Bob Diamond resigns

[mjdgreg]

Pretty straightforward story. Cut Govt spending and the economy re-balances to a level where everyone is at last living within their means. Increase Govt spending and the National debt increases and eventually you go bankrupt. So the overall debt as a proportion of GDP increases. Just Like Schiff says it will.

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

[mjdgreg]

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!

With friends like you why would Billy need enemies. No I still can't bring myself to do it. Even though we disagree vehemently about things I do have a sneaking respect for him because he is a fighter. No matter how many times I prove him wrong he keeps on coming back for more. Respect.

[Filo]

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!

With friends like you why would Billy need enemies. No I still can't bring myself to do it. Even though we disagree vehemently about things I do have a sneaking respect for him because he is a fighter. No matter how many times he prove`s me wrong I keep on coming back for more. Respect.

Glad to see you`re coming round Mick, I`m sure BST accepts your apology!

[mjdgreg]

Glad to see you`re coming round Mick, I`m sure BST accepts your apology!

Even though you're nicking my jokes I have to admit you did make me laugh. Well done.

[mjdgreg]

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.

If the public sector is reduced to a more sensible level then the private sector won't have to pay so much to keep it going. If taxes are cut for the private sector this will also mean they've got more money. If taxes are cut for private individuals they will also have more money. Now a combination of private companies having more money and private individuals having more money can only mean one thing. They will have to find a home for this money. Some companies and private individuals will pay off debts and rightly so. It stands to reason that even companies like this will be prepared to take more of a risk when they've got more money to play with and they can see that their customers have got more money in their pockets. Many others like me will invest and spend more money in the economy, thus creating a virtuous circle.

There are plenty of businesses that want to expand and can't get the money to do it. Having more money in the system will make it easier for them to get the money they need. It is untrue to just say no-one is spending and no businesses are wanting to invest and expand.

You also only ever seem to go on about the British consumer as the saviour of the economy if only they would spend. What about consumers in the rest of the world? Why don't you ever consider for a second that there are billions of other consumers out there that could buy stuff from us? Why do you only have the narrow view that the British consumer is the only one that can spend our way out of trouble? We did have a Commonwealth before you know. There are many other countries as well that we could sell to. Shouldn't be too hard to sell stuff to them if only we'd make the effort and stop pinning all our hopes on Europe. So I'll ask you again. Who do you trust with your money the most to make good use of it? Politicians or yourself? A one word answer will do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

At last, a detailed critique. Thanks. We've been waiting long enough.

Trouble is Mick, now it's even easier to pick holes in your argument. Let's begin.

If taxes are cut for private individuals they will also have more money. Now a combination of private companies having more money and private individuals having more money can only mean one thing. They will have to find a home for this money. Some companies and private individuals will pay off debts and rightly so. It stands to reason that even companies like this will be prepared to take more of a risk when they've got more money to play with and they can see that their customers have got more money in their pockets. Many others like me will invest and spend more money in the economy, thus creating a virtuous circle.

Yep. That's the idea of the Austerity Gang. If companies and individuals have more money, they will invest more and we'll get a virtuous circle going.

That is correct in normal times. But we're not in normal times. We're in the depths of the worst Depression in 80 years. And in Depressions, people and companies don't behave like that. They are scared of the future. They don't spend/invest; they hoard money. Quite understandable. I've cut back my spending. Many others have cut back their spending. Because we are worried about the future.

UK businesses are currently sitting on a larger pot of liquid money than they have ever done in history. About £75bn t the last assessment, and rising. According to your theory, they should ALREADY be investing that money in their businesses.

But hang on a minute. What does "investing in their businesses" mean? It means taking on new workers. it means building new factories, offices, plant etc. It means expanding their capability so that they can produce and sell more.

But WHO TO? The whole developed world is scraping along the bottom. Markets are not expanding. There is no demand for more output. So businesses, quite sensibly, don't invest. They sit on the money.

They leave the money in bank accounts, even though the interest rates are miserable. At times over the last year, German and American banks have offered  NEGATIVE interest rates. They have charged to deposit money with them! And STILL businesses have preferred to put money into those accounts (for safety) than invest it. THAT is the scale of the problem that we have at the moment Mick. The conventional idea that it you give people money, they will spend it no longer applies.

You don't have to believe me.  Look at this article in the Telegraph Business section from last year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8718999/Business-investment-set-to-hit-record-low-amid-fears-for-UK-growth.html

Look at the first two paragraphs.

Business investment in Britain is heading for its lowest level on record, according to Barclays Capital, raising concerns about a key plank of the Government's growth strategy.
Figures on Friday are expected to show that companies are not spending despite the Government's best efforts to encourage corporate activity by slashing employers' National Insurance contributions and corporation tax.

Exactly what I said above. EXACTLY what Keynesian theory said 80 years ago.
QED.

I'm afraid that you fundamentally misunderstand what a deep recession/Depression is Mick. It is a basic, widespread and persistent loss of confidence in the state of the economy. You don't get out of a recession/Depression by magic. You get out of it once people and businesses start to feel optimistic about the future. You need confidence that growth will come. You'll scream about this, but you need to believe that INFLATION will come, partly because inflation goes with growth, and partly because if you think inflation is coming, you will spend now because your money will be worth less and so you will spend.

Next:

There are plenty of businesses that want to expand and can't get the money to do it. Having more money in the system will make it easier for them to get the money they need. It is untrue to just say no-one is spending and no businesses are wanting to invest and expand.

Of course it's not true that NO businesses r individuals are spending. Just not enough of them. Nowhere near enough of them.

Next.

You also only ever seem to go on about the British consumer as the saviour of the economy if only they would spend. What about consumers in the rest of the world? Why don't you ever consider for a second that there are billions of other consumers out there that could buy stuff from us? Why do you only have the narrow view that the British consumer is the only one that can spend our way out of trouble? We did have a Commonwealth before you know. There are many other countries as well that we could sell to. Shouldn't be too hard to sell stuff to them if only we'd make the effort and stop pinning all our hopes on Europe.

I agree 100%. But that is a long-run issue. We are not going to suddenly, overnight, start exporting stuff from Polypipe to villages in Thailand. That change witll take a decade or more of hard slog.

I'm talking about what we do NOW. To get out of this Depression in the next year or so. What is required is demand stimulation across the board in UK, Europe and USA. In particular for us, Europe is the key. It is vital that Germany starts to release the reins and encourage their consumers to spend. But they won't this side of next year's Election. After that, with Merkel out on her arse and a centre-left Govt in place, there is a chance. In the meantime, how utterly hypocritical of Cameron to be lecturing Germany to do exactly this (which he has been non-stop for a year now) whilst he flatly refuses to do it at home. Cameron is saying to Germany, "YOU start spending to help US out." Merkel has every right to tell him to get f***ed (even though that is the wrong decision).

Next year, centre-left Govts in France, Germany and a re-elected Obama with a renewed mandate give the developed world a chance at getting out of this hole. And that combination will put intolerable pressure on Cameron to join in. You never know. The Lib dems might even remember what platform they fought the Election on, and start putting their own pressure on Cameron for a change of policy.

So I'll ask you again. Who do you trust with your money the most to make good use of it? Politicians or yourself? A one word answer will do.

At the moment? In the current circumstances? Given that I will simply use the money to pay down my mortgage, and that will keep the economy in crisis? It is far, far beneficial for ALL of us for Govt to spend money kick starting the economy rather than give it out in tax cuts. Far better. For all the reasons I've stated.

Give us money in our pockets and we'll all feel a bit better now. We'll pay off a little bit of our debts and feel a little bit better. But that will not increase demand in the economy. It will not increase the demand for jobs. In a years time, we'll have a bit less personal debt, but the economy will still be scraping along the bottom, and in the meantime, Govt debt will have gone up, because they've given us money to pay off our personal debt. The whole stock of debt in the country will be no less than it was.

Increase Govt spending for the purpose of kick starting the economy, and we'll all be better off in 5 years.

No brainer.

[mjdgreg]

In 2007-2008 the basic problem with the UK economy was that we had too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and saving. What happened was that a lot of British consumers basically stopped consuming and started rebuilding their savings and paying off debts, especially when they saw the equity in their homes disappearing.

Unfortunately due to interest rates being kept too low for too long, our housing bubble hasn’t burst yet, it’s just slowly deflating. I reckon there’s at least another 30% fall in house prices on the way over the next few years so consumer confidence is not going to return anytime soon. When you have the economy 70% consumption, you can’t address those imbalances without a recession.

The solution is to embrace a recession rather than try to resist one. The disease is all this debt-financed consumption. The cure is that we stop consuming and start saving and producing again. That’s called a recession. Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you’ve got to swallow it if you want to be cured. All we’ve done since 2007-2008 is carry on in the same way as before and the basic problem still exists today.

Unless we change course as I have previously advocated, I forecast that another economic crisis will strike at the very heart of the UK economy. It will sweep through the monetary system itself and precipitate a massive sterling and Treasury bond crisis.

We still consume more than we produce and we borrow abroad, but we are never going to be able to pay this money back. Borrowing even more (if they’ll let us) is lunacy. When the economic crisis hits, your money might not be safe. The banks will not be able to withstand a big drop in the bond market because that’s what coming, and will not be bailed out again.

The solution is that we need to at last bite the bullet and raise interest rates during the recession to confront the inefficiencies. I argue that the easy money policies and the debt-based economy is what caused the problem in the first place and more of the same will only make it worse. Instead, I believe a recession is a necessary transition of the economy from a debt and consumption-based economy to a production-based economy that creates real wealth and real jobs. A recession need not be all bad. In a deflationary recession, real wages will rise because the cost of goods will fall faster.

[The L J Monk]

In 2007-2008 the basic problem with the UK economy was that we had too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and saving. What happened was that a lot of British consumers basically stopped consuming and started rebuilding their savings and paying off debts, especially when they saw the equity in their homes disappearing.

Unfortunately due to interest rates being kept too low for too long, our housing bubble hasn’t burst yet, it’s just slowly deflating. I reckon there’s at least another 30% fall in house prices on the way over the next few years so consumer confidence is not going to return anytime soon. When you have the economy 70% consumption, you can’t address those imbalances without a recession.

The solution is to embrace a recession rather than try to resist one. The disease is all this debt-financed consumption. The cure is that we stop consuming and start saving and producing again. That’s called a recession. Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you’ve got to swallow it if you want to be cured. All we’ve done since 2007-2008 is carry on in the same way as before and the basic problem still exists today.

Unless we change course as I have previously advocated, I forecast that another economic crisis will strike at the very heart of the UK economy. It will sweep through the monetary system itself and precipitate a massive sterling and Treasury bond crisis.

We still consume more than we produce and we borrow abroad, but we are never going to be able to pay this money back. Borrowing even more (if they’ll let us) is lunacy. When the economic crisis hits, your money might not be safe. The banks will not be able to withstand a big drop in the bond market because that’s what coming, and will not be bailed out again.

The solution is that we need to at last bite the bullet and raise interest rates during the recession to confront the inefficiencies. I argue that the easy money policies and the debt-based economy is what caused the problem in the first place and more of the same will only make it worse. Instead, I believe a recession is a necessary transition of the economy from a debt and consumption-based economy to a production-based economy that creates real wealth and real jobs. A recession need not be all bad. In a deflationary recession, real wages will rise because the cost of goods will fall faster.

Mick, you must be getting old, you keep forgetting to reference your sources. Here you go: http://unconditional.co.nz/stevekoerber/2008/12/04/how-will-the-global-financial-crisis-affect-us/

You should be careful, someone who didn't know any better might think you were just passing off other people's opinion as your own. The very idea!

[mjdgreg]

You should be careful, someone who didn't know any better might think you were just passing off other people's opinion as your own. The very idea!

You have a very vivid imagination if you think the website you refer to is the same as my post. Listen, you've already had one very serious battering from me and I advise you to just let Billy take the battering this time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

There's a well established name for the approach that you are proposing (or that someone is proposing and you are cutting and pasting).

It's called the "Liquidationist" concept of recessions/Depressions.

It's decades old. It was the theory back at the end of the 1800s that recessions were somehow "necessary" to purge the economy of its rottenness. It's very attractive to moralists who see recessions as being the vengeance on a world that stopped playing by the rules.

It was Herbert Hoover's approach to the start of the Great Depression. His administration held back on Govt spending even as the economy was going off a cliff, with the consequence that it fell even further and faster than it needed to do.

It was the philosophy of the Austrian economist Freidrich Hayek (Schiff's idol by the way) who said "we may perhaps prevent a crisis by checking expansion in time, but that we can do nothing to get out of it before its natural end."

It was the philosophy of another Austrian economist, Josef Schumpeter (another idol of Schiff's) who said "The “job” of a recession is to clean the “fat” out of the system."

(Interesting by the way that Schumpeter and Hayek were both active around the time of the second world war - tell us Mick. Can we take lessons from their thoughts or has the world changed so much that what they say no longer applied? Eh?)

It was the approach used in 1930 by German Chancellor Heinrich Bruning, who responded to the onset of the Great Depression by massively cutting back state spending and allowing the collapse to "do it's work" in clearing out the badness in the economy. (Can you recall what the outcome of that "work" was Mick?)

Liquidationism, the idea that recessions are needed to correct the mistakes of the recent past is a philosophy as old as the hills. It is a quasi-religious belief that the recession punishes us for our sins, and by suffering, we come out purified and redeemed.

It is also utter codswallop, and was clearly and thoroughly refuted in Keynes's work (which kept us clear of major recessions for 35 years, until the Austrian philosophy crept in with Thatcher and Reagan). Thatcher told us in 1980 that we needed to go through suffering of interest rate rises and reductions in Govt spending to purify the economy and curb inflation. Some job that did. It put unemployment up to unheard of levels for a generation, and ten years later, we still had massive inflation and lack of competitiveness.

It doesn't work. It never has worked. It sounds logical, but when you look at the detail of it, it is profoundly and frighteningly illogical. And when it HAS been applied, it has resulted in astonishing and unnecessary suffering, and in some cases, the collapse of democracy.

[The L J Monk]

You should be careful, someone who didn't know any better might think you were just passing off other people's opinion as your own. The very idea!

You have a very vivid imagination if you think the website you refer to is the same as my post.

The disease is all this debt-financed consumption. The cure is that we stop consuming and start saving and producing again. That’s called a recession. Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you’ve got to swallow it if you want to be cured.
(Mick 2012)

vs

The disease currently afflicting the US (and most of the world) is debt finance consumption.  The cure is to stop consuming and start saving and producing again.  That means a recession – a normal economic phenomenon.  Sometimes medicines taste bad but they must be taken.
(Steve Koerber 2008)

Spooky!

Listen, you've already had one very serious battering from me and I advise you to just let Billy take the battering this time.

Following your advice doesn't seem to be doing the British economy much good. I think I'll completely ignore it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Unless we change course as I have previously advocated, I forecast that another economic crisis will strike at the very heart of the UK economy. It will sweep through the monetary system itself and precipitate a massive sterling and Treasury bond crisis.

Guess what your hero Peter Schiff said at the start of 2008.

"We believe the U.S. dollar is in a major long-term bear market, and as such recommend keeping exposure to the dollar at an absolute minimum. "

Guess what happened in 2008? The dollar increased in value against other currencies by 13%. Bond rates were 4% in Jan 08, 2% in Dec 08.

Just like you Mick, he wouldn't accept when he was wrong. In Dec 2008, he said
"2008 saw one of the most unexpected rallies in the history of the U.S. dollar.  However, we believe that the bottom will fall out of the Treasury market, causing a spike in bond rates and a collapse of the dollar."

Guess what's happened over the last 3 and a half years Mick? The Dollar Has had peaks and troughs as any currency does. It has never once fallen below the level that it was at when Schiff first made his prediction of collapse. It is currently where it was in mid 2008. Bonds are now at 1.5% and have been at or below 2% for the whole of the last 12 months.

Have a guess what Schiff said about inflation in early 2008.
"Unfortunately, we feel the most probable outcome is an inflationary depression, which could be more painful than the Great Depression. At that time, the burdens of unemployment and financial losses were at least offset by falling consumer prices. The worst case scenario this time, the odds of which seem to be increasing daily, involves a period of a hyper-inflation which could render the U.S. dollar, and all U.S. dollar-denominated assets, practically worthless."

Have a guess what's happened to American inflation since then...
Go on. Have a guess.

Wrong, time and time again. Schiff and the Austrians have been wrong on every single major prediction since the start of the great recession. He may well have predicted the great recession. So did many Keynesians. But his predictions since the start of the recession have been wild and wrong.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone that he keeps on hammering the same line. He runs an investment company that makes its decisions according to these guiding principles. If he turned round now and said, "You know what folks? We got the call on the dollar wrong. We got the call on inflation wrong. We got the call on band rates wrong." then who would stick with him.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Unless we change course as I have previously advocated, I forecast that another economic crisis will strike at the very heart of the UK economy. It will sweep through the monetary system itself and precipitate a massive sterling and Treasury bond crisis.

http://ivn.us/2012/04/03/peter-schiff-who-predicted-the-financial-crisis-forecasts-the-worst-to-come-around-2013/

Have a look at that website Mick. Have a look at what your hero Peter Schiff said back in April. In fact, I'll save you the trouble. In fact, you don't really even need to look do you?

But here it is anyway. He said that he was:

forecasting another economic crisis that will strike at the very heart of the U.S. economy, sweeping through the monetary system itself and precipitating a massive U.S. dollar and Treasury bond crisis.

f**king spooky if you ask me.

By the way, in the same interview, he also said that in 2013, the USA was going to experience a DEFLATIONARY Depression. Not the HyperInflation Depression he was forecasting back in 2009.

And you ask why a serious economist like Krugman won't debate with him. Because his a gobshite demagogue f**kwit Mick. That's why.

Hang on though.

Same verbatim quotes. Same ignorance of conventional and well-proven economic theory. Same wild ideas about raising interest rates in the depths of a Depression. Same bullshit arguing style.

f**king Hell Mick, you ARE Peter Schiff aren't you? How many other personalities do you have hidden there?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Unless we change course as I have previously advocated, I forecast that another economic crisis will strike at the very heart of the UK economy. It will sweep through the monetary system itself and precipitate a massive sterling and Treasury bond crisis.

Interesting quote there Mick. Not for its content, obviously, which is more bullshit. But for its similarity with what your hero Peter Schiff said in an interview back in March. In that interview he was:

forecasting another economic crisis that will strike at the very heart of the U.S. economy, sweeping through the monetary system itself and precipitating a massive U.S. dollar and Treasury bond crisis.

Really f***ing spooky that, don't you think. (The source for this can be found by Googling  - ivn.us peter schiff - . When I try to link to that site, the message gets wiped, which makes me think that there is a very good bullshit filter on the VSC forum, because that site is full of it.)

By the way, in the same interview, Schiff said that in 2013, the US will experience a deflationary depression. Back in 2009 of course, he was saying that there would be a hyperinflationary depression. You still wonder why serious economists like Krugman won't debate with him? Because he is a gobshite demagogue. Debating with him would indicate that they take him seriously, whereas in fact he is not worth the air time. He got one prediction right and that raised him to the status of genius. Since then, he has been wrong on very single count. Period.

Hang on though. You have near identical thoughts to Schiff. You have the same rejection of conventional, well established and tested economic theory. You have the same wild and crazy ideas on how to get us out of Depression. You have the same bullshit arguing style.

f***ing hell Mick! You ARE Peter Schiff aren't you? How many more personalities do you have?

[mjdgreg]

Following your advice doesn't seem to be doing the British economy much good. I think I'll completely ignore it.

The government isn't following my excellent advice. They're continuing to spend almost as much as Labour did and the BoE hasn't got inflation under control and has no intention of getting it under control any time soon. There is a sly plan going on to devalue the currency (Quantitative Easing) and to cause inflation (Quantatitive Easing) to inflate part of the debt problem away. They're not bothered about savers in the economy or the fact that many people are facing pay cuts due to inflation. Unfortunately the general public by and large are too thick to realise what's going on.

[mjdgreg]

Forecasting what is going to happen to an economy is not an exact science. It's very difficult to predict accurately what will happen next month never mind next year. Give it another few years and I'm sure you'll be eating your words and the broad thrust of what I am saying will come to pass.

[mjdgreg]

On the 2nd August 2002 your god Krugman stated the following:

'The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.'

Great advice. Create a housing bubble ffs. That's exactly what got America into the terrible mess they are still in.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Forecasting what is going to happen to an economy is not an exact science. It's very difficult to predict accurately what will happen next month never mind next year. Give it another few years and I'm sure you'll be eating your words and the broad thrust of what I am saying will come to pass.

1) How long is "another few years" Mick. Schiff has been predicting hyperinflation and collapse (or is it deflation and collapse, it's so hard to keep up with him) for nearly 5 years now. How long is the long-run. As a great man once said, "In the long-run, we are all dead."

2) Schiff has finally put his cards on the table and predicted Sodom and Gomorrah and hyper inflation and collapse (or is it deflation and collapse, it's so hard to keep up with him) for 2013. We'll see...

3) I've lost track of what the broad thrust of what you're saying is, and what is plagiarised selections from Google. You know what happens to people who try that stunt at Universities Mick, the places where people are taught how to marshal facts, craft and defend an argument and make contributions to the sum of human knowledge? People who pass off others' ideas as their own are booted out on the spot.

[mjdgreg]

I've lost track of what the broad thrust of what you're saying

It's very easy to follow my argument. I'll summarise it as briefly as possible for you. We should stop spending and  borrowing for consumption and we should start saving and producing instead. There you have it.

You believe in spending and borrowing for consumption. That's where the major difference is for both of us. I want to live within our means. You don't. I don't want to pass on the bill for our wild partying to future generations. You do. You think the markets will keep on lending us as much money as we want for as long as we want. I don't. You don't think inflation is a bad thing. I do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's alright Mick. I am able to read what you post. I just don't know which bits of those posts are your thoughts and which are someone else's.

Kind of makes arguing with you pointless. Because we're not arguing with you. we're arguing with someone else's opinions. And because you only copy and paste other people's opinions, you are unable to respond to arguments that confront or flatly refute those opinions. You simply post the same opinions once again.

So. Time and again, you've been faced with evidence for why your approach (or whoever's approach it is) will not work in theory and has NEVER worked in practice. Your response is to ignore that and simply re-state your approach (or whoever's approach it is.

Time and again, you have been shown examples of why an alternative approach both works in theory and has been shown to work in practice. Your response is to say that this doesn't apply any more, and state your approach (or whoever's approach it is) all over again.

Time and again you have been shown that the predictions of hell fire and damnation that are made by you (in fact by other people and copied by you) have been wrong and shown to be wrong. You simply copy and paste more from the same people, saying, "wait and see. We WILL be right eventually."

Not much point in continuing unless you are going to harden up and start using your own brain instead of copying other people's. I can read their opinions for myself. I don't need you to copy them for me and pass them off as your own.

[mjdgreg]

Right, I've been very soft on you so far. I've let you off on many things because I feel you are well intentioned but hopelessly deluded. I'm now going to harden up and start exposing your argument ruthlessly from here on in. The gloves are off, so watch out!

[mjdgreg]

Time and again you have been shown that the predictions of hell fire and damnation that are made by you have been wrong and shown to be wrong.

Please give examples. I've only just started making predictions so it is a bit soon to be judging them and saying I was wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Time and again you have been shown that the predictions of hell fire and damnation that are made by you have been wrong and shown to be wrong.

Please give examples. I've only just started making predictions so it is a bit soon to be judging them and saying I was wrong.

Sorry Mick. Honest mistake. I got you mixed up with Peter Schiff.





Or WAS it a mistake. I'm having trouble keeping up.

[mjdgreg]

Sorry mjdgreg. Honest mistake.

Apology accepted.

[Donnywolf]

Coming soon to VSC Forum



[attachment deleted by cleanup process]

[mjdgreg]

It's alright mjdgreg. I am able to read what you post. I just don't know which bits of those posts are your thoughts and which are someone else's.

Kind of makes arguing with you pointless. Because we're not arguing with you. we're arguing with someone else's opinions.

It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of having multiple personalities when you're the one switching between between 'I' and 'we'. I'm starting to get worried about your sanity.

[mjdgreg]

Time for a little history lesson. Let's go back to just before the election. Here's a very interesting article from the Labour supporting Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/05/uk-budget-deficit-worse-than-greece

Here are the key points from the article:

Whoever wins the election must make sorting out the public finances the top priority, the European commission warned on the eve of the poll.

The commission's spring economic forecasts put the UK deficit for this calendar year at 12% of GDP, the highest of all 27 EU nations.

Worries about Britain's public finances – in their worst state since the end of the second world war – continue to unnerve financial markets.

"The first thing for the new government to do is to agree on a convincing, ambitious programme of fiscal consolidation in order to start to reduce the very high deficit and stabilise the high debt level of the UK."

"That's by far the first and foremost challenge of the new government.''

Economists warn that if the next UK government drags its feet in reducing the deficit it could spark a downgrade from one or more of the ratings agencies that have been so swift to reassess Greece and Spain's creditworthiness.

London-based economists at BNP Paribas, have warned that the City is grossly underestimating the chance of a downgrade from the UK's current top-notch AAA status.

That, they say, could cost the taxpayer at least £10bn because of higher interest costs on government borrowing.

Let's just be grateful that Labour didn't get into power and tried to implement Billy's plan. With a deficit of 12% there was no room to implement a Keynesian stimulus to the economy even if you accept that was the right course of action (which I don't). So once again his argument is exposed as being totally flawed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

f***ing hell Mick. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish?

We went through this yesterday.

The same agencies said exactly the same thing about Japan 20 years ago. The ratings agencies downgraded Japan 10 years ago. Japan's debt has ballooned since then. Japan's bond rates have come down consistently for 20 years and are currently the lowest in history.

Similar story going on in America. America's debt is bigger than ours. They were downgraded last year. Their bond rates are currently the lowest they have ever been.

The Austrian approach can't process this. It's not supposed to happen according to their theories. So they keep on saying "Ah yes, but it WILL collapse. Just wait and see." but it doesn't happen. They've been predicting bond rate Armageddon in Japan since Jonny Muir was playing for us. And it has never happened. Why should they be right about us.

In fact, even a cursory glance at Keynesian theory predicts EXACTLY this outcome for a country with control over its own currency, in a liquidity trap recession. It's no surprise. Unless you refuse to accept that approach and insist that another theory is correct.

You know what they call people who believe in an idea despite there being no earthly evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it? Religious zealots.

By the way. Break your habit and check your facts. Go check which party the Guardian supported at the last Election.

[mjdgreg]

So are you saying that we should have borrowed even more money and taken the deficit over 12%?

[mjdgreg]

If Billy's plan was fully implemented then houses wouldn't be becoming more affordable. There'd be that much money sloshing around, the housing bubble wouldn't deflate and would probably grow even bigger. Hopefully when prices have dropped even further (I predict a further 30% fall) first-time buyers will find it easier to get a roof over their heads.

There's only so much that landlords like me can do to help out. Yes, the value of my property portfolio is going to fall quite a bit but it is already way over-valued so I am quite happy to accept this as it will mean my children can buy a house rather than having to rent one. Renting is dead money for most people and a very bad investment. Not all us right wingers are greedy and just in it for themselves like you leftie lot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18839255