Bob Diamond resigns

[Filo]

If that's the case then I challenge you to find 10 examples out of the 100's that I've posted. I'm not holding my breath.

Still waiting. I'll make it easier. Can you find 5?

I can find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want to make you look foolish, you seem to be good at doing that yourself, without further input from me, I bet your parents regret the day they put you straight on the Cow & Gate

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here is the solution. We need to cut back on public spending so that taxes can be cut. This needs to be a gradual process. By doing it gradually we can take up the unemployed public sector workers in the then thriving private sector. We need to stop borrowing money and start to live within our means. We need to get the National Debt paid off. We need to harden up and accept a lower standard of living for the sake of future generations' tax bills. Simple really and I didn't need to read it in a book written by a crank economist.

Nice wish list Mick. A bit light on the "mechanics" that I was asking for. As in: how in practice would you get from A to B? How would your decisions translate into real-world effects?

Here's the question Mick. How do you get the private sector thriving. I want to see a thriving private sector. We need a thriving private sector. But you don't get it from the current situation if no-one is spending. Not possible, because who is the private sector going to sell to in order for it to thrive?

Businesses are not spending, because they are terrified of the future state if their markets. Can't blame them. Individuals are not spending, because they are hardening up, taking the medicine and learning to live within their means. Just like you my shining example friend. Can't blame them.

So. How is this private sector going to thrive?

Well, you could cut taxes, give more money to business and individuals. But business already has piles of ready cash. Almost £1trillion is sitting in the bank accounts of UK businesses. That money would ordinarily be re-invested, but now businesses are scared to invest it. So giving businesses tax cuts is pointless.

Individuals? If we give individuals tax cuts, will they use it to buy stuff, or to pay off their credit cards and debts? The latter of course. So giving tax cuts to individuals will not get the economy going.

Meantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.

I'll tell you again. There has only ever been one way to get out of the current situation. It is by Govt spending injecting demand into the economy. I'll tell you now: if we, America and Europe do not do that, and bloody soon, we are going to have 10%+ unemployment and rising debt for a decade. A perfect storm.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You were asking why the figure rose. I explained why it rose. It didn't matter whether the initial figure was 1.5, 1.5 million or 1.5 billion. I explained why it rose. Do you not even understand your own questions?

Your answer was based on NAIRU and an unemployment rate of 1.5m. You have not answered this question properly. You'll be pleased to know that I've now given up on getting a proper answer as there's only so many times I'm prepared to ask.

I apologise Mick. I clearly overestimated your intelligence.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with me. But if you are going to do, you ought to do us the courtesy of explaining what YOU think happened to sort out our debt problem after the War.

I wish you'd stop banging on about the war. In case you hadn't noticed the world has completely changed since then.

In what ways have the basic mechanics changed such that the Keynesian approach (which worked so spectacularly well back then) no longer applies. Not good enough to say things have changed. In what way have they changed?

And if they have changed, why is it that the mistakes that produced catastrophe all over the world in the 1930s caused catastrophe in Japan in the 90s. And are causing catastrophe in Spain right now?

How have things changed Mick?

And, by the way, where are those examples of countries in debt and recession getting up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates? One will do. Any one. Just one. Unless Mickonomics says that the whole of economic history counts for nothing and we will make it up on the hoof.

[mjdgreg]

I can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & Gate

You're obviously struggling so I'll make it even easier. Can you find 2?

[mjdgreg]

In what ways have the basic mechanics changed such that the Keynesian approach (which worked so spectacularly well back then) no longer applies. Not good enough to say things have changed. In what way have they changed?

And if they have changed, why is it that the mistakes that produced catastrophe all over the world in the 1930s caused catastrophe in Japan in the 90s. And are causing catastrophe in Spain right now?

How have things changed mjdgreg?

