I find it hard to argue against these 2 investment advisers
Discussion
LucreLout said:
They do indeed. Cuts to taxation, public spending, and instead shift that cashflow into infrastructure investment.
The problem is that too much if the debt is tied up between the public sector and the baby boomers. Defaulting against them is politically toxic.
Without actual cuts to the public sector of close to 30%, there can be no real recovery. We'll just flip flop between low growth and shallow recessions.
Get a grip this BS has failed for last five years.The problem is that too much if the debt is tied up between the public sector and the baby boomers. Defaulting against them is politically toxic.
Without actual cuts to the public sector of close to 30%, there can be no real recovery. We'll just flip flop between low growth and shallow recessions.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
Martin4x4 said:
LucreLout said:
They do indeed. Cuts to taxation, public spending, and instead shift that cashflow into infrastructure investment.
The problem is that too much if the debt is tied up between the public sector and the baby boomers. Defaulting against them is politically toxic.
Without actual cuts to the public sector of close to 30%, there can be no real recovery. We'll just flip flop between low growth and shallow recessions.
Get a grip this BS has failed for last five years.The problem is that too much if the debt is tied up between the public sector and the baby boomers. Defaulting against them is politically toxic.
Without actual cuts to the public sector of close to 30%, there can be no real recovery. We'll just flip flop between low growth and shallow recessions.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
johnfm said:
What? What's all this infrastructure investment been spent on??
What infrastructure?We've had 30 years of governments finding plausible or not so plausible reasons not to build transport infrastructure (anyone remember Swampy - who gave him airspace in the first place?) in anything like the quantity commensurate with the size of economy and population.
Diverting funds from investment in infrastructure into current spending is a slippery slope and a habit that has proved hard to break and effective at racking-up debt.
LucreLout said:
Martin4x4 said:
Get a grip this BS has failed for last five years.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Inflation would hit the stars, base rates would follow, and the economy would collapse.
Feel free to argument with a economics Nobel prize winner http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/the-li...
Is government debt bad and private debt good?
Personal debt is a major issue for the UK , and as I understand it, is projected to increase significantly in the next 5 years. Current forecasts of growth (and deficit reduction / tax cuts) rely on this.
As for QE and inflation...we could do with a bit of inflation.
Personal debt is a major issue for the UK , and as I understand it, is projected to increase significantly in the next 5 years. Current forecasts of growth (and deficit reduction / tax cuts) rely on this.
As for QE and inflation...we could do with a bit of inflation.
coyft said:
Why can't the ECB, FED and Bank of England and all other Central Banks buy all the debt at zero interest rate? After all money is purely a man made creation, it doesn't represent anything real and is available in unlimited quantity.
What are you trying to ask? If the BoE buys Government debt, that means it is lending money, to the Government. The BoE is entirely owned by Government. Are you are really asking why does the Government just print money instead of borrowing it? These countries have tried, it doesn't work out well;4.1 Angola
4.2 Argentina
4.3 Armenia
4.4 Austria
4.5 Azerbaijan
4.6 Belarus
4.7 Bolivia
4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.9 Brazil
4.10 Bulgaria
4.11 Chile
4.12 China
4.13 Estonia
4.14 France
4.15 Free City of Danzig
4.16 Georgia
4.17 Germany (Weimar Republic)
4.18 Greece
4.19 Hungary, 1923–24
4.20 Hungary, 1945–46
4.21 Kazakhstan
4.22 Kyrgyzstan
4.23 Serbian Krajina
4.24 North Korea
4.25 Nicaragua
4.26 Peru
4.27 Philippines
4.28 Poland, 1923–1924
4.29 Poland, 1989–1990
4.30 Republika Srpska
4.31 Soviet Union / Russian Federation
4.32 Taiwan
4.33 Tajikistan
4.34 Turkmenistan
4.35 Ukraine
4.36 Uzbekistan
4.37 Yugoslavia
4.38 Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
4.39 Zimbabwe
fblm said:
coyft said:
Why can't the ECB, FED and Bank of England and all other Central Banks buy all the debt at zero interest rate? After all money is purely a man made creation, it doesn't represent anything real and is available in unlimited quantity.
What are you trying to ask? If the BoE buys Government debt, that means it is lending money, to the Government. The BoE is entirely owned by Government. Are you are really asking why does the Government just print money instead of borrowing it? These countries have tried, it doesn't work out well;4.1 Angola
4.2 Argentina
4.3 Armenia
4.4 Austria
4.5 Azerbaijan
4.6 Belarus
4.7 Bolivia
4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.9 Brazil
4.10 Bulgaria
4.11 Chile
4.12 China
4.13 Estonia
4.14 France
4.15 Free City of Danzig
4.16 Georgia
4.17 Germany (Weimar Republic)
4.18 Greece
4.19 Hungary, 1923–24
4.20 Hungary, 1945–46
4.21 Kazakhstan
4.22 Kyrgyzstan
4.23 Serbian Krajina
4.24 North Korea
4.25 Nicaragua
4.26 Peru
4.27 Philippines
4.28 Poland, 1923–1924
4.29 Poland, 1989–1990
4.30 Republika Srpska
4.31 Soviet Union / Russian Federation
4.32 Taiwan
4.33 Tajikistan
4.34 Turkmenistan
4.35 Ukraine
4.36 Uzbekistan
4.37 Yugoslavia
4.38 Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
4.39 Zimbabwe
Fittster said:
On the other hand the US, Japan and the UK have done it with no impact on inflation and without upsetting the bond markets, which suggests that printing money = hyperinflation is a way to simplistic.
Oh dear god not again. If you can't see the difference between Krugman explaining you don't get inflation from QE in a balance sheet recession, which is both obvious and evident (I'm taking a guess here that's what the link above says because thats what it always says) and full monetization of the debt as proposed above then any conversation between us is entirely pointless. Hyperinflation is not just 'a lot of inflation', it is not created by the same forces Krugman talks about when talking about modern day UK or Japan, it is a loss of faith in the currency as a unit of exchange. IMO Krugman, on QE and inflation, is correct. Extending what he says to justify total monetization is completely invalid not to mention the most desperate appeal to authority. A nobel prize winner huh? Wow. His line is central banks don't create inflation, I seriously doubt he thinks central banks can't destroy faith in the currency, not when they have done so, so many times before.I'm fairly sure we have had this conversation before and as you're still trotting out the same stuff I suggest we call it quits now so I'm out. Adios
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th January 13:16
Fittster said:
LucreLout said:
Martin4x4 said:
Get a grip this BS has failed for last five years.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
The solution is about 10 fold more QE which will bring the world liquidity close to pre-recession levels.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Inflation would hit the stars, base rates would follow, and the economy would collapse.
Feel free to argument with a economics Nobel prize winner http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/the-li...
What they should have done in 2007 to save the banks was pay off our mortgages and credit cards - but they didn't - because it's just all a big game and the dealer always wins.
FredClogs said:
The last 7 years of QE (all over the globe) has failed to lead to inflation because the money from QE has been largely kept within a small cabal of private financiers and banking operations, we've not had general inflation but if you look at central London property prices, classic Fezza's and Porches and various other assorted rich man's play things they've inflated well above the standard price of the goods in our baskets (bread and water and the like).
What they should have done in 2007 to save the banks was pay off our mortgages and credit cards - but they didn't - because it's just all a big game and the dealer always wins.
QE is the central bank printing money to buy government bonds. Banks are simply the conduit between the central bank and the owners of that debt who you can look up easily. Since 2007 bank holdings of government bonds have actually increased. Claiming 'private financiers and banking operations' have somehow 'kept' this money betrays a complete failure of understanding as to what QE is. In order to get their filthy mits on that lovely QE cash they must SELL Government bonds to the BoE. I will agree it has lead to the inflation you describe but not through the channels you feverishly imagine. What they should have done in 2007 to save the banks was pay off our mortgages and credit cards - but they didn't - because it's just all a big game and the dealer always wins.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th January 14:36
Fittster said:
Really, Japan has performed huge levels of QE with not a hint of inflation.
Feel free to argument with a economics Nobel prize winner http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/the-li...
We're not Japan. Our birthrate trumps theirs by a good long way, as does our inward migration.Feel free to argument with a economics Nobel prize winner http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/the-li...
Public sector reform has to come whether that be after unleashing the printing press or more sensibly before we do so. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and smacks of a self interested agenda.
QE would seem to be seeping into supercars and houses at the moment. Having a truckload more of it is great if you own a big house and brace of Ferraris.... Possibly less so for the young who do not.
Edited by LucreLout on Monday 26th January 15:00
FredClogs said:
What they should have done in 2007 to save the banks was pay off our mortgages and credit cards - but they didn't - because it's just all a big game and the dealer always wins.
I'd have done well out of that. Very well indeed. But I'm not sure anyone short of housing would... They would get no cash, and house prices would soar as people that had a large new mortgage started looking immediately at the next wrung up the ladder.LucreLout said:
FredClogs said:
What they should have done in 2007 to save the banks was pay off our mortgages and credit cards - but they didn't - because it's just all a big game and the dealer always wins.
I'd have done well out of that. Very well indeed. But I'm not sure anyone short of housing would... They would get no cash, and house prices would soar as people that had a large new mortgage started looking immediately at the next wrung up the ladder.Helicopter money on the other hand... a chunk of time limited cash for everyone, I don't see why not.
edh said:
Yes, it wouldn't have really made sense
Helicopter money on the other hand... a chunk of time limited cash for everyone, I don't see why not.
Time limited cash has no effect. All that happens is spending from normal cash is replaced with consumption of the time limited cash.Helicopter money on the other hand... a chunk of time limited cash for everyone, I don't see why not.
I'd quite like, now that institutions are stable, to see what would happen were helicopter cash used for defence against deflation IF it becomes necessary - cut income taxes and print up the 'lost' cash for the treasury.
LucreLout said:
edh said:
Yes, it wouldn't have really made sense
Helicopter money on the other hand... a chunk of time limited cash for everyone, I don't see why not.
Time limited cash has no effect. All that happens is spending from normal cash is replaced with consumption of the time limited cash.Helicopter money on the other hand... a chunk of time limited cash for everyone, I don't see why not.
I'd quite like, now that institutions are stable, to see what would happen were helicopter cash used for defence against deflation IF it becomes necessary - cut income taxes and print up the 'lost' cash for the treasury.
You're assuming that people would save the extra money? maybe some %, but I bet very few in the lower income groups. This of course is one of the problems with a higher share of income going to the richest. Their propensity to save not spend. They push up asset prices, which has a knock on effect for all of us.
edh said:
Can't do it through income tax as you'd only reach a certain proportion of people. And why wouldn't your "saving" point be negated? i'd have thought it would be more likely.
You're assuming that people would save the extra money? maybe some %, but I bet very few in the lower income groups. This of course is one of the problems with a higher share of income going to the richest. Their propensity to save not spend. They push up asset prices, which has a knock on effect for all of us.
Yes, the idea is to reach those who contribute without handing out a spliffs n staffies bonanza to those who don't. After all, it's really tax payers and asset iwners who are funding the splurge. There's no money tree.You're assuming that people would save the extra money? maybe some %, but I bet very few in the lower income groups. This of course is one of the problems with a higher share of income going to the richest. Their propensity to save not spend. They push up asset prices, which has a knock on effect for all of us.
The lowest income groups would probably repay debt, which economically is the same thing as saving, but I'm sure you know that.
If net assets including pensions of 500k USD is enough to get into the global top percentile, then I'm one of them *shudder* I find myself there because I saved to buy a house and save to buy a pension, plus other investments to mimic the same thing outside the wrapper.
Given a tax refund of sufficient size, I'd most likely spend half and invest half, thus making funding available for economic growth and stoking consumption at the same time. Win win.
Every public sector worker earning over 30k will be in the same group as me, due to the pension pot. Most home owners in the home counties will be too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff