Discussion
Fittster said:
Well there's another £50bn
How do they quantify if the previous rounds of QE have worked?
If they have worked, why £50bn, instead of, say £100bn?
Just kicking the can further down the road and inflating a huge bubble in the bond markets; I can't see it ending well, must remember to buy a wheelbarrow.How do they quantify if the previous rounds of QE have worked?
If they have worked, why £50bn, instead of, say £100bn?
Fittster said:
Well there's another £50bn
How do they quantify if the previous rounds of QE have worked?
If they have worked, why £50bn, instead of, say £100bn?
Unlikely there's anything too cast iron scientific about it. It's just a bunch of people making numbers up to suit their own ends.How do they quantify if the previous rounds of QE have worked?
If they have worked, why £50bn, instead of, say £100bn?
Sound familiar?
INQUIRY NOW OSBORNE, YOU FECKLESS GIMP.
Murph7355 said:
Unlikely there's anything too cast iron scientific about it. It's just a bunch of people making numbers up to suit their own ends.
Sound familiar?
INQUIRY NOW OSBORNE, YOU FECKLESS GIMP.
Oh why worry if our economy is holed below the water line,Sound familiar?
INQUIRY NOW OSBORNE, YOU FECKLESS GIMP.
as long as our politcians can sail it along untill it's
the other partys problem ....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I realise that on this site, any counter view to this has one likely to be labelled a 'pinko commie XXX', but where exactly do you see these cuts being made?One small example of social spending that I'm familiar with is the vast cost of caring for disabled children, as my mother has done voluntary work with these kids for years (in many capacities, from School Governor, to running her local RDA centre). Now, some of the parents of these kids are quite wealthy, and might be able to pick up the tab independantly. Others are 'mid income' and need government 'top-ups', while many simply could not meet the financial costs, either because their incomes are too low (often due to being a full-time carer for the child) or because the cost of care is so high (one child I know of costs around £5k per month to 'keep'). Would there be a cull perhaps?
Also, if the 'underclass' were stripped of their 'free' income, are you prepared to take the necessary steps to protect your property, if and when they turn up to take it off you? Before the welfare state the streets were far more dangerous places to walk, and anyone with a few bob was likely to be knocked on the head for the coins in their pocket.
TTwiggy said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I realise that on this site, any counter view to this has one likely to be labelled a 'pinko commie XXX', but where exactly do you see these cuts being made?One small example of social spending that I'm familiar with is the vast cost of caring for disabled children, as my mother has done voluntary work with these kids for years (in many capacities, from School Governor, to running her local RDA centre). Now, some of the parents of these kids are quite wealthy, and might be able to pick up the tab independantly. Others are 'mid income' and need government 'top-ups', while many simply could not meet the financial costs, either because their incomes are too low (often due to being a full-time carer for the child) or because the cost of care is so high (one child I know of costs around £5k per month to 'keep'). Would there be a cull perhaps?
Also, if the 'underclass' were stripped of their 'free' income, are you prepared to take the necessary steps to protect your property, if and when they turn up to take it off you? Before the welfare state the streets were far more dangerous places to walk, and anyone with a few bob was likely to be knocked on the head for the coins in their pocket.
k, you can only care so much, the government spends too much on the wrong things, that's the real problem. It also refuses to cut its cloth accordingly, by using QE to pay its bills, which is cutting its nose off to spite it's face .sheer lunacy if you ask me. anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'd get no arguement from me on this one, but what about the second part of my post? What happens when a group of people who already outnumber you, are more equipped to do violence than you and less concerned about the consequences than you, decides that if the government won't give them money, your watch/wallet/car/house looks ripe for the taking...markcoznottz said:
TTwiggy said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I realise that on this site, any counter view to this has one likely to be labelled a 'pinko commie XXX', but where exactly do you see these cuts being made?One small example of social spending that I'm familiar with is the vast cost of caring for disabled children, as my mother has done voluntary work with these kids for years (in many capacities, from School Governor, to running her local RDA centre). Now, some of the parents of these kids are quite wealthy, and might be able to pick up the tab independantly. Others are 'mid income' and need government 'top-ups', while many simply could not meet the financial costs, either because their incomes are too low (often due to being a full-time carer for the child) or because the cost of care is so high (one child I know of costs around £5k per month to 'keep'). Would there be a cull perhaps?
Also, if the 'underclass' were stripped of their 'free' income, are you prepared to take the necessary steps to protect your property, if and when they turn up to take it off you? Before the welfare state the streets were far more dangerous places to walk, and anyone with a few bob was likely to be knocked on the head for the coins in their pocket.
k, you can only care so much, the government spends too much on the wrong things, that's the real problem. It also refuses to cut its cloth accordingly, by using QE to pay its bills, which is cutting its nose off to spite it's face .sheer lunacy if you ask me. turbobloke said:
TTwiggy said:
grabbing a few quid back off 'Waynetta' won't really balance the books
Where are the numbers?Without any, it's just reasoning by assertion within your own viewpoint.
