where technology is created for the benefit of mankind rather than commercial gain. Or a world where nothing gets created because what's the point! The benefit of mankind......not everything has to be done with money as the sole objective. " Not everything, I agree but not nothing either. The communists already tried that. Remember "From each according to their ability and to each accusing to their need". Didn't work well then, won't work well now. People need to feel that they can aspire to something and that their efforts are being rewarded. Without money that's a pretty tough thing to deliver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing you can bank on (sic) is that all economists are wrong. All the models they come up with never work in real life. They all say that macro economics at the country and international level cannot be compared with domestic household economics, but never explain why in a concise and understandable or convincing manner. So, having bought a house for the ex, bought one for myself, put a tranche of money in long term savings and investments, I live happily and contentedly with no borrowings, aside from a minuscule mortgage that I could clear from current account funds. I only do this to keep my credit history alive for when I want to do my next house move and may require a mortgage. After having taken the best part of 10 years off from a day job, I now work part time (34 weeks a year) which meets my basic outgoings, I have modest material appetites and want for nothing, and owe nothing (tiny mortgage aside). Or would I rather be a wage slave, scrimping and scraping working all hours just to stand still, never having time to enjoy life?" . Excellent post and shows the advantage of not being in debt . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"France are 7% more productive than the UK. For all that lazing around in the sun, they actually produce more per hour than we do! I don't mind piling on the debt, we did it after ww2 and ww1 but it's what you do with the debt. After ww2 when debt was 4 times higher than today we spent that debt on long term infrastructure gains ie an nhs (well people work better than unwell people), roads, trains, water, electrification to every house, factories and farming and Christ they didn't have an answer but what they knew from the 30s is you can't expect capitalism to come to the aid of a capitalism failure!!. Today thanks to politics being bought off by capitalist long term hedge funds and corporate giants, the debt is still being piled up, but it's gone bailing out reckless fucking bankers, hedge funds, pension funds, international money markets, car makers, electrical giants like gec and millionaires and billionaires are being bailed out!! Wtf has capitalism come too, these companies gambled on giant gains and lost.... They lost big time billions and billions and you fucking numptys think you can bail them out because there too big to fail. There's no such thing as to big to fail. It's a fucking myth! Let's get right to the heart of monetary policy, central banks create base money (thats 3-5% of money that you can grasp in your imagination) they give this money to banks and other financial institutions who use a system that was created by central banks and other bankers called.... Fractional reserve This allows them to create 100,000 pounds from 10,000 pounds base money using debt! You borrow they create money, you deposit borrowed money, they create more money from deposited borrowed money they gave you in the first place!! None of this money exists It's bollocks It's shite It's made up nonsense It's all well and good if growth continued infinitum... Which it don't There's only two real ways to increase wealthy Productivity and natural resources. (You dig up aluminium ore you make aluminium you make products from said aluminium and then you learn to make them more efficiently). That's it forget all the other bollocks, there's just that. Marketing is just people lying to get you to buy shit you don't need. Human resources is just legislation for stupid people (oh I want sure if smoking invalidated my contact of employment) Finance is bullshiting the bullshiters but wearing a suit and tie and sounding good Sales is the same as finance but throw in marketing along the way. If I hear one more person say... Yeah but but but it's all very well your fancy Dan economics but we've spent more than we've earned.. Fuck off Fuck off you fucking illiterate backward never read a fucking book idiot. We've always spent more than we've earned.... Always! We just made up the difference with robbing, fraud and.... Oh I dunno slavery. Yeah kidnapping black people to work for free in jobs we didn't want to do... Ring a fucking ding... Oh sorry I meant jobs we can't afford to do because they pay shit because some banker stole the fucking profit that made them pay!. We were doing it long before somebody dreamt up a European union,where we could do it legally. Environmentalism isn't a product of the 60s, it's a product of our ancestors greed and our ability to fuck somebody over for a quid! When I say it's unsustainable.... It's unsustainable because there's only so much aluminium to remove and exploit just like there's only so many black people you can kidnap and murder to work for free before somebody says wtf." I think I'm loosing the point with the rant TBH. But, to try and explain Fractional reserve banking imagine it like this. A bank is loaned £100 worth of gold. It wants to lend that gold out to someone who wants to use it for something. For every £90 of gold it lends it has to keep £10 in reserve. The bank then loans £90 worth of gold to someone and keeps £10 worth in reserve. The person who now has the £90 worth of gold wants to put it somewhere safe so he takes it to the bank and deposits the £90 worth of gold. The bank now has £100 worth of gold, £10 worth it has to keep to cover the £90 it gave to the other person. The person who the £90 of gold was given to now has no gold but an account with the bank in credit by £90. All clear so far. The bank now has £90 worth of gold which it does not need to keep for it's reserve so it loans that out, keeping £9 worth back as reserve on the £81 worth it's now loaning to somebody else. This other person then puts the £81 worth of gold into a deposit account with the bank. The bank still has £100 worth of gold but now £19 worth has to be kept in reserve to cover the £179 loaned out. This means that from the £100 worth of gold we now have £271 of money (the original £100 worth of gold, still at the bank and the £171 the two people have in their deposit accounts. This goes back on and on till all the £100 worth of gold is used up as reserve. So it's Gold loan Reserve £100 gives £90 and £10 £90 gives £81 and £9 £81 gives £73 and £8 £73 gives £66 and £7 £66 gives £60 and £6 £60 gives £54 and £6 £54 gives £49 and £5 £49 gives £44 and £5 £44 gives £40 and £4 £40 gives £36 and £4 £36 gives £33 and £3 £33 gives £30 and £3 £30 gives £27 and £3 £27 gives £24 and £3 £24 gives £22 and £2 £22 gives £20 and £2 £20 gives £18 and £2 £18 gives £16 and £2 £16 gives £14 and £2 £14 gives £13 and £1 £13 gives £12 and £1 £12 gives £11 and £1 £11 gives £10 and £1 The bank now has £100 worth of gold of which £81 is held in reserve to cover £843 of loans. The total money in the system is £943. So from £100 worth of gold you get £943 of money. That, in it's simplest form is how it works with one BIG difference. In the real world the bank never gets £100 worth of gold it just gets a transfer of funds from The Bank of England. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Yep so thanks to your easy to see flow chart, we see how billions get created but don't actually exist!, you can also see why they had to move away from a gold backed currency, there just aint enough gold.
