Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
Peers will be peers!hstewie said:A tory councillor has quit.
I am in two minds about this. He seems sincere
On the other hand its in The Mirror which as a lot of people know is not far removed from Socialist Worker.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-tory-cou...
I am in two minds about this. He seems sincere
On the other hand its in The Mirror which as a lot of people know is not far removed from Socialist Worker.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-tory-cou...
Dagnir said:
A woman named Jessica with pronouns in her signature is virtue signalling. It's a pledge of allegiance to the ideology to show how progressive you are.
Making a big song and dance about clapping for the NHS and posting it all over your socials so everyone can see how supportive you are, is virtue signalling.
Empty gestures with no tangible benefit, made for the portrayal of being compassionate and caring, is virtue signalling.
Sure, it gets over (and incorrectly) used but it doesn't mean nothing.
Empty gestures or raising awareness of minorities who are often discriminated against?Making a big song and dance about clapping for the NHS and posting it all over your socials so everyone can see how supportive you are, is virtue signalling.
Empty gestures with no tangible benefit, made for the portrayal of being compassionate and caring, is virtue signalling.
Sure, it gets over (and incorrectly) used but it doesn't mean nothing.
Dagnir said:
Killboy said:
So its safer just to scream "virtue signalling" at every opportunity?
Yeah, this is one of these terms I wish would just die. It means nothing.
A woman named Jessica with pronouns in her signature is virtue signalling. It's a pledge of allegiance to the ideology to show how progressive you are.Yeah, this is one of these terms I wish would just die. It means nothing.
Making a big song and dance about clapping for the NHS and posting it all over your socials so everyone can see how supportive you are, is virtue signalling.
Empty gestures with no tangible benefit, made for the portrayal of being compassionate and caring, is virtue signalling.
Sure, it gets over (and incorrectly) used but it doesn't mean nothing
Just picked this up. It only seems to be on the DT and ConHome.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/20/je...
Sorry it's paywalled. Not sure if 12ft still exists but I use archive ph.
It's contains the normal names Braverman, JRM etc.
Ignoring the comments on the bank inflation forecasts. The parts on QE say much about our political class.
QE is not that complex. Even if you do not understand then you can ask experts. Instead we seem to have a group of MP's who convince each other they know what they are talking about even though a tiny amount of research or a quick conversation with an expert would show the error. Instead they write to the Chancellor to demonstrate their ignorance.
Just to be clear the QE bonds will be sold at a lose. However, that will only effect the tax payer if the bank intends to payoff the full purchase price for the money they made up and owe to some one who does not exist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/20/je...
Sorry it's paywalled. Not sure if 12ft still exists but I use archive ph.
It's contains the normal names Braverman, JRM etc.
Ignoring the comments on the bank inflation forecasts. The parts on QE say much about our political class.
QE is not that complex. Even if you do not understand then you can ask experts. Instead we seem to have a group of MP's who convince each other they know what they are talking about even though a tiny amount of research or a quick conversation with an expert would show the error. Instead they write to the Chancellor to demonstrate their ignorance.
Just to be clear the QE bonds will be sold at a lose. However, that will only effect the tax payer if the bank intends to payoff the full purchase price for the money they made up and owe to some one who does not exist.
Mrr T said:
Just picked this up. It only seems to be on the DT and ConHome.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/20/je...
Sorry it's paywalled. Not sure if 12ft still exists but I use archive ph.
It's contains the normal names Braverman, JRM etc.
Ignoring the comments on the bank inflation forecasts. The parts on QE say much about our political class.
QE is not that complex. Even if you do not understand then you can ask experts. Instead we seem to have a group of MP's who convince each other they know what they are talking about even though a tiny amount of research or a quick conversation with an expert would show the error. Instead they write to the Chancellor to demonstrate their ignorance.
Just to be clear the QE bonds will be sold at a lose. However, that will only effect the tax payer if the bank intends to payoff the full purchase price for the money they made up and owe to some one who does not exist.
Having read and re-read both your post and that article, and failed to comprehend them, I've come to the conclusion that it's time I bought this book, or one very like it.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/20/je...
Sorry it's paywalled. Not sure if 12ft still exists but I use archive ph.
It's contains the normal names Braverman, JRM etc.
Ignoring the comments on the bank inflation forecasts. The parts on QE say much about our political class.
QE is not that complex. Even if you do not understand then you can ask experts. Instead we seem to have a group of MP's who convince each other they know what they are talking about even though a tiny amount of research or a quick conversation with an expert would show the error. Instead they write to the Chancellor to demonstrate their ignorance.
Just to be clear the QE bonds will be sold at a lose. However, that will only effect the tax payer if the bank intends to payoff the full purchase price for the money they made up and owe to some one who does not exist.
sparkythecat said:
Having read and re-read both your post and that article, and failed to comprehend them, I've come to the conclusion that it's time I bought this book, or one very like it.
Not sure how many text books cover QE.This explains QE.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/qu...
It's actually quite easy. CB wants to create money.
It buys bonds in the market but to do so rather than borrow the money it uses central bank reserves. That's a technical term for made up money.
So say CB guys £100 of bonds.
BS is.
Liabilities
CBR (made up money) 100
Assets
Bonds 100
Due to the rise in interest rates the bonds are now worth £50. How bond prices are effected by interest rates is the only complex bit. Rates fall bond prices rise and visa versa.
If the CB sells the bonds at £50. This is where it gets fun. The CB has £50 cash on its balance sheet. It cannot repay CBR since it's made up money. The bank has also made a lose of £50. It would need the government to findq that lose if there was a real lender but there is not so no loss to the tax payer.
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
isaldiri said:
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
I had tried to keep it simple by ignoring the APF. However, if you want to include the ADF.What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
CB borrows from CBR (made up money) which it lends to ADF. ADF buys assets. If the ADF sells assets for cash. It has cash in its CB account. To reverse QE the balances in CB and ADF will all be netted. I understand at the moment while th government is required to cover ADF losses. It does not do so in cash which would be negative QE, not just reversal, it's just an assets on ADF BS which will rewritten off latter against the ADF, CB liability.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Mrr T said:
isaldiri said:
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
I had tried to keep it simple by ignoring the APF. However, if you want to include the ADF.What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
CB borrows from CBR (made up money) which it lends to ADF. ADF buys assets. If the ADF sells assets for cash. It has cash in its CB account. To reverse QE the balances in CB and ADF will all be netted. I understand at the moment while th government is required to cover ADF losses. It does not do so in cash which would be negative QE, not just reversal, it's just an assets on ADF BS which will rewritten off latter against the ADF, CB liability.
Correct me if I am wrong.
and the government does and that cost of refunding the APF is part of the HMT budget.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/asset-purchase-fac...
isaldiri said:
Mrr T said:
isaldiri said:
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
I had tried to keep it simple by ignoring the APF. However, if you want to include the ADF.What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
CB borrows from CBR (made up money) which it lends to ADF. ADF buys assets. If the ADF sells assets for cash. It has cash in its CB account. To reverse QE the balances in CB and ADF will all be netted. I understand at the moment while th government is required to cover ADF losses. It does not do so in cash which would be negative QE, not just reversal, it's just an assets on ADF BS which will rewritten off latter against the ADF, CB liability.
Correct me if I am wrong.
and the government does and that cost of refunding the APF is part of the HMT budget.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/asset-purchase-fac...
Thanks for the link. So at the moment it's positive but may become negative. Thanks I was wrong and am now better informed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff