Does Britain face bankruptcy?

[jaybkay]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_...

If this is a repost...... apologies.

"The seeds of a possible future disaster were sown during the Blair years. Blair inherited a strong, stable economy which had been responsibly managed by his Conservative predecessors with acceptable levels of government debt.

He played his first term in office with textbook good sense; it was a continuation of Conservative policy to all extents and purposes, with debt kept at record lows. After that, perhaps because the Opposition was so weak, Blair and his Chancellor let rip."

I escaped from Tony almost exactly ten years ago, (to NZ).... surprisingly enough I'm not thinking of coming back.

Besides that it's summer here, and the swimming pool should just be up to temperature. Red wine and steak for tea.............again.

[Tangent Police]

There are certain aspects of this predicament that cannot be factored out by altering decimal points of pointing over there.

Even if we did manage to spark manufacturing and primary industry into action, perhaps even a major oil discovery would not be sufficient to plug the hole....

We need some big inflation in order to make the problem go away. This isn't good. It also has to be contained. Inflation and QE are merely redistributions of wealth and those can't happen too suddenly....otherwise people will get irritated and that will upset things.

The $ is in a similar predicament. The € is not, but is threatened by different factors.....

I will buy your gold at slighly more than the price offered on tv

[mybrainhurts]

jaybkay said:

If this is a repost...... apologies.

Why...?

Why, why, why...?

[AndrewW-G]

One of the things that I disagree with is that the first term of labour was a continuation of Conservative policy. During the 1997-2001 term, Labour systematically sold off every asset they could to fund their election promise, without drawing attention from the masses, e.g. 400 tons of gold at the lowest point in the gold market in recent times.

It’s been a massive ponzi scam from start to finish, only the truly gullible have believed that it is anything but a co-ordinated grab for power from the socialists with a far wider agenda than they have ever dared to publish.

The Nazi-esque tactics employed by labour to smear any opposition, should be a warning to us all

Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 12th December 02:14

[Stealth-wagon]

AndrewW-G said:

One of the things that I disagree with is that the first term of labour was a continuation of Conservative policy. During the 1997-2001 term, Labour systematically sold off every asset they could to fund their election promise, without drawing attention from the masses, e.g. 400 tons of gold at the lowest point in the gold market in recent times.

It’s been a massive ponzi scam from start to finish, only the truly gullible have believed that it is anything but a co-ordinated grab for power from the socialists with a far wider agenda than they have ever dared to publish.

The Nazi-esque tactics employed by labour to smear any opposition, should be a warning to us all

Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 12th December 02:14

I couldn’t agree more.

Just to put that in perspective, he sold 395 tons when gold was at a recent all time low of $275, brining in $3.4 billion ...

At todays rates that same gold would be valued at $15 Billion… and we're all made to suffer at the hands of this idiot. He has got to be the worlds worse walking liability.


But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Does anyone remember in 2000/2001 NuLiebor conspired to create value attached to licensing the use of 3G mobile phones in the UK ? The government spun this out to the point where Vodaphone had to buy those rights from the govt for £22 BILLION or loose the ability to operate in the UK. That £22bn then vanished into the bottomless pit of labours cash burning machine keeping millions of people in non-jobs and on benefits, and indirectly we all have to pay for this through increased mobile call charges.


That £22 billion licence fee is 10 times what the gold bullion haul was. Where did it go ?!


Its all very shrewd getting £22 billion for nothing, but it would be so much better if it had been invested for growth, rather than burnt to keep the clunking great socialist dream machine running on a bit longer.

[FourWheelDrift]

Stealth-wagon said:

Just to put that in perspective, he sold 395 tons when gold was at a recent all time low of $275, brining in $3.4 billion ...

At todays rates that same gold would be valued at $15 Billion… and we're all made to suffer at the hands of this idiot. He has got to be the worlds worse walking liability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they bought the gold themselves with taxpayers money via a Chinese broker, held onto it for a while then re-sold it for a greater personal profit, enabling them to put the $3.4billion used to buy it plus the original $3.4billion sum paid back. There you go, books balanced and anything made over $6.8billion would be a lovely profit for the Labour party to spend on their next election campaign.

Frankly nothing would give me a better 2010 to see all the senior members of the Labour party since 1997 charged with varying convictions of larceny, fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and insider trading.

[theironduke]

...and summarily executed in Parliament Square, a lesson to their successors.

[herewego]

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

[FarleyRusk]

FourWheelDrift said:

Stealth-wagon said:

Just to put that in perspective, he sold 395 tons when gold was at a recent all time low of $275, brining in $3.4 billion ...

At todays rates that same gold would be valued at $15 Billion… and we're all made to suffer at the hands of this idiot. He has got to be the worlds worse walking liability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they bought the gold themselves with taxpayers money via a Chinese broker, held onto it for a while then re-sold it for a greater personal profit, enabling them to put the $3.4billion used to buy it plus the original $3.4billion sum paid back. There you go, books balanced and anything made over $6.8billion would be a lovely profit for the Labour party to spend on their next election campaign.

Frankly nothing would give me a better 2010 to see all the senior members of the Labour party since 1997 charged with varying convictions of larceny, fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and insider trading.

Just to bring a bit of perspective - the Swiss national bank sold 682 tons of gold during the same period, so "Winky" wasn't the only idiot on the block and certainly wasn't the biggest one.

http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/swissgoldsales.html

[Mclovin]

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

[Engineer1]

FarleyRusk said:

Just to bring a bit of perspective - the Swiss national bank sold 682 tons of gold during the same period, so "Winky" wasn't the only idiot on the block and certainly wasn't the biggest one.

http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/swissgoldsales.html

But the Swiss may have tons more gold ok it looks abit like this:

but there must be a fair bit arround that can never be reclaimed.

Edited by Engineer1 on Saturday 12th December 14:52

[otolith]

Tangent Police said:

Inflation and QE are merely redistributions of wealth and those can't happen too suddenly....

The housing boom caused a large transfer of wealth to people who owned property from people who didn't - that would reverse it, at the expense of people with savings. I suppose the real net beneficiaries would be people still working who released equity and spent it!

(edit to correct direction of money flow - obvious what I meant)

Edited by otolith on Saturday 12th December 16:09

[AndrewW-G]

FarleyRusk said:

Just to bring a bit of perspective - the Swiss national bank sold 682 tons of gold during the same period, so "Winky" wasn't the only idiot on the block and certainly wasn't the biggest one.

Did the Swiss sell their gold against the advice of their equivalent of the BoE and their advisors?

I can understand selling something if you need to raise money, but to do so when you don’t and against the recommendations of your advisors is pure and utter folly.

You could almost forgive winky as he’d never been in a position where he had to control any serious size of business before, but given the vigour with which he’s attacked the banking industry, I think he deserves everything he’s going to get

[B Oeuf]

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

[herewego]

B Oeuf said:

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

That's help in the form of unlimited loans at 0.5% while our mortgages are at 5%. It's no wonder the banks coffers are filling and the bankers helping themselves to it.

[Guybrush]

AndrewW-G said:

One of the things that I disagree with is that the first term of labour was a continuation of Conservative policy. During the 1997-2001 term, Labour systematically sold off every asset they could to fund their election promise, without drawing attention from the masses, e.g. 400 tons of gold at the lowest point in the gold market in recent times.

It’s been a massive ponzi scam from start to finish, only the truly gullible have believed that it is anything but a co-ordinated grab for power from the socialists with a far wider agenda than they have ever dared to publish.

The Nazi-esque tactics employed by labour to smear any opposition, should be a warning to us all

Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 12th December 02:14

Absolutely correct, and anyone who has believed in the Labour spin is either a deceiver themself or a plain fool.

[NoelWatson]

B Oeuf said:

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

Some merkin

[NoelWatson]

herewego said:

B Oeuf said:

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

That's help in the form of unlimited loans at 0.5% while our mortgages are at 5%. It's no wonder the banks coffers are filling and the bankers helping themselves to it.

Can you explain what 0.5% and 5% refer to please, as what you are saying makes no sense?

[rypt]

NoelWatson said:

herewego said:

B Oeuf said:

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

That's help in the form of unlimited loans at 0.5% while our mortgages are at 5%. It's no wonder the banks coffers are filling and the bankers helping themselves to it.

Can you explain what 0.5% and 5% refer to please, as what you are saying makes no sense?

The money the banks get from BoE/Gov is at 0.5% interest, while they lend it to us at 5%

[NoelWatson]

rypt said:

NoelWatson said:

herewego said:

B Oeuf said:

Mclovin said:

herewego said:

The alternative to all this borrowing was as I understand it for the government to let the overstretched banks go to the wall followed by all those businesses dependant on them. Obviously the thought of seeing all those bankers on the street is appealing but would that have been better than where we are now?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 12th December 14:02

what banks though, people talk about it like it was the lot of them but wasnt it just northern rock, rbs and bradford....should have let them go to wall and let people rely on the fsa compensation...

Who was it said recently, there's not a bank in Britian that would be around now if it wasn't for the tax payer helping out?

That's help in the form of unlimited loans at 0.5% while our mortgages are at 5%. It's no wonder the banks coffers are filling and the bankers helping themselves to it.

Can you explain what 0.5% and 5% refer to please, as what you are saying makes no sense?

The money the banks get from BoE/Gov is at 0.5% interest, while they lend it to us at 5%

What money are getting at 0.5% interest?

What are they lending out at 5%?

Still confused