As to the QE, here's hoping, but buying an annuity just got even more interesting.
By contrast, you'd have to factor at least £10,000 over the same period for the care of a disabled child, and that's coming straight out of the NHS.
TTwiggy said:
Well, if you give £1000 to Waynetta, she spends it on takeaways, booze and fags - at least then you get a decent tax return.
Once you factor in Police, NHSm high street vandalism and god knows what other services their miscreant offspring 'need' - then you're onto a loser. It would be cheaper to bang them up in prison or workhouse - especially if you could extract some work out of them, 'Matrix' style perhaps.Sorry, i see Tonker has beaten me to it.
fido said:
TTwiggy said:
Well, if you give £1000 to Waynetta, she spends it on takeaways, booze and fags - at least then you get a decent tax return.
Once you factor in Police, NHSm high street vandalism and god knows what other services their miscreant offspring 'need' - then you're onto a loser. It would be cheaper to bang them up in prison or workhouse - especially if you could extract some work out of them, 'Matrix' style perhaps.Sorry, i see Tonker has beaten me to it.
QE devalues money.
As such it is a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers.
Politicians and Civil Servants have index linked pensions so upon retirement are unaffected by inflation and low annuity rates. Those of us outside these gold-plated schemes have seen the real value of our savings and pensions eroded.
If anyone is likely to be appearing at the door with an axe and menaces, it is likely to be us.
As such it is a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers.
Politicians and Civil Servants have index linked pensions so upon retirement are unaffected by inflation and low annuity rates. Those of us outside these gold-plated schemes have seen the real value of our savings and pensions eroded.
If anyone is likely to be appearing at the door with an axe and menaces, it is likely to be us.
NailedOn said:
QE devalues money.
As such it is a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers.
Politicians and Civil Servants have index linked pensions so upon retirement are unaffected by inflation and low annuity rates. Those of us outside these gold-plated schemes have seen the real value of our savings and pensions eroded.
If anyone is likely to be appearing at the door with an axe and menaces, it is likely to be us.
^^^^ Absolutely right. Another raid to penalise savers and pensioners. As such it is a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers.
Politicians and Civil Servants have index linked pensions so upon retirement are unaffected by inflation and low annuity rates. Those of us outside these gold-plated schemes have seen the real value of our savings and pensions eroded.
If anyone is likely to be appearing at the door with an axe and menaces, it is likely to be us.
Well, I am going to play the contrarian today.
Lets look at what seems to sway markets, prompt investment, prompt consumption, determine whether a stock index rises or falls.
Is it underlying real value? Facts, figures, NAV, debt ratios etc?; or
is it herd mentality, the 'behaviou' of the buyers and sellers in the market, confidence.
Not being an ardent Keynsian, I am not too keen on borrowing our way out of debt. But growing out way out of debt seems to hinge substantially on creating a feeling of confidence for businesses and individuals to invest, spend and consume.
Unless you argue that the deficit can only be reined in by contraction and drastically reduced spending. But drastically reduced spending, as we know, is far easier touted in a press release than done.
So, given that the government IS going to borrow £150b+ every year for a while, what is the best way they can instil confidence in businesses and individuals to crack on. I do not believe that a news headline "40% to be cut from Child benefit, housing benefit and Tattoo Benefit" is enough to promote consumer confidence.
Lets look at what seems to sway markets, prompt investment, prompt consumption, determine whether a stock index rises or falls.
Is it underlying real value? Facts, figures, NAV, debt ratios etc?; or
is it herd mentality, the 'behaviou' of the buyers and sellers in the market, confidence.
Not being an ardent Keynsian, I am not too keen on borrowing our way out of debt. But growing out way out of debt seems to hinge substantially on creating a feeling of confidence for businesses and individuals to invest, spend and consume.
Unless you argue that the deficit can only be reined in by contraction and drastically reduced spending. But drastically reduced spending, as we know, is far easier touted in a press release than done.
So, given that the government IS going to borrow £150b+ every year for a while, what is the best way they can instil confidence in businesses and individuals to crack on. I do not believe that a news headline "40% to be cut from Child benefit, housing benefit and Tattoo Benefit" is enough to promote consumer confidence.
eldar said:
Instead of lending cheap money to banks to allow them to lend expensive, why isn't the freshly virtualised £50bn spent on improving the infrastructure - road,rail, nuclear, etc?
According to recent our resident PFI hospital builder (whose PH names escapes me), existing hospitals need £100b+ spending on them in maintenance.If that wouldn't rejuvenate the building trade, what will.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff