The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
People are making an analogy between Brexit and Trump.. I am not sure it is valid
With Brexit, even though doom mongers were shouting catastrophic consequences very loudly, at the end of the day people could vote for it and know that a senior Tory would still be PM afterwards, with not mad Kipper in sight. It was a a way of saying up yours to the establishment in the form of a grabbing them by the throat and saying "buck up or else" rather than a knockout blow
With Trump, if he gets in he is President, leader of the free world etc. I think there will be genuine last minute bottling by people flirting with the Donald. It's a much more black and white case than Brexit
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Harrison Grant has issued proceedings against the Labour Party on behalf of a number of new members who have been denied the opportunity to vote in the forthcoming leadership election. Following an order for an expedited hearing this case will be heard at the High Court in London Thursday 4th August
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
The likes of Gatlin being able to compete is down to legal rulings. They can't be prevented from competing. Like Chambers for the UK. UK athletes didn't want him back nor would fund him, but couldn't stop him. They actually tried in court & he won, before which the UK policy was any athlete found to have doped was banned for life from Olympics.
That all been said the US have for a long time allowed drugs cheats back & some suggest more, but they can't stop them regardless.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
There are cheats and the careless who don't deserve to be there. But Russia's proven longstanding and deep level deception is too egregious to leave unpunished, and the only way to punish the nation and get it to change its culture is to punish its athletes, so the nation will not allow it to happen again. That sucks for the clean ones, but without it, there will be a increased risk nations will think it is worth doing - since you can run massive doping schemes which many of those who did not participate in had to know what was going on, and as a nation you are not even punished for trying it.
Isn't the public purse paying for £60 million of it, plus tax relief? The fact that can be called 'largely by private donations' shows how expensive the whole project is. According to Wiki it's £30 mn from HMT and £30 mn from TfL. Then there are the ludicrous ongoing maintenance expenses - was it £3 million a year?
I'm sure Londoners on here can find better things to spend £60 million of public funds on. A bridge further downstream in East London perhaps? You know, where one is actually needed.
It's £60m of which £30m is budgeted to be spent on Temple Tube in the current 3 year plan. The other £30m (from HMT) is the tax relief. There is no mythical £60m that can be spent on something else (I've no view on whether redeveloping Temple Tube is a priority but happy to accept if it was in the plan anyway it is).The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately).
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
The likes of Gatlin being able to compete is down to legal rulings. They can't be prevented from competing. Like Chambers for the UK. UK athletes didn't want him back nor would fund him, but couldn't stop him.
Great ! We can find legal rulings so that "our" athletes can compete. But a Russian who has not herself ever been caught at home and abroad, cannot compete.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
True but it's on his watch and we've been nowhere near 2% for ages So what's he and his mates on the MPC actually doing about it that's effective? I really would try helicopter cash now.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
The likes of Gatlin being able to compete is down to legal rulings. They can't be prevented from competing. Like Chambers for the UK. UK athletes didn't want him back nor would fund him, but couldn't stop him.
Great ! We can find legal rulings so that "our" athletes can compete. But a Russian who has not herself ever been caught at home and abroad, cannot compete.
Whereas, ours are not cheats, they just forget.
Read my previous post. No excuses for 3 missed tests. However Russia is a totally different kettle of fish, state sponsored doping & bent testing regime. The whistleblowers have said 90%+ of Russian altheletes were doped because you weren't allowed to compete otherwise & this was backed up.by secret footage of Russian training camps.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
There are cheats and the careless who don't deserve to be there. But Russia's proven longstanding and deep level deception is too egregious to leave unpunished, and the only way to punish the nation and get it to change its culture is to punish its athletes, so the nation will not allow it to happen again. That sucks for the clean ones, but without it, there will be a increased risk nations will think it is worth doing - since you can run massive doping schemes which many of those who did not participate in had to know what was going on, and as a nation you are not even punished for trying it.
Can you prove that our Athletic authorities did not help our athletes go on long vacations to avoid testing ?
A Trump withdrawal is increasingly likely. I am very pleased with my investments in Kasich, Cruz, and for good measure also in Pence, Rubio and Bush, in some cases at odds of close to 1000\1.
Why would Trump withdraw? Unless there is some sort of mechanism allowing the GOP to remove him as their candidate (anyone?), I just can't see it happening. Past behaviour strongly suggests he wouldn't step aside of his own volition.
