Why do ferries have such brilliant food? Calmac too
There is a lot of research on airline food. The particular atmospheric conditions on a plane have a really bad effect on taste.
Perhaps being at sea has the opposite effect.
Does food taste better on the beach?
My reckoning is food tastes better when you're moving - preferably with a window and good scenery to look out on. So food on trains, boats etc. just works.
I really like this idea. I even like food on planes, but I think that's to do with the anticipation, the ritual.
Same here. I like plane food, particularly long haul. Something just in the novelty of it all.
Try the Asian vegetarian option. It's generally excellent.
I always go Asian vegetarian. You get served first too!
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
I don't know the answer to that particularly. But a sort of tangent.
There was a period in mid-2021 I think it was, after the main chunk of covid lockdowns but still when variants were problematic, when GDP growth was only marginally positive simply because the health sector had such a "boom" and the number of covid tests produced and used was extremely high. Were it not for that growth would have been negative that month or quarter (or whatever the period was - can't quite remember).
It sticks out mainly because everything was screaming slowdown and negative growth because of high workplace absences, businesses having to be shut or operate under restrictions because of covid, and yet that same covid narrative was also feeding, at least partially, into the reason why statistically growth was actually slightly higher than it might otherwise have been.
Which just sort of goes to show (probably) there's always stories within stories with these types of statistics.
Why do ferries have such brilliant food? Calmac too
There is a lot of research on airline food. The particular atmospheric conditions on a plane have a really bad effect on taste.
Perhaps being at sea has the opposite effect.
Does food taste better on the beach?
My reckoning is food tastes better when you're moving - preferably with a window and good scenery to look out on. So food on trains, boats etc. just works.
I really like this idea. I even like food on planes, but I think that's to do with the anticipation, the ritual.
Same here. I like plane food, particularly long haul. Something just in the novelty of it all.
Try the Asian vegetarian option. It's generally excellent.
Also very likely to be served first! I often fly vegetarian.
On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.
Civilisation. The portion sizes are judicious, rather than massive.And I think I detect Swedish delicacies such as gravadlax, strömming and some sort of snmoked fish upright in glasses. I'd been thinking of seeing the Åland Islands and Mariehamn with the preserved ship Pommern, and this would be a nice treat en route.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.
Just had a vison, of "Jessica Fletcher" inside No. 10, chit-chatting with Mark Fullbrook:
"I hear what your saying, Mr. Chief of Staff - and by the way, thank you for this delicious cup of tea! It's just that I still have a few questions, if you don't mind . . ."
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.
GDP is numerically measurable, well-being is not. In terms of creating a year on year, like for like comparison both with our own past and other countries, what we need are numbers - not feelings.
As is frequently pointed out here people "felt better off" back in the good old days when they had less but had a sense of community - however I suspect they are times that in reality few would care to revisit.
Need some restaurant recommendations for a long romantic weekend.
You can probably get an OK meal on the DFDS ferry to Holland or on the train to Edinburgh.
Assuming the North Sea does not intervene.
My mum's ferry-going career ended very abruptly after a North Sea storm on an overnight DFDS ferry from Harwich to Esbjerg in the 1980s. The washbowls throughout the ship overflowed with the sea-sick from the 90% of passengers who were affected.
At the time she was in her mid-40s, and never went on another ferry. The most ambitious it was after that was European river cruises.
I do wish you all the best, however. But I wouldn't overindulge heroically until on dry land - just in case.
I did Bergen to Newcastle about 30 years ago in a Force 8 - which by the standards of the North Sea isn't too much to write home about, but did provide a decent swell.
The on board cinema was full for the start of the new Bond film, but there were only 4 of us left in there at the end credits.
The rest were presumably hanging over the railings.
It probably didn't help that it was right in the bow.
Shame they stopped that route, though.
If i recall there was a TV series, Triangle, set on a north sea ferry...
Good grief, I'd forgotten about that. It was much mocked if I recall.
The grey North Sea wasn't ever going to be a glamorous backdrop, was it?
Starred Larry Lamb iirc.
I quite enjoyed it I seem to remember but I was only about fifteen.
On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.
On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.
Need some restaurant recommendations for a long romantic weekend.
You can probably get an OK meal on the DFDS ferry to Holland or on the train to Edinburgh.
Assuming the North Sea does not intervene.
My mum's ferry-going career ended very abruptly after a North Sea storm on an overnight DFDS ferry from Harwich to Esbjerg in the 1980s. The washbowls throughout the ship overflowed with the sea-sick from the 90% of passengers who were affected.
At the time she was in her mid-40s, and never went on another ferry. The most ambitious it was after that was European river cruises.
I do wish you all the best, however. But I wouldn't overindulge heroically until on dry land - just in case.
I did Bergen to Newcastle about 30 years ago in a Force 8 - which by the standards of the North Sea isn't too much to write home about, but did provide a decent swell.
The on board cinema was full for the start of the new Bond film, but there were only 4 of us left in there at the end credits.
The rest were presumably hanging over the railings.
It probably didn't help that it was right in the bow.
Shame they stopped that route, though.
If i recall there was a TV series, Triangle, set on a north sea ferry...
Good grief, I'd forgotten about that. It was much mocked if I recall.
The grey North Sea wasn't ever going to be a glamorous backdrop, was it?
Starred Larry Lamb iirc.
I quite enjoyed it I seem to remember but I was only about fifteen.
And Paul Jerricho (for the benefit of people looking for Doctor Who connections)
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
You make a good point, and its certainly swings and roundabouts on an individual basis.
But there is a distinction in economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics. The actions of an individual fall under microeconomics, so aren't typically analysed with regards to GDP. GDP is the preserve of macroeconomics, the study of the economy or country as a whole and on average, in aggregate, GDP going up would normally be more good than bad.
But certainly any sensible discussion of the state of the economy would involve more than just GDP. Debt or savings ratios are also factors looked at, and your individual being in less debt would show up there so that should be considered a positive there.
Unfortunately a lot of media discussion on economics is very dumbed down and tends to run on only a few metrics, or just one, rather than a balanced overview.
Indeed. The example of walking to work is a good one though. If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
On the subject of food on ferries, the best in my experience are the 'all you can eat' buffets served on the ferries that go between Sweden and Finland. They are either the peak of civilisation or the peak of decadence, I am undecided as to which.
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
In simple terms, an increase in the amount of stuff produced.
If we strip out the effect of population growth (or decline), economic outputper capita is a better metric. In this case, we are producing more stuff per person, which means there is more stuff to go around. This is generally a good thing - think about when we all used to work in the fields just to survive. Nowadays, our food is produced by a very small proportion of our population, leaving the rest of us to do fun stuff like post on PB all day.
Note that there is a bit of an effort to move away from GDP. I'm quite interested in the relationship between hours worked per week, productivity and participation rates. Human welfare has increased much more than GDP per capita figures would suggest, mainly as a result of increased productivity meaning we don't have to spend 6 days a week chipping away in some coal mine. We've swapped hours for technology.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
You make a good point, and its certainly swings and roundabouts on an individual basis.
But there is a distinction in economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics. The actions of an individual fall under microeconomics, so aren't typically analysed with regards to GDP. GDP is the preserve of macroeconomics, the study of the economy or country as a whole and on average, in aggregate, GDP going up would normally be more good than bad.
But certainly any sensible discussion of the state of the economy would involve more than just GDP. Debt or savings ratios are also factors looked at, and your individual being in less debt would show up there so that should be considered a positive there.
Unfortunately a lot of media discussion on economics is very dumbed down and tends to run on only a few metrics, or just one, rather than a balanced overview.
Indeed. The example of walking to work is a good one though. If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
Easiest way to look at it: we are a bacterium in a test tube, multiplying on a nutrient substrate. Growth is a measure of how fast we are consuming the substrate and filling up the finite space in the test tube. This can only end one way.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
In my experience, people don't like this type of questioning of the whole philosophical basis of our economic system.
There's been an on-going debate about whether GDP is an appropriate measure for decades now. Cameron, for example, toyed around with alternatives that measured well-being and so on.
GDP is numerically measurable, well-being is not. In terms of creating a year on year, like for like comparison both with our own past and other countries, what we need are numbers - not feelings.
As is frequently pointed out here people "felt better off" back in the good old days when they had less but had a sense of community - however I suspect they are times that in reality few would care to revisit.
But is GDP growth a measure of us all having central heating now? Or hours worked? Or (quality) life expectancy? Yes - it often is. Except...
We've become so used to using GDP growth as a proxy measure for these things that we pursue improvement in that statistic even if the impact of doing so would be negative on some or all of those other things.
Mostly (and for many) all those things have been well correlated for some time. But maybe not so much now.
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
4 additional HIMARS from our 🇺🇲 partners have arrived! I thank @POTUS Joe Biden @SecDef Lloyd Austin III & the American people. HIMARS time:good time for Ukrainians and bad time for the occupiers. Great news on the eve of #Ramstein 6, where I’m going tomorrow. There will be more.</>
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
You make a good point, and its certainly swings and roundabouts on an individual basis.
But there is a distinction in economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics. The actions of an individual fall under microeconomics, so aren't typically analysed with regards to GDP. GDP is the preserve of macroeconomics, the study of the economy or country as a whole and on average, in aggregate, GDP going up would normally be more good than bad.
But certainly any sensible discussion of the state of the economy would involve more than just GDP. Debt or savings ratios are also factors looked at, and your individual being in less debt would show up there so that should be considered a positive there.
Unfortunately a lot of media discussion on economics is very dumbed down and tends to run on only a few metrics, or just one, rather than a balanced overview.
Indeed. The example of walking to work is a good one though. If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
I had a diabetic patient last year whose car broke down, so he couldn't get to his warehouse job, so he started walking an hour each day each way. Initially he found this difficult, but after a couple of months he had lost a couple of stone and greatly reduced his need for medication. His blood pressure and cholesterol were better too, so he stuck with it.
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
Though as I pointed out, and others seem to be catching up on, the fall in the pound began that week before Kwasi even got up to speak, after the Bank's policy meeting.
And now Bailey has done it again.
The Bank have spent the past 15 years buying Treasury gilts, claiming they're not funding the deficit, now all of a sudden they're not just ceasing to buy gilts they're actively planning on selling them putting £80bn extra onto the gilt borrowing that needs to be paid for by the market this year - more than the entire cost of furlough added to borrowing effectively ...
... but sure, its all Kwarteng's fault!
Bailey is incompetent, but that's not news. Kwarteng and Truss will take the fall, because the buck stops there, but the Bank have royally fucked over the economy with their messing around here.
Personally I think Truss and Kwarteng should go in two-footed.
The independence of the Bank of England is supposed to be a key principle now, but how does that work when the Bank is doing something ridiculous?
But the problem is that Truss and Kwarteng don't really have the credibility or moral authority now to do that. Kwarteng unnecessarily went in two footed with the 45p tax cut, which was only a £2bn change and was within 24 hours of Bailey's £80bn change, but as a result Kwarteng is on a yellow card now and has got all the attention on him.
He's not able to make another two footed challenge now. He's pretty fucked and so is Truss, and Bailey has done more than Starmer or anyone else to ensure a Labour majority next time.
They need to put the spotlight back where it belongs. I don't see what is to be lost in calling publicly for the Bank's bond selling programme to be shelved. There is a very clear timeline of evidence now to indicate what has been causing the market disturbance. The people trying to claim this is because 'the markets STILL don't like the emergency budget' are looking ridiculous.
Not really. The markets don’t - there were fund managers saying precisely that, in plain terms, today. And it’s wasn’t officially a budget - which is part of the problem.
The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
Giles Wilkes @Gilesyb I get it that a fiscal disaster zone in 2022-3 is not exactly great news for Keir Starmer PM, 2025. But a few considerations before the usual kind of "tough questions for Starmer after government mess" columns come out ... 1/
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).
Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.
Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).
Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.
Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
Remake of "The Poseidon Adventure"?
With Liz Truss in role made famous by Shelly Winters? AND promoted to Captain of the doomed ship?
What were the odds on getting the worst PM in living memory, the worst Chancellor in living memory and the worst BoE Governor in living memory, all at the same time?
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
Unlimited bonuses should be matched with unlimited liabilities
I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.
Depends what Kwarteng says on the 31st (or earlier if brought forward again).
Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.
Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
Worst-case scenario looks the most likely, unless there is a house price crash. That’s the only thing that will force the Tories to get rid of Truss and Kwarteng. A £60 billion expenditure cut won’t bother them as long as pensions rise with inflation. Other benefits, not so much.
This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.
It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.
Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.
I saw the politicking of the opposition saying the UK had spent 65bn shoring up the markets and the government correcting that 65bn was the facility, and only about 3bn had actually been spent.
The government are right, but not much sympathy here. AIUI, Labour going cap in hand to the IMF resulted in a facility that was never actually drawn down on, so actually no cap was needed to transport any actual IMF cash.
This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.
It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.
Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
Quite right too. Negative QE and rate rises. Monetary tightening to combat inflation. That's the mandate they have. It's their job.
This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.
It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.
Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.
I am a bit lost. Relatively little has been taken up of the BoE liquidity offer by pension companies iirc, so why end on Friday? Surely it is the total that matters not the number of days.
I think it’s the bank telling the pension funds that they won’t provide emergency finance for their leveraged bets indefinitely, so they’d better unwind dangerous positions now - in effect making them crystallise losses in an orderly manner rather than trying to keep the bets going ?
Clearly you’d need to be an expert to know whether or not that’s sensible. I’m not that person.
The point about the bank’s intervention was not specifically to prop up prices at any particular level, but to act as a purchaser of last resort to prevent a vicious spiral developing.
The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.
The prevailing view here has been that Tory MPs can't ditch Truss cos the members would riot.
I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
Bunch of incontinent zimmer framers should be relieved if they aren't sued to bankruptcy for losses inflicted by electing her. They really can fuck RIGHT off.
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
Unlimited bonuses should be matched with unlimited liabilities
There's a massive regulatory issue here though. Who was watching this LDI market?
What were the odds on getting the worst PM in living memory, the worst Chancellor in living memory and the worst BoE Governor in living memory, all at the same time?
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
Whether or not you agree with the ongoing gilt sales policy, that is at least consistent. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
If pension funds have solvency problems, will the fund managers get the sack or uncapped bonuses?
They had acute liquidity problems (thanks to over leveraged investments) which temporarily threatened their solvency, rather than ongoing solvency problems, I think ?
As has been noted, the sharp rise in bond yields substantially reduces their future liabilities, even if at the same time it has reduced the value of their gilt assets.
This can’t go on for two years, or can it? They’ll be nothing left.
It will go on until the possible alternatives are no longer feared as being potentially worse. At the moment Truss and Kwarteng are still in place because Tory MPs are scared that removing them so soon would damage the credibility of the Conservative Party with the voters even further, and that the eventual replacements might be even less capable.
Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
The problem is Truss. You can’t solve the problem with her in charge. They need to wake up to that. She’s not going to suddenly switch and do normal or Conservative. It’s not who she is. Until she goes the precise flavour of crazy might change, but crazy is what’s on the menu. It’s not going to settle down. She doesn’t want it to.
The problem is more than Truss. The problem is the people who elected her - Tory members.
If enough Tory members wake up, it will change. It was pretty close last time. You don’t need that many.
Be inspired by Labour Starmer won over a party previously 60:40 in favour of Corbyn. That sort of shift seemed impossible.
RIP Dame Angela Lansbury, one of the true Hollywood Greats with a prolific career starting in the 1940s and including Murder She Wrote, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast and even playing Elvis' mother in one film
Isn't (perhaps) the current Conservative government of Liz Trump approaching a similar juncture in 2022, as did the Labour government of Ramsey Macdonald in 1931.
In THAT financial crisis, at a time of serious international economic & political upheaval, the majority of the Labour cabinet refused to back down from its ideological principles in face of tremendous pressure from the City, Bank of England, Wall Street AND Main Street.
AND at that time, the Labour Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer broke ranks in OPPOSITION to the ideological commitment of the majority of the cabinet, and (as it turned out anyway) the Party.
SO which way will THESE cat jump as the already hot Westminster Tin Roof REALLY starts heating up?
The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
The latest wheeze from Truss is to take the breaks off immigration and let in anyone who can say they are a skilled florist or weaver. As if low skilled immigration didn't lead to the current low productivity, low wage economy that is at the heart of the problem.
Elon Musk is getting hammered by energy costs in his European operations. Like most billionaires, he would gladly sell put a country for a few more 0s on his net worth.
Not something that I am involved in, though there may be some collateral damage to markets that I am in, but surely the reason that pension companies invest in gilts is to ensure safe, albeit low returns.
Surely creating gilt derivatives, leveraged by borrowing defeats the whole intent? Those Pension Trustees have questions to answer.
Not necessarily. I did read a technical explanation. The issue is a mismatch between accounting and real values, so that an investment manager who performed well could end up reporting an accounting loss. Hence they bought derivatives to hedge that loss. But the details escape me at this point
There are people on this site who come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, so can I please ask for your collective help in explaining, in simple terms, the concept of 'growth', by which I understand to mean (and I am happy to be corrected) the change in GDP over time. Growth, in the economic sense, appears to be universally held to be a good thing.
Suppose someone decides to walk to work each day rather than go by bus. This saves him £20 per week, and deprives the bus company of £20 per week, so there has been (in a minute sense) a decline in economic activity, and a reduction in GDP. He uses the £20 saved each week to pay off a credit card debt, so his bank makes less profit, and GDP again falls a tiny amount.
So at the end of a year GDP has declined, but the individual is better off, spending less of his money on servicing his debt, and being a stone lighter because he walks (he has cancelled his gym membership as well, and given up his pre-work Starbucks). He is fitter and happier.
So GDP has declined, but in what sense are we worse off
Assuming the bus still runs then your guy walking means the bus company makes less profit and the company's shareholders have less income, so they are worse off. If the bus route is no longer profitable then the bus driver might lose her job, and so she is worse off. If the bus company decides it needs fewer buses then the people making the buses might lose their jobs too. With less tax revenue the government has to cut its services or raise taxes on other people. So while your guy might well be better off, and it is certainly true that GDP doesn't measure wellbeing, I don't think you can assume that lower GDP in this case is necessarily a good thing.
Comments
That's what I learnt from the E of PPE.
There was a period in mid-2021 I think it was, after the main chunk of covid lockdowns but still when variants were problematic, when GDP growth was only marginally positive simply because the health sector had such a "boom" and the number of covid tests produced and used was extremely high. Were it not for that growth would have been negative that month or quarter (or whatever the period was - can't quite remember).
It sticks out mainly because everything was screaming slowdown and negative growth because of high workplace absences, businesses having to be shut or operate under restrictions because of covid, and yet that same covid narrative was also feeding, at least partially, into the reason why statistically growth was actually slightly higher than it might otherwise have been.
Which just sort of goes to show (probably) there's always stories within stories with these types of statistics.
"I hear what your saying, Mr. Chief of Staff - and by the way, thank you for this delicious cup of tea! It's just that I still have a few questions, if you don't mind . . ."
As is frequently pointed out here people "felt better off" back in the good old days when they had less but had a sense of community - however I suspect they are times that in reality few would care to revisit.
I quite enjoyed it I seem to remember but I was only about fifteen.
It’s still a WTF moment, though.
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
Exc - First Tory MP calls for Truss u-turn and corporation tax to rise to prevent deep public spending cuts
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1579909947370115074
If we could engineer a situation where everyone was able to, it would cause a significant fall in GDP. And a collapse in certain sectors of the economy. But it would be wonderful for everyone's mental and physical health. And probably their productivity, too.
Governor Bailey really meant what he said about the pension funds having to accept that the government bond purchases are over … BBC briefly caught up with him on way out of the speech, and he said there was an “important task now for the funds to ensure they are done”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1579933041568665600/photo/1
Bailey to BBC News: “We are doing everything to ensure financial stability and you have my assurance on that…” asked about the market response.. “They have got three days, this has to be done for the sake of financial stability”
surprised by the market reaction. Bank has been clear the operation was over this weekend… its a message for the funds that do have the solvency but not the liquidity to make necessary adjustments…. But it is a message with consequences for the Government too..
In other words, right from the beginning the Bank of England have been clear that this is not an attempt to artificially manage the gilt rate, or stand in the way of a repricing to reflect new fiscal policies…. Ie its not going to QE this away, given the inflation situation.
If we strip out the effect of population growth (or decline), economic outputper capita is a better metric. In this case, we are producing more stuff per person, which means there is more stuff to go around. This is generally a good thing - think about when we all used to work in the fields just to survive. Nowadays, our food is produced by a very small proportion of our population, leaving the rest of us to do fun stuff like post on PB all day.
Note that there is a bit of an effort to move away from GDP. I'm quite interested in the relationship between hours worked per week, productivity and participation rates. Human welfare has increased much more than GDP per capita figures would suggest, mainly as a result of increased productivity meaning we don't have to spend 6 days a week chipping away in some coal mine. We've swapped hours for technology.
Solstice (you’ll have to book and it’s probably too late) and Blackfriars are two decent options
We've become so used to using GDP growth as a proxy measure for these things that we pursue improvement in that statistic even if the impact of doing so would be negative on some or all of those other things.
Mostly (and for many) all those things have been well correlated for some time. But maybe not so much now.
Duncan Weldon
@DuncanWeldon
·
1h
Time to reset the “days since the last BOE comms mess up” clock back to zero.
https://twitter.com/DuncanWeldon
I thank @POTUS Joe Biden @SecDef Lloyd Austin III & the American people.
HIMARS time:good time for Ukrainians and bad time for the occupiers.
Great news on the eve of #Ramstein 6, where I’m going tomorrow. There will be more.</>
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1579935298225831937
There was GDP growth in the shoe shops though!
The markets don’t - there were fund managers saying precisely that, in plain terms, today. And it’s wasn’t officially a budget - which is part of the problem.
The BoE has put Kwasi on notice; no we are not going to print away your debt. You need to find c. £60bn in savings or tax rises or you can fuck off and hand over to someone who will.
@Gilesyb
I get it that a fiscal disaster zone in 2022-3 is not exactly great news for Keir Starmer PM, 2025. But a few considerations before the usual kind of "tough questions for Starmer after government mess" columns come out ... 1/
https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1579827932411092993
As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) the emergency gilt purchases are confined to the pension funds with solvency problems rather than being open market interventions ?
Best-case scenario is that the turmoil since the Special Budgetary Operation has scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and they're taking the precarious situation we are in seriously enough to do the necessary things they are reluctant to do to make the situation better.
Worst-case scenario is that they're still committed to their ideological dogma, and the ship has to settle on the bottom before the captain will admit that there's a problem.
She was the intelligent one, or at least the articulate one, so the resemblance is limited.
Although, Truss does act as if she’s got Matthew Corbett’s hand stuck up her arse.
With Liz Truss in role made famous by Shelly Winters? AND promoted to Captain of the doomed ship?
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/53/greatwinnipegboom.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdHg4QEmBvk
Seriously. Get rid of them both.
Things clearly have to get a lot worse to reach the point where these are risks worth taking.
Which in turn prompts this:
Canadian Railroad Trilogy - Gordon Lightfoot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSFZBDAH9Y
The government are right, but not much sympathy here. AIUI, Labour going cap in hand to the IMF resulted in a facility that was never actually drawn down on, so actually no cap was needed to transport any actual IMF cash.
Clearly you’d need to be an expert to know whether or not that’s sensible. I’m not that person.
The point about the bank’s intervention was not specifically to prop up prices at any particular level, but to act as a purchaser of last resort to prevent a vicious spiral developing.
I suspect if you canvassed the members now the response would be "WTF are you waiting for?!?"
As has been noted, the sharp rise in bond yields substantially reduces their future liabilities, even if at the same time it has reduced the value of their gilt assets.
Be inspired by Labour Starmer won over a party previously 60:40 in favour of Corbyn. That sort of shift seemed impossible.
In THAT financial crisis, at a time of serious international economic & political upheaval, the majority of the Labour cabinet refused to back down from its ideological principles in face of tremendous pressure from the City, Bank of England, Wall Street AND Main Street.
AND at that time, the Labour Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer broke ranks in OPPOSITION to the ideological commitment of the majority of the cabinet, and (as it turned out anyway) the Party.
SO which way will THESE cat jump as the already hot Westminster Tin Roof REALLY starts heating up?
elon musk told me he had spoken with putin and the kremlin directly about ukraine. he also told me what the kremlin’s red lines were.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1579941475613229056
Remember it was very first question of her first PMQ.
Might be very first question of her second.
https://twitter.com/drkatedevlin/status/1579386219951071232?t=UYu5kvFPj0hXgO_d9dqqUg&s=19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miners_climb_Chilkoot.jpg
https://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/collections/exhibits/klondike/case7-8
SSI - and this was the EASY overland option!
(And it's Tories btw).