Guy giving Bob Diamond a hard time on SKY now

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

Aside the fact you've ignored the overall trade deficit for goods AND services and gone with goods only (the figure being about double the former) and that much of our imports are productive inputs, a trade deficit corresponds to an equal capital surplus (i.e. money is invested rather than used to buy our consumables), so there is no net loss. The only (potential) problem here arises when government issues debt, providing an easier, safer alternative to foreigners' pounds than other investment projects, which may crowd out said private sector investment.

Bullst. That is the official figure. What you describe as productive inputs are totally subjective. You have no data to support it. And if a trade deficit is such a wonderful thing why don't we run an even bigger one, all the time?

Answer: People sell us stuff because they have to to keep their businesses going, not to invest in the pound sterling, which I imagine they get out of as fast as their little legs will carry them. When the pound ultimately does become worthless, which I am totally confident it will, they won't, however much of it we offer them. Porsche currently accept a lot less for a 911 in UK than they do in Germany, but there is a limit, and it comes when they can do better selling elsewhere, and they are not desperate to shift stock.

Finally, I agree with munky and you that in current inflationary phase the stock market is the best of a series of poor options. That is what I was saying.

Kindly don't try to blind us with your hokey economics. It's not science and it's not even clever.

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

Other things which add value.

Like financial services for example!

Capital is leaving UK Banks and 'Investment Banks' like an avalanche. I know this straight from the horses mouth. Because they don't trust them.

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

cardigankid said:

And you place credence on a report produced by PWC paid for by persons unknown? How many dodgy companies have they signed off accounts for?

Along the bottom of every graph reads: "Source: UK Office for National Statistics/Bank of England/EuroStat/etc".

Wowee! How naive can you get?

[Soovy]

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:41

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

FAO anyone who thinks we don't make anything anymore:

The future of UK manufacturing: Reports of its death are greatly exaggerated

I recommend anyone who wants a laugh to read that report. Its in the same league as all the posters telling us that RBS staff have signed a charter promising to come and dig our gardens and walk Mrs. Buggins' dog. (Easier I suppose than providing a professional banking service) It is all pure crap to pull the wool over the suckers' eyes.

We can't build ships, we can't build aircraft, we can only build cars if the Yanks, Jerries or Japs hold our hand. We have got a few little operators in low tech industries surviving by grim determination. We lead the world in nothing. Our Universities only rank highly because they are quaint and picturesque. Academically Yale, Harvard, and MIT, as well as the rest, knock them into a cocked hat. All the UK is, is a hick tourist destination where the roads are potholed and the drains don't work. It's over, finished, and it's time to go. Do you not get it?

This is a nation with a terminal death wish and its only being kept alive for the benefit of the flies crawling on the corpse. By which I mean people like Bob Diamond.

[cardigankid]

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Again, the articles referenced are a load of propaganda. The clue is in the words 'Daily Telegraph', which is read exclusively by wealthy blimps from London and the Home Counties. Are property values in London falling? No. These people don't spend money out of charity. Indeed I suspect that charity is a concept that is totally alien to them. They will pay as little as they can for as much as they can get, and they will do that whether they are resident here or not. How many people actually 'live' in Monaco? Damn few - the place wouldn't support life. All it is is a postal address they can use to avoid tax.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 13th January 14:03

[Soovy]

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

[ZondaMark]

cardigankid said:

That is the official figure.

From the ONS et al, which you later talk down. Which is it to be?

cardigankid said:

What you describe as productive inputs are totally subjective.

No it isn't. Individuals and households generally don't have much need or desire for raw materials and components.

cardigankid said:

And if a trade deficit is such a wonderful thing why don't we run an even bigger one, all the time?

The point is that neither is necessarily bad or good, and they simply quantify our preferences as a nation (irrelevent, one could argue, as it is individuals, households and businesses which trade with each other, not countries, arbitrarily separated by national borders) for current consumption over future consumption. If we want to consume more than we make, we buy it from elsewhere, and leave it to foriegners who now have our money to invest in our economy (as they can't use it in their own). Further, with regards finished goods/services, it is of course in our best interests to import if the import is cheaper/better. If cheaper, our real wealth is increased as we have greater spending power; if better, we're happier with our purchases.

cardigankid said:

Answer: People sell us stuff because they have to to keep their businesses going, not to invest in the pound sterling, which I imagine they get out of as fast as their little legs will carry them.

If they want out, they exchange it for their desired currency with someone else who wants the sterling. If no one wanted the sterling, they wouldn't trade with us in the first place.

cardigankid said:

Finally, I agree with munky and you that in current inflationary phase the stock market is the best of a series of poor options. That is what I was saying.

OK, apologies for the confusion.

cardigankid said:

Kindly don't try to blind us with your hokey economics.

What I have offered here in this thread is nothing more than logic and simple accounting identities - no theory. All according to my understanding (which given my education/training in Economics and Finance, I would like to think reliable), of course, so if you think you know better and can objectively justify it, let's hear it.

Kindly refrain from patronising me - it does you no favours, and nor is it warranted, as I have given you no reason to do so.

[Sticks.]

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Right, so he moved the £1.2bn offshore so he could give more to charity. What a saint.

[ZondaMark]

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Could you please explain how money actually 'leaves' the UK?

[Soovy]

Sticks. said:

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Right, so he moved the £1.2bn offshore so he could give more to charity. What a saint.

He moved it so he could keep more if it to use as he wishes, rather than having it stolen by the gubberment to pay for bandy legged slappers to get free houses next door to illegal immigrants who are also handed them under the auspices of "ooooman rahhhhhts".

[southendpier]

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

That's interesting, so how much of the reported £300m avoidance/evasion (2005) does this decent bloke give to "charity" each year?

Also "charity"... these days is another word for political pressure group.

[cardigankid]

Soovy said:

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

So he has one friend, and now we know who that is. The man is a disgusting vampire, only interested in amassing and keeping his own wealth, and doesn't give a twopenny toss about the UK.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 13th January 14:33

[Soovy]

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

So he has one friend, and now we know who that is. The man is a revolting vampire, only interested in amassing and keeping his own wealth, and doesn't give a twopenny toss about the UK.

I assume you've met him then? Thought not.

I can imagine you spit a little bit when you speak.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 14:11

[ZondaMark]

cardigankid said:

I recommend anyone who wants a laugh to read that report.

Just which data sources would you trust, exactly? You've so far offered nothing but your own opinion. I'm happy to be corrected, but you've not done anything to prove your points.

Can you also explain why things other than tangible manufactures, which are equally - if not more so - as profitable as said manufactures, don't add value and create wealth? The discussion's just going to go round and round in circles otherwise.

[Sticks.]

Soovy said:

He moved it so he could keep more if it to use as he wishes, rather than having it stolen by the gubberment to pay for bandy legged slappers to get free houses next door to illegal immigrants who are also handed them under the auspices of "ooooman rahhhhhts".

Well, as long as he only took that bit then that's fine. If he also took the bit which pays for hospitals, schools and roads, that'd be irritating. Still, such a nice bloke, he probably got a clever accountant to make sure he didn't

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

If we want to consume more than we make, we buy it from elsewhere, and leave it to foriegners who now have our money to invest in our economy (as they can't use it in their own)

They don't use Sterling to invest in our economy. They sell it for what they can get. More often than not they will oblige UK purchasers to change Sterling first and pay them in their own currency. No one but a purblind fool holds Sterling these days. Even old ladies hold savings accounts in foreign currencies, and have no doubt benefitted greatly from doing so. And you think UK Government Bonds are a tempting investment? To whom, the Chuckle Brothers? How long can they keep interest rates low?

You may be qualified in economics, and I have no intention of patronising you, but it is not a science, and some of the things you say fly in the face of the bleeding obvious. If we constantly consume more than we make, for example, despite your 'proving' that black is apparently white, we are going bust. There is no doubt that we will go bust because the UK is woefully inefficient in global terms - the Chinese would eat us - but voters are too detached from economic reality to recognise it and therefore won't accept adequate austerity measures. What the Govt are doing just now is little more than window dressing.

[southendpier]

Sticks. said:

Soovy said:

He moved it so he could keep more if it to use as he wishes, rather than having it stolen by the gubberment to pay for bandy legged slappers to get free houses next door to illegal immigrants who are also handed them under the auspices of "ooooman rahhhhhts".

Well, as long as he only took that bit then that's fine. If he also took the bit which pays for hospitals, schools and roads, that'd be irritating. Still, such a nice bloke, he probably got a clever accountant to make sure he didn't

Aye, if he did not pay tax he should have then he is as bad as those that take tax handouts that should not. End of.

Mind you if he put a couple of pennies in the "Help a Hero" jar when it was shaken at him then we can let him off eh?

[cardigankid]

ZondaMark said:

cardigankid said:

I recommend anyone who wants a laugh to read that report.

Just which data sources would you trust, exactly? You've so far offered nothing but your own opinion. I'm happy to be corrected, but you've not done anything to prove your points.

Can you also explain why things other than tangible manufactures, which are equally - if not more so - as profitable as said manufactures, don't add value and create wealth? The discussion's just going to go round and round in circles otherwise.

Because you are talking about 'invisible exports', and that is today a discredited financial sector whose confidence tricks fewer and fewer people, particularly international investors, are going to back. They don't add value, they rarely create wealth other than for themselves. I've met foreign investment bankers and I've met British ones and I wouldn't trust the latter further than I could throw them.

The Office for National Statistics is no doubt a worthy organisation, and I accept their estimate of the trade deficit because that is the best available figure. I do not however have much faith in all the fancy graphs and diagrams, and still less in that glossy PWC bumf which reads as if it was written by Mr Chumley Warner. 'British manufacturing - reports of its death are greatly exaggerated'. Can you imagine how pleased they were with themselves when they thought up that slogan? It reminds me of the brochures you used to get at air displays telling you how the British aircraft industry led the world. It didn't and it doesn't. It picks up the odd scrap from the Yanks table when they are decent enough to throw us it.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 13th January 14:31

[ZondaMark]

cardigankid said:

They don't use Sterling to invest in our economy. They sell it for what they can get.

Yes, to someone who does want it. If they couldn't do that, they wouldn't trade in the first place. It doesn't just disappear.

cardigankid said:

More often than not they will oblige UK purchasers to change Sterling first and pay them in their own currency.

In which case, the UK purchasers must sell to someone who wants it instead. If no one wanted it, they wouldn't be able to exchange it.

cardigankid said:

No one but a purblind fool holds Sterling these days.

They may be a fool, in your opinion (or indeed mine), but they must have some use for it, or they wouldn't hold it - not everyone has the same use or time horizon for it.

cardigankid said:

And you think UK Government Bonds are a tempting investment?

Please quote the bit where I recommended gilts as a 'buy'. I only mentioned them as a constraint to the level of foreign investment in our private economy, given their historical reputation. I'm not arguing either way regarding the future of the pound and British economy - merely that this issue has nothing to do with a trade deficit.

cardigankid said:

You may be qualified in economics, and I have no intention of patronising you, but it is not a science, and some of the things you say fly in the face of the bleeding obvious.

You're not explaining just what this is, focusing on the 'seen' and ignoring the 'unseen', with the result not adding up.

cardigankid said:

If we constantly consume more than we make, for example, despite your 'proving' that black is apparently white, we are going bust.

It's not consuming more than we make, but more than we want/need that we make and would rather consume now than invest for the future (the latter then left to trading partners), and I'm sorry, but your understanding of the economics of trade and accounting identities is fundamentally flawed unless you can show me where all these pounds go if no one wants them. As I've said before, our trade partners only trade with us if it is beneficial to them. The things we make are not exclusively tangible 'stuff' which we want; we offer other goods and services others want, and we also offer investment projects (inc. gov't debt, which is thus a problem). When we buy something from them, they can choose one of the aforementioned; if either the first or second, we export to them; if the last, trade deficit widens but the capital surplus increases (and we have a balance of payments). Money does not disappear, as you imply, but is shifted between present and future horizons.

cardigankid said:

There is no doubt that we will go bust because the UK is woefully inefficient in global terms - the Chinese would eat us - but voters are too detached from economic reality to recognise it and therefore won't accept adequate austerity measures. What the Govt are doing just now is little more than window dressing.

As before, I'm not arguing this issue (indeed, I agree with much of what you say here), just that the future of the British economy is not dependent on the trade balance. A double/twin deficit (trade & fiscal), yes, but the problem there is government (as you clearly know), not trade.

EFS.

Edited by ZondaMark on Thursday 13th January 16:37