As far as I know, there isn't a mechanism allowing the Republicans to remove a nomination, although there is one for the RNC to replace a candidate if he withdraws. (Rule 9).
Trump is not a politician and he is treating his whole campaign as if he were aiming to do a deal. In his book The Art of the Deal, he says that the person who wins in negotiations is the one most willing to withdraw. Why throw good money after bad?
What record does he have of banging against a brick wall when it's clear he won't get what he wants? He fought a brilliant campaign until recently.
In Oct 2015, albeit referring only to the race for the Republican nomination, in which he was by then the frontrunner, he said "If I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out." Admittedly he followed that by the contradictory "I'm in this for the long haul."
But prices of something like 1000 for each of Kasich and Cruz, the same as for Stein and Johnson, I think were very low. They have now risen to 260 and 410.
Trump won't withdraw, it would be written on his tombstone he was the coward who chickened out of facing Hillary all his business achievements and celebrity would be overshadowed. He will keep going to the end regardless and of course there is the debates to come. Even if he did withdraw and the RNC replaced his candidacy they would have to do so before state ballot deadlines closed or Trump would still be on the ballot anyway
A Trump withdrawal is increasingly likely. I am very pleased with my investments in Kasich, Cruz, and for good measure also in Pence, Rubio and Bush, in some cases at odds of close to 1000\1.
Why would Trump withdraw? Unless there is some sort of mechanism allowing the GOP to remove him as their candidate (anyone?), I just can't see it happening. Past behaviour strongly suggests he wouldn't step aside of his own volition.
As far as I know, there isn't a mechanism allowing the Republicans to remove a nomination, although there is one for the RNC to replace a candidate if he withdraws. (Rule 9).
Trump is not a politician and he is treating his whole campaign as if he were aiming to do a deal. In his book The Art of the Deal, he says that the person who wins in negotiations is the one most willing to withdraw. Why throw good money after bad?
What record does he have of banging against a brick wall when it's clear he won't get what he wants? He fought a brilliant campaign until recently.
In Oct 2015, albeit referring only to the race for the Republican nomination, in which he was by then the frontrunner, he said "If I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out." Admittedly he followed that by the contradictory "I'm in this for the long haul."
But prices of something like 1000 for each of Kasich and Cruz, the same as for Stein and Johnson, I think were very low. They have now risen to 260 and 410.
Trump won't withdraw, it would be written on his tombstone he was the coward who chickened out of facing Hillary all his business achievements and celebrity would be overshadowed. He will keep going to the end regardless and of course there is the debates to come. Even if he did withdraw and the RNC replaced his candidacy they would have to do so before state ballot deadlines closed or Trump would still be on the ballot anyway
Isn't the public purse paying for £60 million of it, plus tax relief? The fact that can be called 'largely by private donations' shows how expensive the whole project is. According to Wiki it's £30 mn from HMT and £30 mn from TfL. Then there are the ludicrous ongoing maintenance expenses - was it £3 million a year?
I'm sure Londoners on here can find better things to spend £60 million of public funds on. A bridge further downstream in East London perhaps? You know, where one is actually needed.
It's £60m of which £30m is budgeted to be spent on Temple Tube in the current 3 year plan. The other £30m (from HMT) is the tax relief. There is no mythical £60m that can be spent on something else (I've no view on whether redeveloping Temple Tube is a priority but happy to accept if it was in the plan anyway it is).The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately).
As you say, it's £60m.
"The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately)"
And if they don't get those donations? Who ends up paying for the maintenance?
Charles: I love engineering, and I love bold and brash schemes. I should be the sort of person who's calling out for it to be built. But I'm not, because it simply lacks a coherent purpose. A place for meditation should not cost £175m.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
True but it's on his watch and we've been nowhere near 2% for ages So what's he and his mates on the MPC actually doing about it that's effective? I really would try helicopter cash now.
I wrote a few days back, borrow £200-400 billion over various periods. Interest rates suck anyway, and spend on infrastructure, left , right and centre. The economic dividends will be much greater than the £2-4bn interest per year.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
There are cheats and the careless who don't deserve to be there. But Russia's proven longstanding and deep level deception is too egregious to leave unpunished, and the only way to punish the nation and get it to change its culture is to punish its athletes, so the nation will not allow it to happen again. That sucks for the clean ones, but without it, there will be a increased risk nations will think it is worth doing - since you can run massive doping schemes which many of those who did not participate in had to know what was going on, and as a nation you are not even punished for trying it.