In effect what we have is an endowment mortgage where we never repay the principle but continually take from the equity while mitigating the debt by devaluing the currency the mortgage is in (inflation).
This is the perfect curricular motion for capitalism.
Now I'd like to throw another thing into the mix and really this thing is where all wealth gain has come from in the last 300 years and is the reason for most of the wars.
Energy!
So real wealth gain comes from productivity (how much more you can make for expending the same energy)
We manipulated coal to produce energy and this was limited to the cost of removing the coal (man power) when watt and Bolton produced the steam engine it was designed to get water out of the mine and made getting the coal out cheaper. That bit of history was important because what we saw was capital being soaked up by the cost of removing the coal and what watt and Bolton effectively did was free up capital to do other things.... Like find oil!
150 years later we've currently got the problem lurking that coal faced, extracting the oil is using vast amounts of capital. Each barrel of crude oil contains roughly 10,000 man hours of energy! This cheap energy makes products cheap, transport cheap and food cheap!
But it's getting less and less available harder to find, harder to extract and more expensive!.
This means in the next twenty years all those things linked to it (nearly everything) will get more expensive unless we can free that capital used extracting it!
Which brings us to wind turbines and solar energy and insulating homes and fuel efficient cars and all that crap that ordinary folk think is pointless environmental crap.... What we're actually doing is freeing up capital to do other more productive things (the entire point of capitalism).
Now if you've got corruption at the highest level in politics and business, you won't see that capital going into productive things like the NHS, roads, transport and energy (we've cut nearly every green energy initiative) instead you'll see it going to rich hoarders through cronieism who stash capital and this is the problem we face today and tomorrow! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ranting... Me... Yeah I really should give up posting while drinking red wine
Yep so thanks to your easy to see flow chart, we see how billions get created but don't actually exist!, you can also see why they had to move away from a gold backed currency, there just aint enough gold.
In effect what we have is an endowment mortgage where we never repay the principle but continually take from the equity while mitigating the debt by devaluing the currency the mortgage is in (inflation).
This is the perfect curricular motion for capitalism.
Now I'd like to throw another thing into the mix and really this thing is where all wealth gain has come from in the last 300 years and is the reason for most of the wars.
Energy!
So real wealth gain comes from productivity (how much more you can make for expending the same energy)
We manipulated coal to produce energy and this was limited to the cost of removing the coal (man power) when watt and Bolton produced the steam engine it was designed to get water out of the mine and made getting the coal out cheaper. That bit of history was important because what we saw was capital being soaked up by the cost of removing the coal and what watt and Bolton effectively did was free up capital to do other things.... Like find oil!
150 years later we've currently got the problem lurking that coal faced, extracting the oil is using vast amounts of capital. Each barrel of crude oil contains roughly 10,000 man hours of energy! This cheap energy makes products cheap, transport cheap and food cheap!
But it's getting less and less available harder to find, harder to extract and more expensive!.
This means in the next twenty years all those things linked to it (nearly everything) will get more expensive unless we can free that capital used extracting it!
Which brings us to wind turbines and solar energy and insulating homes and fuel efficient cars and all that crap that ordinary folk think is pointless environmental crap.... What we're actually doing is freeing up capital to do other more productive things (the entire point of capitalism).
Now if you've got corruption at the highest level in politics and business, you won't see that capital going into productive things like the NHS, roads, transport and energy (we've cut nearly every green energy initiative) instead you'll see it going to rich hoarders through cronieism who stash capital and this is the problem we face today and tomorrow!"We could argue about whether the NHS as currently structured is actually productive or a drain on capital, and whether the accumulation of wealth by the rich is as vast as some people claim but I don't want to go down that route today. I substancailly agree with your main point that wealth is created by energy and the cheaper that energy is to produce the richer everyone is. The problem we have at the moment is that the immediate cost of renewable energy sources is still higher than for non renewables. Note I said immediate cost not actual cost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello U.C., "The problem we have at the moment is that the immediate cost of renewable energy sources is still higher than for non renewables. Note I said immediate cost not actual cost." And it will remain that way for the mid term at least as none of the renewables' output coincides with our electrical demand, thus requiring more back up generation which has to be paid for. More renewable power equals more standby which is often gas powered. There is the cost of building the renewable plus the stand by; very poor economics hence our high electrical cost (Germany for one is another country suffering the same thing). Ironically partially due to Mr. Milliband who is vociferous about the cost of electricity charged to the consumer. Alec" Very true. The future, as I see it, is a huge improvement in battery technologies for the domestic market enabling renewables to be developed in the short term. Even now, we are beginning to see fields covered with solar panels. Until the technology has been developed the constant needs of organisations must be met with "traditional" methods. Gary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is fucked either way with the lunatic as PM lol "A very well thought out and considered contribution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is fucked either way with the lunatic as PM lol "A very well thought out and considered contribution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is fucked either way with the lunatic as PM lol
A very well thought out and considered contribution. "lol I know, but a fun one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what. " i didn't know you were so clever. Sexy AND smart. Well I think it's all ONE BIG CON. The Conservatives scared the sh1t outta everyone & got back in with a small majority & less than 35% of the vote. Way to go by terrifying the pensioners & conning the rest that some damned "napkin folder" of a Chancellor was fiscally responsible to borrow even MORE debt than we've ever had in any generation. They can find money when they want it to create legal tax loopholes, continuing to fleece most of us whilst the richest just keep getting on richer. Now don't get me wrong, I have zero problem with folk making money, getting wealthier, bettering themselves... but when Governments & Politicians lecture us that we're too poor to invest in education, too broke to fund a Health Service, too fiscally strapped to afford to invest in housing but can legally see Thatchers house be put in a Trust in some offshore bank haven abroad to avoid paying tax, create companies that the same Politicians are linked to that are getting wealthy from the stealthy NHS privatization, try to do back door deals on TTIP/ISDS with the U.S. etc, etc you just know the system is broken. Sadly there is no political will from any of them to look after the electorate once they've gained your vote. The few chances ordinary folk might get are rounded on by the establishment to use scare tactics, personal attacks, & even the use of Civil Servants, Whitehall & any other method they can to keep us dumb, disenfranchised & disconnected enough to really try & sort it so that we can have a fairer society. A friend once to me she doesn't count on the Govt for anything - not her taxes & how it's spent, not a pension, nada. I think she has a point. Governments are there to keep you in your place, & not to help you. They're too invested in keeping the status quo - & the rest of us arguing amongst ourselves whilst they retain control. Anyway, now I'm just venting. Great thread though & very enlightening. Don't let the buggers wear us down. We can afford s decent society. In fact... we deserve it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what. i didn't know you were so clever. Sexy AND smart. Well I think it's all ONE BIG CON. The Conservatives scared the sh1t outta everyone & got back in with a small majority & less than 35% of the vote. Way to go by terrifying the pensioners & conning the rest that some damned "napkin folder" of a Chancellor was fiscally responsible to borrow even MORE debt than we've ever had in any generation. They can find money when they want it to create legal tax loopholes, continuing to fleece most of us whilst the richest just keep getting on richer. Now don't get me wrong, I have zero problem with folk making money, getting wealthier, bettering themselves... but when Governments & Politicians lecture us that we're too poor to invest in education, too broke to fund a Health Service, too fiscally strapped to afford to invest in housing but can legally see Thatchers house be put in a Trust in some offshore bank haven abroad to avoid paying tax, create companies that the same Politicians are linked to that are getting wealthy from the stealthy NHS privatization, try to do back door deals on TTIP/ISDS with the U.S. etc, etc you just know the system is broken. Sadly there is no political will from any of them to look after the electorate once they've gained your vote. The few chances ordinary folk might get are rounded on by the establishment to use scare tactics, personal attacks, & even the use of Civil Servants, Whitehall & any other method they can to keep us dumb, disenfranchised & disconnected enough to really try & sort it so that we can have a fairer society. A friend once to me she doesn't count on the Govt for anything - not her taxes & how it's spent, not a pension, nada. I think she has a point. Governments are there to keep you in your place, & not to help you. They're too invested in keeping the status quo - & the rest of us arguing amongst ourselves whilst they retain control. Anyway, now I'm just venting. Great thread though & very enlightening. Don't let the buggers wear us down. We can afford s decent society. In fact... we deserve it!" Big quote, but  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what. i didn't know you were so clever. Sexy AND smart. Well I think it's all ONE BIG CON. The Conservatives scared the sh1t outta everyone & got back in with a small majority & less than 35% of the vote. Way to go by terrifying the pensioners & conning the rest that some damned "napkin folder" of a Chancellor was fiscally responsible to borrow even MORE debt than we've ever had in any generation. They can find money when they want it to create legal tax loopholes, continuing to fleece most of us whilst the richest just keep getting on richer. Now don't get me wrong, I have zero problem with folk making money, getting wealthier, bettering themselves... but when Governments & Politicians lecture us that we're too poor to invest in education, too broke to fund a Health Service, too fiscally strapped to afford to invest in housing but can legally see Thatchers house be put in a Trust in some offshore bank haven abroad to avoid paying tax, create companies that the same Politicians are linked to that are getting wealthy from the stealthy NHS privatization, try to do back door deals on TTIP/ISDS with the U.S. etc, etc you just know the system is broken. Sadly there is no political will from any of them to look after the electorate once they've gained your vote. The few chances ordinary folk might get are rounded on by the establishment to use scare tactics, personal attacks, & even the use of Civil Servants, Whitehall & any other method they can to keep us dumb, disenfranchised & disconnected enough to really try & sort it so that we can have a fairer society. A friend once to me she doesn't count on the Govt for anything - not her taxes & how it's spent, not a pension, nada. I think she has a point. Governments are there to keep you in your place, & not to help you. They're too invested in keeping the status quo - & the rest of us arguing amongst ourselves whilst they retain control. Anyway, now I'm just venting. Great thread though & very enlightening. Don't let the buggers wear us down. We can afford s decent society. In fact... we deserve it!" . The Conservatives got back in because more voters supported their policies than that of any other party . Anyone with common sense will realise that there are not unlinited resources to fund either the health service or pensions . Just as you would not tell a builder to build a house and not worry about the cost the same criteria needs to be applied to the health service and pensions . The health service probably has sufficient funds already , these need to be better managed . Five percent of the work force is already enmployed in the health service and the funds already allocated are generous . Expenditure on pensions is one of the biggest problems which society will face in the future . I am happy to accept that a conservative government was voted in because the electorate believed that their policies were better for the country than that of any other party. The voice of common sense prevailed   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Back in the 80s I worked in a merchant bank, they're now known as investment banks (I think the old name was more accurate). The big money loaned to sovereign nations was never bank money. One of the reasons I stopped working in that field was that I was appalled at who lends what to whom and for what. i didn't know you were so clever. Sexy AND smart. " I think your points would come across a lot better if you ditched the rhetoric and actually checked the facts. " Well I think it's all ONE BIG CON. The Conservatives scared the sh1t outta everyone & got back in with a small majority & less than 35% of the vote. Way to go by terrifying the pensioners & conning the rest that some damned "napkin folder" of a Chancellor was fiscally responsible to borrow even MORE debt than we've ever had in any generation. " The actual right of centre majority was 56% (36% Con, 12% UKIP, 8% LibDem). And, incidentally, 36% of the vote is more than 35% not less. (Pedantic I know but true none the less.) It’s no surprise that the debt is even more now than it was in 2010. Reducing the budget deficit only slows down the increase in debt; the total debt continues to go up while the budget is still in deficit. As it was the highest debt ever record up to 2010 it’s not surprising that, with a budget still in deficit it’s higher now therefore now is the highest ever. Only when the budget is actually in surplus will the total debt actually start to come down. But I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the Tory/LibDems didn’t cut the budgets enough over the last 5 years and should have made deeper cuts? " They can find money when they want it to create legal tax loopholes, continuing to fleece most of us whilst the richest just keep getting on richer. " That’s factually incorrect. Over the five year term of the Tory/LibDem government the gap between the rich and poor actually decreased for the first time in over 15 years. (Guess who was in power the last time the gap decreased and who was in power for most of the time it actually increased. Or better than guessing, go and look it up on an independent site) " Now don't get me wrong, I have zero problem with folk making money, getting wealthier, bettering themselves... but when Governments & Politicians lecture us that we're too poor to invest in education, too broke to fund a Health Service, too fiscally strapped to afford to invest in housing but can legally see Thatchers house be put in a Trust in some offshore bank haven abroad to avoid paying tax, create companies that the same Politicians are linked to that are getting wealthy from the stealthy NHS privatization, try to do back door deals on TTIP/ISDS with the U.S. etc, etc you just know the system is broken. Sadly there is no political will from any of them to look after the electorate once they've gained your vote. " This is just so full of holes. Thatcher’s estate (property) is a private matter for the Thatcher family and has nothing to do with either this Conservative government, the previous Tory/LidDem government or even the last Labour government. The Thatcher’s simply arranged their affairs and finances, in accordance with the law, in such a way as to make sure their tax liability was as low as possible and they could keep as much of their own money and property as possible. Anyone with any sense would do the same. But, as a point of interest, the trust arrangements used were all either set up by or in use during the 13 years of the last Labour government. (Maybe it was there way of thanking her for helping to get rid of Michel Foot). What is all this stuff about privatising the NHS. Firstly, if politicians were giving contracts out to companies that they had any commercial links with that would be a criminal offence so it’s probably not happening. Secondly most of the current expenditure going to private health service providers happened in the 13 years of the last Labour government (4%) only 2% of the total 6% can be put down to the Tory/LibDem coalition. Thirdly, most people care far more about getting treated than about whether the provider of the treatment is owned publicly or privately. As long as the Health Service is free and efficient at the point of delivery why does it matter to you or anyone else who owns it? TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is a free trade agreement currently in negotiation between the EU and the US. ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlements) is a mecognism for settling disputes between foreign companies and governments to ensure that any costs they have incurred in good faith can be recovered if a government changes its mind about something. They cannot make claims for either lost profits or potential lost profits, only cost incurred. ISDS agreements exist with all current Free trade agreements. There is nothing ‘back door’ or secretive about the negotiations all the minutes and decision, as they are made, are publicly available on the internet. There is political will to look after the whole electorate from many politicians but I guess if you’re a Labour voter it probably doesn’t feel like as nearly every time they are in power the gap between the rich and poor grows bigger and the workers and poor nearly always end up getting screwed. I personally don’t put this down to a lack of will on their behalf but more a lack of ability to run a country for the benefit of all. I actually agree with the rest of what you say. I’d just add the Labour Party and the Trade Unions to the list of establishment organisations. " The few chances ordinary folk might get are rounded on by the establishment to use scare tactics, personal attacks, & even the use of Civil Servants, Whitehall & any other method they can to keep us dumb, disenfranchised & disconnected enough to really try & sort it so that we can have a fairer society. A friend once to me she doesn't count on the Govt for anything - not her taxes & how it's spent, not a pension, nada. I think she has a point. Governments are there to keep you in your place, & not to help you. They're too invested in keeping the status quo - & the rest of us arguing amongst ourselves whilst they retain control. Anyway, now I'm just venting. Great thread though & very enlightening. Don't let the buggers wear us down. We can afford s decent society. In fact... we deserve it!. " And even more so what you say. " The Conservatives got back in because more voters supported their policies than that of any other party. Anyone with common sense will realise that there are not unlimited resources to fund either the health service or pensions. Just as you would not tell a builder to build a house and not worry about the cost the same criteria needs to be applied to the health service and pensions. The health service probably has sufficient funds already, these need to be better managed. Five percent of the work force is already employed in the health service and the funds already allocated are generous. Expenditure on pensions is one of the biggest problems which society will face in the future. I am happy to accept that a conservative government was voted in because the electorate believed that their policies were better for the country than that of any other party. The voice of common sense prevailed " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again! "I think the real bastards were the ones telling every one that they could have everything they wanted but they wouldn't have to pay because someone else (the so called "Rich") was going to pay for it all for them. Luckily the British electorate aren't as stupid as those bastards thought they were (maybe all that money spent on education wasn't wasted after all!!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
I think the real bastards were the ones telling every one that they could have everything they wanted but they wouldn't have to pay because someone else (the so called "Rich") was going to pay for it all for them.