I refer you to Jim Callaghan who I quoted earlier on in the thread. You must try reading my posts properly. Another factor affecting Japan and Spain and many other countries now that did not affect countries back then is the massive inflation in house prices. Property booms caused a lot of the problems in Spain and Japan (and the UK amongst others). Modern technology has made the world far more inter-dependent so what happens in one country now has much more of an impact in other countries.

I could go on but I'm sure by now you are getting my drift. So I'd appreciate it if you could stop going back so far in history to try and justify your outlandish views.

[mjdgreg]

Here's the question mjdgreg. How do you get the private sector thriving. I want to see a thriving private sector. We need a thriving private sector. But you don't get it from the current situation if no-one is spending. Not possible, because who is the private sector going to sell to in order for it to thrive?

Your argument is once again totally flawed. You say no-one is spending. Not true. I'm spending. Plenty of my mates are loaded and are spending. For example I'm currently saving up to buy another house for cash to rent out to some unfortunate person who can't afford to buy one themselves. One of my friends is currently developing some land to put a roof over other unfortunate soul's heads. Once we get people in these homes and start to collect the rent then we will save this and do the same again. The virtuous circle continues.

There are plenty of people like me and my mates that have got money coming out of there ears and are prepared to invest it for the good of the economy. You on the other hand want all those people in debt to get even more debt. Take those rose-tinted blinkers off and realise that the sensible thing for them to do is to clear their debts, not add to them. So your spending theory falls flat on it's face because it doesn't apply to the real world.

My solution is perfectly sensible. Tax cuts would give everyone more money in their pocket. I could buy more houses, cars etc and people in debt could clear their debts quicker and one day hopefully become like me and be a net contributor to society. Question. Who do you trust with your money the most to make good use of it? Politicians or yourself? A one word answer will do. Please don't make me ask several times before you finally answer me.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & Gate

You're obviously struggling so I'll make it even easier. Can you find 2?

Lovely. There's one in this very thread.

In post 37, you said, "Giving the BoE full control of interest rates led to monetary policy being too relaxed in the run up to the financial crash." (my emphasis).

In post 40, barely an hour and a half later, you said "He (i.e. Brown) would never have left the BoE FULLY in charge of interest rates without sticking his oar in."
A complete contradiction there in the space of 4 posts.

The other contradiction is your insistence that you are not MadMick, when you are in fact MadMick.

QED.

Any chance of you shutting up now?

[mjdgreg]

And, by the way, where are those examples of countries in debt and recession getting up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates? One will do. Any one. Just one. Unless Mickonomics says that the whole of economic history counts for nothing and we will make it up on the hoof.

Why you keep asking me for an answer to these types of question is a mystery to me. I've never said that a country can get up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates as the only way to achieve growth. It can be part of the solution depending on a country's situation. I don't know why you infer that I have.

If you read some of my more recent posts (and some of my old ones) you will see that what I advocate is CUTTING TAXES and cutting spending as the broad solution. Obviously there are many other factors that go into the strategy but these are the fundamental basics of where you start from. I believe in cutting taxes and reducing spending to a sensible level. You believe in taking even more tax off people and in spending and borrowing money we haven't got. You want us to keep living beyond our means and pass the bill on to future generations. I don't think that's fair and is downright immoral.

[mjdgreg]

Lovely. There's one in this very thread.

In post 37, you said, "Giving the BoE full control of interest rates led to monetary policy being too relaxed in the run up to the financial crash." (my emphasis).

In post 40, barely an hour and a half later, you said "He (i.e. Brown) would never have left the BoE FULLY in charge of interest rates without sticking his oar in."
A complete contradiction there in the space of 4 posts.

The other contradiction is your insistence that you are not MadMick, when you are in fact mjdgreg

.

Context Billy, context. You omit to say that I prefaced this statement with the following:

'However I'm in a good mood so I am going to humour you. I'm going to pretend for a short while that I inhabit the same parallel universe that you do. I'm going to assume that the BoE was given control of interest rates without political influence and make the case as to why this was yet another bad decision'.

Not a very good try and you have made yourself look a bit daft. Anyone reading that would know that I don't believe the BoE was given control of interest rates without political influence. All I did was make an argument that even if they had, it could still be pointed out that it was a bad decision.

[BillyStubbsTears]

In what ways have the basic mechanics changed such that the Keynesian approach (which worked so spectacularly well back then) no longer applies. Not good enough to say things have changed. In what way have they changed?

And if they have changed, why is it that the mistakes that produced catastrophe all over the world in the 1930s caused catastrophe in Japan in the 90s. And are causing catastrophe in Spain right now?

How have things changed mjdgreg?

I refer you to Jim Callaghan who I quoted earlier on in the thread. You must try reading my posts properly. Another factor affecting Japan and Spain and many other countries now that did not affect countries back then is the massive inflation in house prices. Property booms caused a lot of the problems in Spain and Japan (and the UK amongst others). Modern technology has made the world far more inter-dependent so what happens in one country now has much more of an impact in other countries.

I could go on but I'm sure by now you are getting my drift. So I'd appreciate it if you could stop going back so far in history to try and justify your outlandish views.

1) I know exactly what Jim Callaghan said. He was wrong. Selectively quoting a particular speech, made for a particular audience at a particular time (the context being that there was a huge argument going on in the Labour party over whether to continue with Keynesian approaches) does not make a concrete argument.

You want to know why he was wrong? Because his argument was based on incorrect figures from the Treasury.

At the time of Callaghan's speech, the Labour Govt had been told by Treasury officials that the money had run out, that our deficit was too high. As a result, Britain couldn't borrow on the bond markets and had to take an IMF bailout. The conditions of that bailout were a rejection of the Keynesian approach and savage cuts in public spending. There was a gun being held to Callaghan's head by the IMF who said, "Chuck out the Keynesianism or you are bankrupt." That tore the Labour party apart. Callaghan was on the side of taking the bailout and the cuts. THAT is why he made that speech.

But it turned out that the Treasury figures were wildly incorrect. The deficit was nowhere near as high as they had said. If the correct figure had been known at the time, there would have been no need for an IMF bailout, no need for the cuts, no need for Callaghan's speech.

Don't take my word for it. Read what (Tory supporter) Andrew Marr has to say about it in his book A History of Modern Britain.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fZ-LL5h-rW4C&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=healey+imf+treasury+mistake&source=bl&ots=4hsx06GQbp&sig=L5Eyxm4vDdz8ab2zy30GHQoLM0M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dab-T5kV6c3RBbLtzacH&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=healey%20imf%20treasury%20mistake&f=false

In any case, you've told me remorselessly that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. How can you base an argument on a speech from 36 years ago? Contradiction No.3.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Lovely. There's one in this very thread.

In post 37, you said, "Giving the BoE full control of interest rates led to monetary policy being too relaxed in the run up to the financial crash." (my emphasis).

In post 40, barely an hour and a half later, you said "He (i.e. Brown) would never have left the BoE FULLY in charge of interest rates without sticking his oar in."
A complete contradiction there in the space of 4 posts.

The other contradiction is your insistence that you are not MadMick, when you are in fact mjdgreg

.

Context Billy, context. 

Context was that you said one thing, then flatly contradicted yourself 4 posts later. That was the context.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And, by the way, where are those examples of countries in debt and recession getting up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates? One will do. Any one. Just one. Unless Mickonomics says that the whole of economic history counts for nothing and we will make it up on the hoof.

Why you keep asking me for an answer to these types of question is a mystery to me. I've never said that a country can get up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates as the only way to achieve growth. It can be part of the solution depending on a country's situation. I don't know why you infer that I have.

If you read some of my more recent posts (and some of my old ones) you will see that what I advocate is CUTTING TAXES and cutting spending as the broad solution. Obviously there are many other factors that go into the strategy but these are the fundamental basics of where you start from. I believe in cutting taxes and reducing spending to a sensible level. You believe in taking even more tax off people and in spending and borrowing money we haven't got. You want us to keep living beyond our means and pass the bill on to future generations. I don't think that's fair and is downright immoral.

I refer you to post 121 for the explanation of why cutting taxes will not work. I want a happy and wealthy future for my kids. That will not happen by cutting public spending and taxes right now. That is the recipe for building in a fixed Depression. THAT is what will destroy the future for our kids.

I would rather my kids pay higher taxes in an economy which has grown even more than pay low taxes in an economy that is on its knees.

[Filo]

I can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & Gate

I`m obviously struggling BST has made me look a right tool!

See Mick, you`re not the only one that can edit quotes! That Cow & Gate you were put on was probably Aldi`s own brand and a dodgy batch at that and explains your mental dysfunction

[mjdgreg]

In any case, you've told me remorselessly that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. How can you base an argument on a speech from 36 years ago? Contradiction No.3.

I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. your so full of contradictions it's untrue. I use the Jim Callaghan quote just to highlight what a joke the party were even back then and because he was Prime Minister of the party you love. This was only part of my argument. Of course we can learn the lessons from history, but banging on about the war all the time is ridiculous. Context Billy, context.

[BillyStubbsTears]

In any case, you've told me remorselessly that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. How can you base an argument on a speech from 36 years ago? Contradiction No.3.

I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. your so full of contradictions it's untrue. I use the Jim Callaghan quote just to highlight what a joke the party were even back then and because he was Prime Minister of the party you love. This was only part of my argument. Of course we can learn the lessons from history, but banging on about the war all the time is ridiculous. Context Billy, context.

Ping!
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=233536.msg251513#msg251513

Next please...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Interesting...that's three posts that have been deleted on posting in the last 2 days

[BillyStubbsTears]

I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. your so full of contradictions it's untrue.

Ping!
Have a look at post 47 in this very thread.

I quote..."Banging on about the years after the war and Japan 20 years ago is not relevant to today's circumstances. The financial world has completely changed since then."

Next!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Meantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.

I agree with this but then remember the flip side and the flaw in Ed Balls' argument, his proposed VAT cut has an even bigger reduction in revenue and requires a bigger growth in the economy, it wouldn't work.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.

I agree with this but then remember the flip side and the flaw in Ed Balls' argument, his proposed VAT cut has an even bigger reduction in revenue and requires a bigger growth in the economy, it wouldn't work.

BFYP.

There's a reason why VAT is a particularly powerful tool for adjusting demand. It's because it changes the price of things.

Cutting income tax, or NI contributions would put money into people's pockets or companies' accounts. But they are then unliekly to spend that money.

Psychologically, if the tax cut instead comes out as a reduction in price, people are more likely to buy goods and companies are more likely to buy items and services from each other. My own company last year put on hold the purchase of a major item of equipment because the VAT rise from 15-20% made it uneconomical for us to buy it.

If there is one tax that should be cut, it is VAT, because doing so will spur economic activity and therefore growth. There is nothing at all that is more important at the moment than getting economic growth going. Nothing. Every other economic decision must be subordinated to that, otherwise, the attempts to cut the debt will be self-defeating.

[mjdgreg]

Ping!
Have a look at post 47 in this very thread.

I quote..."Banging on about the years after the war and Japan 20 years ago is not relevant to today's circumstances. The financial world has completely changed since then."

Context Billy, context. The war and Japan are 2 completely different sets of circumstances. Of course lessons can be learned from history. I'll explain in more simple terms for you. It's not relevant to base your whole argument on what happened after the war and what happened in Japan. Like I say, context Billy, context.

You'll be pleased to know I've got one almighty contradiction that you are guilty of which I'll be airing in the near future. There are many more contradictions I could point out but I'm sure the readers have already spotted them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

It's got sweet FA to do with context. It's about understanding of simple English.

First you say: "Banging on about the years after the war and Japan 20 years ago is not relevant to today's circumstances."

Then you bang on about an anti-Keynesian speech 36 years ago to help support your argument that Keynesianism doesn't work.

Then you say, "I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago."
But hang on a minute. Didn't you say that Japan 20 years ago was not relevant today.


So. What's the answer Mick? Can you take lessons from the past or can't you? (Or is it that you CAN take lessons from the past, but only when they support Mickonomics, and you ignore the lessons that undermine Mickonomics? Surely not Mick eh?)

If you can't take lessons from the past, then Callaghan's speech is irrelevant.

If you can take lessons from the past, then presumably, past experiences are a useful guide to what might happen today. If you don't agree with that, you need to explain in detail why the basic rules of economic analysis have changed in the last 20 or 70 years. And by that I don't just mean some airy-fairy "oh it's all global financial systems now". That is a statement, not an explanation. An explanation EXPLAINS why A leads to B. It doesn't say A has happened therefore B happens.

As an example, just to help you out. I have explained in detail how keeping Govt spending up in the current situation is utterly necessary to get growth going. I have backed up that explanation with examples of it working. I've also explained what the danger is of reducing Govt spending and explained the steps by which this leads to in-built stagnation. I've given examples of exactly this happening. THAT is what an explanation is.

So Mick. Detail. Why does the existence of global financial markets now mean that the Aggregate Demand analysis no longer applies?

[mjdgreg]

Interesting...that's three posts that have been deleted on posting in the last 2 days

Maybe the moderators have come round to my way of thinking and have started deleting your posts because they now realise that you are spouting rubbish!

[Filo]

Interesting...that's three posts that have been deleted on posting in the last 2 days

Maybe the moderators have come round to my way of thinking and have started deleting your posts because they now realise that you are spouting rubbish!

Wrong again Mick, at least you`re consistent, nothing at all has been deleted by the moderators, Cow & Gate have a lot to answer for!

[BillyStubbsTears]

You'll be pleased to know I've got one almighty contradiction that you are guilty of which I'll be airing in the near future. There are many more contradictions I could point out but I'm sure the readers have already spotted them.

Bring it on Mick. I never said I was perfect. If I've contradicted myself, then I will apologise and explain where the error is.

[mjdgreg]

Bring it on mjdgreg. I never said I was perfect. If I've contradicted myself, then I will apologise and explain where the error is.

Given your humility and acceptance that you are capable of huge contradictions I have now decided not to humiliate you. For now at least.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh Mick, you are a wag.

Faced down once again. I trust that poker's not your gambling speciality?

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, more support here for the argument that increasing Govt spending increases economic growth, whilst decreasing Govt spending decreases growth. This graph is what happened in the EU in 2011. The horizontal axis is change in Govt spending for each country, the vertical axis is the change in GDP.



Pretty straightforward story. Cut Govt spending and the economy flat-lines at best, contracts at worst. Increase Govt spending and the economy grows. AND, the growth is higher than the amount spent. So the overall debt as a proportion of GDP decreases. Just like it did across the world after WWII. Just Like Keynes says it will.

No history lesson. That is what is happening RIGHT NOW in Europe.

[mjdgreg]

Faced down once again. I trust that poker's not your gambling speciality?

You're asking for it. I refuse to rise to the bait because deep down I know you mean well, you are just misguided. Please don't make me do it or you may never be able to show your face around here again

[Filo]

Faced down once again. I trust that poker's not your gambling speciality?

You're asking for it. I refuse to rise to the bait because deep down I know you mean well, you are just misguided. Please don't make me do it or you may never be able to show your face around here again

Please do it, don`t leave us thicko`s in suspense put that raving leftie in his place, just one thing though before you humiliate him, can you put it in your own words, rather than copy/paste, it would give you so much more credibility!