Luckily the British electorate aren't as stupid as those bastards thought they were (maybe all that money spent on education wasn't wasted after all!!) "I'm afraid that in their very short existence, the British electorate are incredibly stupid, - history has proven that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again! "No they got in because they said what they were going to do and explained why they thought it was best. While all the opposition did was say what the conservatives were going to do and that it would be bad to let them do it. But presented no ideas of their own. In troubled times people follow the man with the plan not the man with no plan but a lot of whining about the other guys plan | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
No they got in because they said what they were going to do and explained why they thought it was best.
While all the opposition did was say what the conservatives were going to do and that it would be bad to let them do it.
But presented no ideas of their own.
In troubled times people follow the man with the plan not the man with no plan but a lot of whining about the
other guys plan"I agree with about 49% of the above; yes, one guy was obsessed with what the other guy was going to do, Granted, - but then Cameron was obsessed with what the other party did 6 or so years ago, completely ignoring the role that his bum-chum bankers played in that. This to me was the same old story throughout the campaign, - what a complete bore. The other 1% I disagree with is that you called them both MEN!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your confusing base money and m2 and m3 money. Base money is only around 3-5% of actual money! The rest is just created though debt! That's right 95% of money doesn't exist! Like the best illusion it just goes pooof and disappears in a banking crises To be frank, the more you look into what money is and who owes what to who the more confused you're going to get anyway. For example the Bank Of England has bought moist of the government debt over the last 5 to 10 years so that means a large part of the government debt is actually owned by the Bank of England. And who owns the Bank of England? The government. How does that work? Now you're getting it. So where is the ACTUAL debt? It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. So where is the ACTUAL debt? China. It's a construct that is used to keep us thinking money can't be spent on things like welfare. It can't unless you can service the debt. If the debt gets too high the interest payments wipe out the tax receipts. Unbridled welfare cannot go on forever. Big full stop. If you are in any doubt ask a Greek." But China have massive debt too, far, far bigger than ours!! So who does China owe their multi trillions to, - the Yanks? ............. whom equally owe the Chinese zillions, whom owe Peter whom owes Paul whom owes ............!! This is the part that baffles me, - as was said far, far above in the thread, why cant they/we just cancel out each others debt when we both owe & are owed by the same countries???? *dusts off the abacus & gives it another go...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
No they got in because they said what they were going to do and explained why they thought it was best.
While all the opposition did was say what the conservatives were going to do and that it would be bad to let them do it.
But presented no ideas of their own.
In troubled times people follow the man with the plan not the man with no plan but a lot of whining about the
other guys plan
I agree with about 49% of the above; yes, one guy was obsessed with what the other guy was going to do, Granted, - but then Cameron was obsessed with what the other party did 6 or so years ago, completely ignoring the role that his bum-chum bankers played in that.
This to me was the same old story throughout the campaign, - what a complete bore.
The other 1% I disagree with is that you called them both MEN!! "And you seem intent on ignoring the people who borrowed all this money without the ability to pay it back. You can't just blame the lenders you have to look at the people who borrowed too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
No they got in because they said what they were going to do and explained why they thought it was best.
While all the opposition did was say what the conservatives were going to do and that it would be bad to let them do it.
But presented no ideas of their own.
In troubled times people follow the man with the plan not the man with no plan but a lot of whining about the
other guys plan
I agree with about 49% of the above; yes, one guy was obsessed with what the other guy was going to do, Granted, - but then Cameron was obsessed with what the other party did 6 or so years ago, completely ignoring the role that his bum-chum bankers played in that.
This to me was the same old story throughout the campaign, - what a complete bore.
The other 1% I disagree with is that you called them both MEN!!
And you seem intent on ignoring the people who borrowed all this money without the ability to pay it back.
You can't just blame the lenders you have to look at the people who borrowed too.
"Again I half agree with you, this is becoming a habit! You just reiterated what I said; 'you cant just blame the banks, you have to blame the borrowers too', well my point was that Cameron for virtually the entirety of his first term only blamed just the borrowers, not his bum-chum bankers!! I find it very undemocratic for a leader to continuously bullshit the public yet incredible that it was fallen for. Of course, as I said above, the real reason he got back in power was because just like in the 'bad old' mid 70's - 90's, there was no real competition!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
I think the real bastards were the ones telling every one that they could have everything they wanted but they wouldn't have to pay because someone else (the so called "Rich") was going to pay for it all for them.
Luckily the British electorate aren't as stupid as those bastards thought they were (maybe all that money spent on education wasn't wasted after all!!)
I'm afraid that in their very short existence, the British electorate are incredibly stupid, - history has proven that!". Is it not a bit insulting to describe the British electorate as stupid? . Are you saying that you would only allow those with A levels , degrees or professional qualifications to vote . In any event it would have no impact on the election result as it is assumed that all parties ( to quote your terminolgy ) would attract their share of stupid voters .The conservatives won because people believe in responsility and care about pensions and the health service . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop whining. You lot voted for them and we got lumbered with them. "Lumbered? You lot got the best deal!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still governed by purse strings we have no control over. Fingers crossed that will change. But you are right, Nicola Sturgeon has captured the moment. I do have a confession. I do fancy Ruth Davidson but the I also fancied Ann Widdecombe and Edwina Currie. There, I've confessed "Omg - & you were doing so well!!
Yep, Nicola is the only one of them with a pair of balls, - it a shame but she'd have made a great PM if it was possible but sadly that cant happen anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
I think the real bastards were the ones telling every one that they could have everything they wanted but they wouldn't have to pay because someone else (the so called "Rich") was going to pay for it all for them.
Luckily the British electorate aren't as stupid as those bastards thought they were (maybe all that money spent on education wasn't wasted after all!!)
I'm afraid that in their very short existence, the British electorate are incredibly stupid, - history has proven that!. Is it not a bit insulting to describe the British electorate as stupid? . Are you saying that you would only allow those with A levels , degrees or professional qualifications to vote . In any event it would have no impact on the election result as it is assumed that all parties ( to quote your terminolgy ) would attract their share of stupid voters .The conservatives won because people believe in responsility and care about pensions and the health
service . "Wow, you had the intelligence to work out that it wasn't meant to tickle!!
The rest of your Tory garbage I've already answered! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello U.C., "The problem we have at the moment is that the immediate cost of renewable energy sources is still higher than for non renewables. Note I said immediate cost not actual cost." And it will remain that way for the mid term at least as none of the renewables' output coincides with our electrical demand, thus requiring more back up generation which has to be paid for. More renewable power equals more standby which is often gas powered. There is the cost of building the renewable plus the stand by; very poor economics hence our high electrical cost (Germany for one is another country suffering the same thing). Ironically partially due to Mr. Milliband who is vociferous about the cost of electricity charged to the consumer. Alec Very true. The future, as I see it, is a huge improvement in battery technologies for the domestic market enabling renewables to be developed in the short term. Even now, we are beginning to see fields covered with solar panels. Until the technology has been developed the constant needs of organisations must be met with "traditional" methods. Gary" . Gary that's a very good point! However believe it or not Germany produced over half its daily usage through solar production last year!. They did this by encouraging local production(through high initial cost) sensible usage and waste reduction. What's more note in Germany over 20% of energy production and its profit goes into the pockets of local owners.. Your of course right and that base load generation will be needed in the medium term but this common myth that you can't run a country without nuclear or coal really has been put to bed by the Germans! Once again there ahead of the curve and its why there always in front of us!. So yes big debt is good if you spend it wisely? If I spent all those billions I'd expect to make some sustainable returns on them! Instead we seem to piss it up walls with asset bubble inflation of houses and stocks markets... Been there,done that it doesn't work! but we seem to keep making the same mistakes of short term gain over long term sustainability. And that is how the Tories got back in power just as I predicted they would. People didn't become disenfranchised with politics... Politics disenfranchised the electorate! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still governed by purse strings we have no control over. Fingers crossed that will change. But you are right, Nicola Sturgeon has captured the moment. I do have a confession. I do fancy Ruth Davidson but the I also fancied Ann Widdecombe and Edwina Currie. There, I've confessed
Omg - & you were doing so well!!
Yep, Nicola is the only one of them with a pair of balls, - it a shame but she'd have made a great PM if it was possible but sadly that cant happen anymore."She came across well during the campaign but she a politician just like the rest. She claimed to be the anti austerity choice but was putting forward a budget that would have required deeper cuts in the budget than Osborne's. Take your sycophant hats of and take a closer look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unleasd Cracken, with a surname like that, & your heavily politicised answers to so many posts, - you wouldn't happen to be a Tory, would you? "More traditional Liberal actually but quite happy to admit I have, did and probably will vote conservative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me the bastard party got back in because, yet again, the incredible lack of competition. Sad times ahead yet again, again!
I think the real bastards were the ones telling every one that they could have everything they wanted but they wouldn't have to pay because someone else (the so called "Rich") was going to pay for it all for them.
Luckily the British electorate aren't as stupid as those bastards thought they were (maybe all that money spent on education wasn't wasted after all!!)
I'm afraid that in their very short existence, the British electorate are incredibly stupid, - history has proven that!. Is it not a bit insulting to describe the British electorate as stupid? . Are you saying that you would only allow those with A levels , degrees or professional qualifications to vote . In any event it would have no impact on the election result as it is assumed that all parties ( to quote your terminolgy ) would attract their share of stupid voters .The conservatives won because people believe in responsility and care about pensions and the health service . "It's a fairly typical example of the intellectual lefts arrogance to everybody, especially the poor and dispossessed. " If only the electorate weren't so stupid and selfish they'd vote for us ". Both Ed and Kinnock said basically this in post election interviews after the loss. When they going to learn. The electorate didn't vote for them because they're not stupid. The bloody arrogance of these people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" She came across well during the campaign but she a politician just like the rest. She claimed to be the anti austerity choice but was putting forward a budget that would have required deeper cuts in the budget than Osborne's. Take your sycophant hats of and take a closer look." I don't believe that another country with a different culture requires a political and economic insight from yourself. I have not gone out of my way to insult you as an individual or England as a country and don't expect you to. I am an ex Londoner (Stamford Hill) and have lived in Scotland far longer than I have lived in England. I have also lived and worked in seven other countries so I do have a fair idea of what life is like outside of the microcosm that is Scotland. I don't recall the exact numbers but something like 35% of the electorate voted Cameron in but 50% of the Scottish electorate voted SNP. Which of these has the most legitimacy? Just because Scotland voted democratically for the SNP does not make them sycophants. Some of us can actually read and have not only read the manifesto and supporting documentation but understood it. We actually made an informed choice when we voted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
They may not be stupid but they are easily hoodwinked by human nature of what's good for them is obviously the best choice?. I believe the right call it popularist politics!
Were all in it together providing
1 you don't nick my seat
2 I give speeches in mansion house to men resembling snooker referees
3 you newbies stop clapping and learn to say here hear dear
4 the bar and the 4*catering is still heavily subsided | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ................. Just because Scotland voted democratically for the SNP does not make them sycophants. Some of us can actually read and have not only read the manifesto and supporting documentation but understood it. We actually made an informed choice when we voted. " I accept some of you can read and understand the SNP manifesto. What astonishes me is that you believed it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello U.C., "The problem we have at the moment is that the immediate cost of renewable energy sources is still higher than for non renewables. Note I said immediate cost not actual cost." And it will remain that way for the mid term at least as none of the renewables' output coincides with our electrical demand, thus requiring more back up generation which has to be paid for. More renewable power equals more standby which is often gas powered. There is the cost of building the renewable plus the stand by; very poor economics hence our high electrical cost (Germany for one is another country suffering the same thing). Ironically partially due to Mr. Milliband who is vociferous about the cost of electricity charged to the consumer. Alec Very true. The future, as I see it, is a huge improvement in battery technologies for the domestic market enabling renewables to be developed in the short term. Even now, we are beginning to see fields covered with solar panels. Until the technology has been developed the constant needs of organisations must be met with "traditional" methods. Gary. Gary that's a very good point! However believe it or not Germany produced over half its daily usage through solar production last year!. They did this by encouraging local production(through high initial cost) sensible usage and waste reduction. What's more note in Germany over 20% of energy production and its profit goes into the pockets of local owners.. Your of course right and that base load generation will be needed in the medium term but this common myth that you can't run a country without nuclear or coal really has been put to bed by the Germans! Once again there ahead of the curve and its why there always in front of us!. So yes big debt is good if you spend it wisely? If I spent all those billions I'd expect to make some sustainable returns on them! Instead we seem to piss it up walls with asset bubble inflation of houses and stocks markets... Been there,done that it doesn't work! but we seem to keep making the same mistakes of short term gain over long term sustainability. And that is how the Tories got back in power just as I predicted they would. People didn't become disenfranchised with politics... Politics disenfranchised the electorate!" Can we debunk this "tale"? Strangely (m) watches German news and all this idea that German and Co. produce large amounts of energy from Solar Energy is incorrect dito the same from Wind Energy (Offshore Wind Farms OstSee). Mrs Merkel at the time demanded the immediate closing of all atom power stations (according to the various Sates of German an illegal act) and riding on an opinion poll she got her will. However at the same time the Germans are reopening Coal Power Stations powered by Brown Coal (more harmfull then "Black") and are destroying whole areas of Germany and creating acid rain (back to the 80's). So all this "tale" about how good Germany is going ahead with Solar and Wind is well sponspored state propaganda. The same can be said of SNP they claimed that Scotland would be better off independant without the rest of the UK. All this based on "their" income from oil and gas; however their claims were based on $110 per barrel and now looking at prices of $50 per barrel and as now Iran is starting to pump more and cheaper oil (of better quality then North Sea) the prices will further drop. So if SNP wishes to go alone, please Scotland depart "port" of the Union. But believe me the EU will not wish a stand alone Scotland (read the German and French newspapers), nor do the other states wish another "beggar" at the table to fight over the budget. With Germany pressing to accept countries such as Serbia and Albania into the EU - Scotland is the last on the long list. Also to debunk the "stories" it was not the Tories, who sunk the ship building or the other "heavy" industries but the Unions themselves with demands of 3 days a week wages above the average, where at the time Asian countries were producing at 30-40% less costs. Politics are a game..throw the dices wrong you lose...throw them right you win ... There is no democratic system in Europe except maybe Liechtenstein and Switzerland, where the people can demand and vote with their feet by demanding a referendum on issues they do not like. Try this in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany or else where and you get the "boot up your arse". Sorry - but all the speaches about democratic ways and manners don't speak the truth in any way or manner | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello U.C., "The problem we have at the moment is that the immediate cost of renewable energy sources is still higher than for non renewables. Note I said immediate cost not actual cost." And it will remain that way for the mid term at least as none of the renewables' output coincides with our electrical demand, thus requiring more back up generation which has to be paid for. More renewable power equals more standby which is often gas powered. There is the cost of building the renewable plus the stand by; very poor economics hence our high electrical cost (Germany for one is another country suffering the same thing). Ironically partially due to Mr. Milliband who is vociferous about the cost of electricity charged to the consumer. Alec Very true. The future, as I see it, is a huge improvement in battery technologies for the domestic market enabling renewables to be developed in the short term. Even now, we are beginning to see fields covered with solar panels. Until the technology has been developed the constant needs of organisations must be met with "traditional" methods. Gary. Gary that's a very good point! However believe it or not Germany produced over half its daily usage through solar production last year!. They did this by encouraging local production(through high initial cost) sensible usage and waste reduction. What's more note in Germany over 20% of energy production and its profit goes into the pockets of local owners.. Your of course right and that base load generation will be needed in the medium term but this common myth that you can't run a country without nuclear or coal really has been put to bed by the Germans! Once again there ahead of the curve and its why there always in front of us!. So yes big debt is good if you spend it wisely? If I spent all those billions I'd expect to make some sustainable returns on them! Instead we seem to piss it up walls with asset bubble inflation of houses and stocks markets... Been there,done that it doesn't work! but we seem to keep making the same mistakes of short term gain over long term sustainability. And that is how the Tories got back in power just as I predicted they would. People didn't become disenfranchised with politics... Politics disenfranchised the electorate! Can we debunk this "tale"? Strangely (m) watches German news and all this idea that German and Co. produce large amounts of energy from Solar Energy is incorrect dito the same from Wind Energy (Offshore Wind Farms OstSee). Mrs Merkel at the time demanded the immediate closing of all atom power stations (according to the various Sates of German an illegal act) and riding on an opinion poll she got her will. However at the same time the Germans are reopening Coal Power Stations powered by Brown Coal (more harmfull then "Black") and are destroying whole areas of Germany and creating acid rain (back to the 80's). So all this "tale" about how good Germany is going ahead with Solar and Wind is well sponspored state propaganda. The same can be said of SNP they claimed that Scotland would be better off independant without the rest of the UK. All this based on "their" income from oil and gas; however their claims were based on $110 per barrel and now looking at prices of $50 per barrel and as now Iran is starting to pump more and cheaper oil (of better quality then North Sea) the prices will further drop. So if SNP wishes to go alone, please Scotland depart "port" of the Union. But believe me the EU will not wish a stand alone Scotland (read the German and French newspapers), nor do the other states wish another "beggar" at the table to fight over the budget. With Germany pressing to accept countries such as Serbia and Albania into the EU - Scotland is the last on the long list. Also to debunk the "stories" it was not the Tories, who sunk the ship building or the other "heavy" industries but the Unions themselves with demands of 3 days a week wages above the average, where at the time Asian countries were producing at 30-40% less costs. Politics are a game..throw the dices wrong you lose...throw them right you win ... There is no democratic system in Europe except maybe Liechtenstein and Switzerland, where the people can demand and vote with their feet by demanding a referendum on issues they do not like. Try this in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany or else where and you get the "boot up your arse". Sorry - but all the speaches about democratic ways and manners don't speak the truth in any way or manner" . Yes they reopened coal fired stations (they don't have the luxury of a supply of gas) but that was because there nuclear reactors were found to be as liable as Fukushima's to a freak accident, so they decided to close them and go a different route The policy was to have renewable energy to something like 40% by 2015 which they are on target for. And they will reduce the coal plants as the renewables come online. Let's get things straight in not in favour of coal fired power stations but as in the case of the Germans your own reports find your nuclear reactors are liable, what other alternative do you have!, I mean if there'd have continued with nuclear and one went tits up, you'd no doubt be deriding them for that too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" She came across well during the campaign but she a politician just like the rest. She claimed to be the anti austerity choice but was putting forward a budget that would have required deeper cuts in the budget than Osborne's. Take your sycophant hats of and take a closer look. I don't believe that another country with a different culture requires a political and economic insight from yourself. I have not gone out of my way to insult you as an individual or England as a country and don't expect you to. " You can only really play the English card against people who are less Scottish than yourself. In my case that probably isn't the case. No doubt now you'll try and play the Scottish traitor card next. Just because I don't want to see the very heart of my country ripped out by a self-serving politician doesn't mean I don't have the right to express that point of view. But then the SNP used those very tactics to try and win the referendum. " I am an ex Londoner (Stamford Hill) and have lived in Scotland far longer than I have lived in England. I have also lived and worked in seven other countries so I do have a fair idea of what life is like outside of the microcosm that is Scotland. I don't recall the exact numbers but something like 35% of the electorate voted Cameron in but 50% of the Scottish electorate voted SNP. Which of these has the most legitimacy? Just because Scotland voted democratically for the SNP does not make them sycophants. Some of us can actually read and have not only read the manifesto and supporting documentation but understood it. We actually made an informed choice when we voted. " I didn't say the Scottish were sycophants for voting SNP I said you were being sycophantic with your adoration of the ' Blessed Nicola '. She is just another politician, why the personality cult around her. It's almost as sickening as the Tory adoration of ' Saint Margaret '. Wake up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gordon Lamb House has even introduced a Nicola Sturgeon 'signature' range of products. It'll be mass weddings and Strength Through Joy sessions next." . Knickers or yfronts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've been sycophants for years. That's why I always go commando Badom cheesh "Well if you've got cheese in your phants that really is a little syco. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've been sycophants for years. That's why I always go commando Badom cheesh
Well if you've got cheese in your phants that really is a little syco. ". That's the worst impression I've done since my jimmy saville one last week at the cubs meeting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