Can you prove that our Athletic authorities did not help our athletes go on long vacations to avoid testing ?
I personally believe about 80% are at it.
Now you are just talking bollocks. There has never ever been any suggestion that our authorities do anything like that & unlike Russia we have a media who like to go digging for dirt even willing to point fingers are the likes of Mo Farah's coach.
There are definitely UK athletes doping* but to suggest anything similar to Russia is just fantasy stuff.
* also by "doping" I would include playing fast & loose with the rules eg medical exemptions etc.
Mr. Quidder, that may be what precipitates global nuclear war.
And the end to free bus passes for pensioners. Although as every potential destination will have been flattened by ICBMs and every bus driver will be an irradiated corpse, the impact will be blunted somewhat.
Edited extra bit: just demanglified it.
Edited extra bit 2: mildly amused at humans. As Dr. Prasannan said, Cannae took place today (when Hannibal brilliantly managed to surround an army that was twice as big as his). He also led an army of men, horses and elephants across the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
Men can do such things, yet also tremble at the prospect of leaving the EU.
I think previous generations would be bemused by the idea that important political decisions should be based upon short-run changes in GDP.
Imagine George Washington saying to his colleagues in 1776, " Hang on chaps, if we leave the British Empire, GDP will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be from 1777 to 1780.".
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
They do it to almost anyone who points out any of the awkward consequences of Brexit - Brexit is their Holy Grail - it's gonna be pretty ugly when May delivers the inevitable compromise. fortunately she's hard as nails and won't give a proverbial.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
There are cheats and the careless who don't deserve to be there. But Russia's proven longstanding and deep level deception is too egregious to leave unpunished, and the only way to punish the nation and get it to change its culture is to punish its athletes, so the nation will not allow it to happen again. That sucks for the clean ones, but without it, there will be a increased risk nations will think it is worth doing - since you can run massive doping schemes which many of those who did not participate in had to know what was going on, and as a nation you are not even punished for trying it.
Can you prove that our Athletic authorities did not help our athletes go on long vacations to avoid testing ?
I personally believe about 80% are at it.
Now you are just talking bollocks. There has never ever been any suggestion that our authorities do anything like that & unlike Russia we have a media who like to go digging for dirt even willing to point fingers are the likes of Mo Farah's coach.
There are definitely UK athletes doping* but to suggest anything similar to Russia is just fantasy stuff.
* also by "doping" I would include playing fast & loose with the rules eg medical exemptions etc.
"we have a media who like to go digging for dirt even willing to point fingers are the likes of Mo Farah's coach."
Er......... and where has that particular line of enquiry led to so far. And, Nike's contribution to the campaign for office of a certain ex-athlete , now a top official.
Nowhere.
Or, are they waiting for the Olympics to be over.
many innocent Russian athletes have been treated very badly. Just because the IAAF could not deal with the Russian authorities much much earlier.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
True but it's on his watch and we've been nowhere near 2% for ages So what's he and his mates on the MPC actually doing about it that's effective? I really would try helicopter cash now.
I wrote a few days back, borrow £200-400 billion over various periods. Interest rates suck anyway, and spend on infrastructure, left , right and centre. The economic dividends will be much greater than the £2-4bn interest per year.
That pretty well describes Japan's policy for the last 20 years. It hasn't worked but I must admit that better ideas are thin on the ground.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
They do it to almost anyone who points out any of the awkward consequences of Brexit - Brexit is their Holy Grail - it's gonna be pretty ugly when May delivers the inevitable compromise. fortunately she's hard as nails and wont' give a proverbial.
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
Good to see that much of the sporting world has been very critical of Lizzie Armistead. I was appalled by the way the athletics community protected Christine Ohuruogu when she missed three tests. Given what's been happening with Russia I don't think there's any appetite for defending Armistead.
Same offence as Rio Ferdinand. Difficult to defend for any athlete unfortunately, it can't be easy to have to be constantly available at a moments notice for a visitor who has to be kept up to date with your whereabouts - but they all know the rules when they sign up for it.
The Ferdinand one was even worse. Tests are done at training - not sure what's difficult about the club administering that. What I think is really galling about the Armistead case is that she only appealed the first missed test after the second and third missed tests.
What about the gold medal winner who missed three tests ? She apparently "forgot".
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
Feel really sorry for Yelena Isinbayeva, she's been based in Europe for years and is been punished for her country of birth. She was going for her third gold medal in an event she's completely dominated for over a decade, quite literally raising the bar by some distance. She will have been tested thousands of times and never missed or failed one, has had very little to do with the Russian 'system' for a long time.
Also feel sorry for the Russian whistleblower, Yuliya Stepanova. Letting her compete would have sent a signal that what she did was the right thing, maybe even encouraging others to come forward. She's been let down badly.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Exactly so. The deal will be shoddy unless the EU do think we are prepared to walk away
Difference between May and Cameron is that I think the former could quite possibly threaten to do so, whereas the latter never would.
PM May winning GE2015 would probably have got a better deal and we'd probably have just narrowly voted to Remain.
Cameron's honours for REMAINERS has laid the capstone on his reputation.
No it hasn't. There was nothing egregious in his honours suggestions compared to how honours have been portrayed as long as I have been alive. His reputation will be defined by Brexit, and either tempered or worsened by how one feels about the coalition years, the rest is nonsense.
I must have missed all the Conservative senior people that have come out to defend Cameron. Apart that is from "mad" Desmond in the New Forest who is as mad as a box of ferrets in real life.
I don't see what your post has to do with my post - was it meant to be in reply to something else? Cameron's reputation will be what it is, due to his being on the losing side of Brexit whether it is a success or failure his reputation will probably not be that kind, but we cannot be sure how unkind right now, and his honours suggestions will certainly not feature as significant or indicative of his premiership.
Possibly right in the long term, but for the immediate future Cammo's Losers List has a stench around it which few are coming forward to defend.
Mr. Quidder, that may be what precipitates global nuclear war.
And the end to free bus passes for pensioners. Although as every potential destination will have been flattened by ICBMs and every bus driver will be an irradiated corpse, the impact will be blunted somewhat.
Edited extra bit: just demanglified it.
Edited extra bit 2: mildly amused at humans. As Dr. Prasannan said, Cannae took place today (when Hannibal brilliantly managed to surround an army that was twice as big as his). He also led an army of men, horses and elephants across the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
Men can do such things, yet also tremble at the prospect of leaving the EU.
I think previous generations would be bemused by the idea that important political decisions should be based upon short-run changes in GDP.
Imagine George Washington saying to his colleagues in 1776, " Hang on chaps, if we leave the British Empire, GDP will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be from 1777 to 1780.".
Of course George Washington was not urging s halt in immigration which was of course the power house driving USA's GDP ever higher
Isn't the public purse paying for £60 million of it, plus tax relief? The fact that can be called 'largely by private donations' shows how expensive the whole project is. According to Wiki it's £30 mn from HMT and £30 mn from TfL. Then there are the ludicrous ongoing maintenance expenses - was it £3 million a year?
I'm sure Londoners on here can find better things to spend £60 million of public funds on. A bridge further downstream in East London perhaps? You know, where one is actually needed.
It's £60m of which £30m is budgeted to be spent on Temple Tube in the current 3 year plan. The other £30m (from HMT) is the tax relief. There is no mythical £60m that can be spent on something else (I've no view on whether redeveloping Temple Tube is a priority but happy to accept if it was in the plan anyway it is).The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately).
As you say, it's £60m.
"The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately)"
And if they don't get those donations? Who ends up paying for the maintenance?
Charles: I love engineering, and I love bold and brash schemes. I should be the sort of person who's calling out for it to be built. But I'm not, because it simply lacks a coherent purpose. A place for meditation should not cost £175m.
Yes it's £60m but not money available to be spent elsewhere. An important distinction.
The Trust is liable for maintenance costs. The government could - if they wish - take over ownership of the bridge and pay the maintenance costs.
As far as I'm concerned if private donors want to give over £100m (and I think there is an element of double counting as the £175m includes an endowment to cover maintenance) for something that will have a public benefit then that's fine by me
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
Brexit will give us inflation. Estimates ~2.2% in 2017. Carney will be able to stop writing letters for a while.
Let's hope so. A dose of inflation is desparately needed. Having inflation and interest rates on the floor is doing nothing for the economy except raising house prices. Cutting rates this week would send completely the wrong, panicked signal.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Isn't the public purse paying for £60 million of it, plus tax relief? The fact that can be called 'largely by private donations' shows how expensive the whole project is. According to Wiki it's £30 mn from HMT and £30 mn from TfL. Then there are the ludicrous ongoing maintenance expenses - was it £3 million a year?
I'm sure Londoners on here can find better things to spend £60 million of public funds on. A bridge further downstream in East London perhaps? You know, where one is actually needed.
It's £60m of which £30m is budgeted to be spent on Temple Tube in the current 3 year plan. The other £30m (from HMT) is the tax relief. There is no mythical £60m that can be spent on something else (I've no view on whether redeveloping Temple Tube is a priority but happy to accept if it was in the plan anyway it is).The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately).
As you say, it's £60m.
"The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately)"
And if they don't get those donations? Who ends up paying for the maintenance?
Charles: I love engineering, and I love bold and brash schemes. I should be the sort of person who's calling out for it to be built. But I'm not, because it simply lacks a coherent purpose. A place for meditation should not cost £175m.
Yes it's £60m but not money available to be spent elsewhere. An important distinction.
The Trust is liable for maintenance costs. The government could - if they wish - take over ownership of the bridge and pay the maintenance costs.
As far as I'm concerned if private donors want to give over £100m (and I think there is an element of double counting as the £175m includes an endowment to cover maintenance) for something that will have a public benefit then that's fine by me
"Yes it's £60m but not money available to be spent elsewhere"
I don't believe that's the case. For instance, the £30m being spent on Temple Tube.
But again, it's a project looking for a purpose. Worse, it's the rich trying to impose something they think'll be cool on London and getting taxpayers to pay for some of it, whilst heavily restricting its use.
It doesn't have a practical purpose. It's typical of the very worst architecture: a form looking for function. And sadly finding none.
This arguement over innocent Russian altheletes, excluding a few cases like the whistleblower (who lives in Germany), is nonsense. 90%+ are / have doped, thus the number of Russian based ones who are clean is basically none.
Now they might not have had a choice, but they are doped. What can you do? Hence the originally attempted fudge which was Russian athletes who aren't based or tested under Russia could complete in rio.
Mr. Quidder, that may be what precipitates global nuclear war.
And the end to free bus passes for pensioners. Although as every potential destination will have been flattened by ICBMs and every bus driver will be an irradiated corpse, the impact will be blunted somewhat.
Edited extra bit: just demanglified it.
Edited extra bit 2: mildly amused at humans. As Dr. Prasannan said, Cannae took place today (when Hannibal brilliantly managed to surround an army that was twice as big as his). He also led an army of men, horses and elephants across the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
Men can do such things, yet also tremble at the prospect of leaving the EU.
I think previous generations would be bemused by the idea that important political decisions should be based upon short-run changes in GDP.
Imagine George Washington saying to his colleagues in 1776, " Hang on chaps, if we leave the British Empire, GDP will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be from 1777 to 1780.".
Of course George Washington was not urging s halt in immigration which was of course the power house driving USA's GDP ever higher
No, but as far as I am aware the USA had and has control of who they let in. We don't (yet).
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
They do it to almost anyone who points out any of the awkward consequences of Brexit - Brexit is their Holy Grail - it's gonna be pretty ugly when May delivers the inevitable compromise. fortunately she's hard as nails and wont' give a proverbial.
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
I fully agree - I was disappointed with the result but pleased by the quick transfer of power in the Tory party. I hope for a settlement good for the country - one which should reflect the closeish result - as I'd like the country to be less divided.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
Brexit will give us inflation. Estimates ~2.2% in 2017. Carney will be able to stop writing letters for a while.
Let's hope so. A dose of inflation is desparately needed. Having inflation and interest rates on the floor is doing nothing for the economy except raising house prices. Cutting rates this week would send completely the wrong, panicked signal.
Oil price is down 20% or so since mid June. That's more than the shift in sterling against the dollar and euro.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Exactly so. The deal will be shoddy unless the EU do think we are prepared to walk away
Difference between May and Cameron is that I think the former could quite possibly threaten to do so, whereas the latter never would.
PM May winning GE2015 would probably have got a better deal and we'd probably have just narrowly voted to Remain.
Cameron's honours for REMAINERS has laid the capstone on his reputation.
No it hasn't. There was nothing egregious in his honours suggestions compared to how honours have been portrayed as long as I have been alive. His reputation will be defined by Brexit, and either tempered or worsened by how one feels about the coalition years, the rest is nonsense.
I must have missed all the Conservative senior people that have come out to defend Cameron. Apart that is from "mad" Desmond in the New Forest who is as mad as a box of ferrets in real life.
I don't see what your post has to do with my post - was it meant to be in reply to something else? Cameron's reputation will be what it is, due to his being on the losing side of Brexit whether it is a success or failure his reputation will probably not be that kind, but we cannot be sure how unkind right now, and his honours suggestions will certainly not feature as significant or indicative of his premiership.
Possibly right in the long term, but for the immediate future Cammo's Losers List has a stench around it which few are coming forward to defend.
Where's Richard N?
I'd be surprised if DC cares much about the artificial fuss created by the usual suspects. Why on earth would he?
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
Japan is a good analogy, and is probably the closest real-world example (rather than one from an economics textbook) of what's been happening in the UK and US since about 2010. Hopefully the devaluation of the pound will help in the short term and he coming rearrangement of our trade deals in the medium term.
By the way, anyone have any ideas what's happening with the yen in the past couple of weeks? Closed at 100.8 to the dollar today, from 125 a year ago and a right pain in the arse when trying to buy stuff from Japan in dollars - as I am right now.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
We have a choice. We can effectively borrow for free (like that 50 year bond recently on -1.3% real return) or we can think sod it and just print.
Personally, I am still nervous of QE or printing as it is more accurately known. It is a very dangerous thing to let politicians near. So I would borrow. Under traditional economics this would risk squeezing out private sector investment but in a world where capital moves freely I think this is less of a risk.
If our government can borrow for less than nothing why are we trying to get the Chinese to fund Hinkley C? Let's do it ourselves and get on with it. Let's build at least 3 new runways in the south, link up Heathrow and Gatwick by a very fast train and get on with HS3 in the north.
There are risks in this as Japan shows all too well but we are running out of options.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
They do it to almost anyone who points out any of the awkward consequences of Brexit - Brexit is their Holy Grail - it's gonna be pretty ugly when May delivers the inevitable compromise. fortunately she's hard as nails and won't give a proverbial.
Agreed, I think their troubles will really start when they finally have to decide on what sort of Brexit we will be be getting. Still very much a "phoney" war just now, all the Brexiters can still believe that will all get their own preferred version. .
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
Brexit will give us inflation. Estimates ~2.2% in 2017. Carney will be able to stop writing letters for a while.
Let's hope so. A dose of inflation is desparately needed. Having inflation and interest rates on the floor is doing nothing for the economy except raising house prices. Cutting rates this week would send completely the wrong, panicked signal.
Oil price is down 20% or so since mid June. That's more than the shift in sterling against the dollar and euro.
Indeed, and it means that the one price everyone knows - as they drive past a big sign every few miles - hasn't gone up much if at all.
Prices of currencies and commodities are really all over the place and have been for a year or so, if nothing else it will help British exports.
Hey, that McLaren just got 10% cheaper than the Ferrari, not that someone about to buy either will notice too much. They will notice the Jaguar against the BMW though.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
We have a choice. We can effectively borrow for free (like that 50 year bond recently on -1.3% real return) or we can think sod it and just print.
Personally, I am still nervous of QE or printing as it is more accurately known. It is a very dangerous thing to let politicians near. So I would borrow. Under traditional economics this would risk squeezing out private sector investment but in a world where capital moves freely I think this is less of a risk.
If our government can borrow for less than nothing why are we trying to get the Chinese to fund Hinkley C? Let's do it ourselves and get on with it. Let's build at least 3 new runways in the south, link up Heathrow and Gatwick by a very fast train and get on with HS3 in the north.
There are risks in this as Japan shows all too well but we are running out of options.
However the money is raised we all know most of it will end up propping up the NHS/Pensions/social care..... and precious little will go on capital spending. How do we know this? Because as you mentioned - this is what politicians do. [ And even more so when they have a small majority].
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
We have a choice. We can effectively borrow for free (like that 50 year bond recently on -1.3% real return) or we can think sod it and just print.
Personally, I am still nervous of QE or printing as it is more accurately known. It is a very dangerous thing to let politicians near. So I would borrow. Under traditional economics this would risk squeezing out private sector investment but in a world where capital moves freely I think this is less of a risk.
If our government can borrow for less than nothing why are we trying to get the Chinese to fund Hinkley C? Let's do it ourselves and get on with it. Let's build at least 3 new runways in the south, link up Heathrow and Gatwick by a very fast train and get on with HS3 in the north.
There are risks in this as Japan shows all too well but we are running out of options.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
You do know that the BoE has a 2% inflation target, right? I'm fine with criticism of Brexit, but ludicrous hyperbole just loses you impact and credibility.
"Yes it's £60m but not money available to be spent elsewhere"
I don't believe that's the case. For instance, the £30m being spent on Temple Tube.
But again, it's a project looking for a purpose. Worse, it's the rich trying to impose something they think'll be cool on London and getting taxpayers to pay for some of it, whilst heavily restricting its use.
It doesn't have a practical purpose. It's typical of the very worst architecture: a form looking for function. And sadly finding none.
TFL have said £30m needs to be spent on redeveloping Temple Tube. I'm going to take them at their word. The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal.
the HMT contribution is forgone VAT. If the Garden Bridge doesn't happen then they don't get the money to spend elsewhere.
Prestige buildings are usually "imposed" by some visionary or other. Things designed by consensus are rarely interesting.
The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well.
Of course nobody wants 1975 rerun and 26 point something inflation, but the huge housing bubble and the even bigger bond bubble are seriously scary and distorting. The latter is largely invisible to most people of course but BHS and Tata pension woes are largely caused by this and are canaries in a pensions coal mine rapidly filling with fire damp gas. Many savers will get just as totally screwed unless this is unwound pronto as they were in 1975-81 by inflation.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
Who are the "we", Mr Fear, and what do "we" want?
If you are talking about everybody who voted for Leave, I did for one. And I very much doubt that what people like me wanted and still want is the same as what the frothing UKIP wants.
Of course nobody wants 1975 rerun and 26 point something inflation, but the huge housing bubble and the even bigger bond bubble are seriously scary and distorting. The latter is largely invisible to most people of course but BHS and Tata pension woes are largely caused by this and are canaries in a pensions coal mine rapidly filling with fire damp gas. Many savers will get just as totally screwed unless this is unwound pronto as they were in 1975-81 by inflation.
I'm with you on the housing bubble in London and the SE - though it will take a significant rise in rates to choke it off - and the pain for those with little or no equity who haven't planned on it is gonna be huge. Meanwhile there are many parts of the UK where house prices are yet to recover to 2010 levels - they're gonna be even more chuffed by the higher monthly bills. If there was an easy solution I think we'd have had it by now - abandoning sound money is certainly not it.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow!
I'm really not getting at them. The American system is profoundly corrupt and gives businesses like them little choice but to support the politicians in this way. It is like criticising Trump for having dealings with the mafia. If you are needing concrete to build in NY or New Jersey what are you going to do?
For all the moaning about Cameron's retirement honours for the chums that have helped him up the greasy pole it is a far better (and cheaper) system than exists on the other side of the pond.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
Who are the "we", Mr Fear, and what do "we" want?
If you are talking about everybody who voted for Leave, I did for one. And I very much doubt that what people like me wanted and still want is the same as what the frothing UKIP wants.
If May doesn't negotiate the precise deal that I want, then I'm going to walk the dogs in a furiously brisk fashion. That will teach her.
''Obama says Trump is unfit to be President and urges Republicans to withdraw their backing.''
If Hillary is doing so well, why is he making this intervention?
No harm in pressing a point.
Particularity when he has a +10 Approval Rating, Obama is a political asset whereas many outgoing Presidents are a drag on their party
Indeed only a select few second term presidents have been a net boost to their party's nominee since WW2, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Of the earlier three one of their succesor's as nominee won, Bush Snr, one won the popular vote, Gore and one lost by less than 1%, Nixon
Is it too late to repeal the twenty second amendment?
Of course nobody wants 1975 rerun and 26 point something inflation, but the huge housing bubble and the even bigger bond bubble are seriously scary and distorting. The latter is largely invisible to most people of course but BHS and Tata pension woes are largely caused by this and are canaries in a pensions coal mine rapidly filling with fire damp gas. Many savers will get just as totally screwed unless this is unwound pronto as they were in 1975-81 by inflation.
I'm with you on the housing bubble in London and the SE - though it will take a significant rise in rates to choke it off - and the pain for those with little or no equity who haven't planned on it is gonna be huge. Meanwhile there are many parts of the UK where house prices are yet to recover to 2010 levels - they're gonna be even more chuffed by the higher monthly bills. If there was an easy solution I think we'd have had it by now - abandoning sound money is certainly not it.
Agreed it is not easy, but I'm not chuffed we are in a world where an index linked £27k pension with 50% same age spouse benefits at age 65 (so "public sector") costs a princely one million quid. (Just think of the punitive saving that's going on on the quiet to cope with this, sucking money out of the economy daily). That's ultra low rates and a bond bubble for you. It's way more expensive than £50k coming off a house valuation in Luton or wherever.
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
Who are the "we", Mr Fear, and what do "we" want?
If you are talking about everybody who voted for Leave, I did for one. And I very much doubt that what people like me wanted and still want is the same as what the frothing UKIP wants.
If May doesn't negotiate the precise deal that I want, then I'm going to walk the dogs in a furiously brisk fashion. That will teach her.
Similarly for me, although I suspect it will be the dogs walking me in that furiously brisk manner.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
Whether Sterling is $1.50 as opposed to $1.30, or inflation is 2% as opposed to 1% means bugger all to 99% of the population.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
You do know that the BoE has a 2% inflation target, right? I'm fine with criticism of Brexit, but ludicrous hyperbole just loses you impact and credibility.
''Obama says Trump is unfit to be President and urges Republicans to withdraw their backing.''
If Hillary is doing so well, why is he making this intervention?
No harm in pressing a point.
Particularity when he has a +10 Approval Rating, Obama is a political asset whereas many outgoing Presidents are a drag on their party
Indeed only a select few second term presidents have been a net boost to their party's nominee since WW2, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Of the earlier three one of their succesor's as nominee won, Bush Snr, one won the popular vote, Gore and one lost by less than 1%, Nixon
Is it too late to repeal the twenty second amendment?
I really don't think that Obama has been a good President. Brilliant candidate undoubtedly but surprisingly ineffective as President, mainly in fairness because he has consistently faced a republican dominated Congress of course. But with the benefit of 4 or 8 years hindsight he may start to look like a colossus.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we were told that inflation between 2-4% was the most conducive to growth. I believe the target for inflation was fixed where it is largely for this reason.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
You do know that the BoE has a 2% inflation target, right? I'm fine with criticism of Brexit, but ludicrous hyperbole just loses you impact and credibility.
That went out of the window long since.
It's still the MPC's official target, as set in 2011. Osborne even loosened the remit in 2013, to let it go higher if it helped the economy.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
Whether Sterling is $1.50 as opposed to $1.30, or inflation is 2% as opposed to 1% means bugger all to 99% of the population.
The only thing that means bugger all to a large % of those who voted Leave is stopping immigration .
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
I am sure max Moseley will be more than happy to join your fantasy football league.
It is foolish to look for too much detail from U.S. state polling yet, but the patterns seem to be: Ohio is very marginal. Nevada and New Hampshire appear marginal. Pennsylvania is not yet marginal, but much better for Trump than would be expected on a UNS. On the other hand, North Carolina is better for Clinton than would be expected and would make up for all but five Pennsylvanian votes. VERY tentatively, Michigan and Colorado do not look as marginal as they ought to be (especially Michigan) but perhaps there's not enough evidence for even that agnostic prediction yet.
TFL have said £30m needs to be spent on redeveloping Temple Tube. I'm going to take them at their word. The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal.
the HMT contribution is forgone VAT. If the Garden Bridge doesn't happen then they don't get the money to spend elsewhere.
Prestige buildings are usually "imposed" by some visionary or other. Things designed by consensus are rarely interesting.
The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well.
"The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal."
I must say, that does make me LOL. Increase the strength (and therefore weight) of a roof, and you usually need a stronger support structure, and they need stronger foundations. The last place you want to add weight is the roof.
If TfL are spending £30 million on the tube, then surely that should not be counted as part of the bridge's budget?
And when it comes to the maintenance costs, it looks like Boris agreed to underwrite those costs,
"The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well."
No, it really does not, and particularly not at £175m.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
I am sure max Moseley will be more than happy to join your fantasy football league.
I've never understand the attraction of visiting Dominatrices, if I wanted to hand over all my money to a women to sexually frustrate and insult me all night long, I'd get married again, and I get all that for free.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
How will the Garden Bridge help those deprived kids? Surely you can think of how £175mn might be spent more to their advantage?
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
It's the nature of complex deals that nobody gets what they want. Fortunately most adults have the maturity to understand that. There are always going to be refuseniks whatever May decides. Brexit will always be too hard or too soft for some. Ultimately, that's just tough shit.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
There's real poverty in Westminster. Like London as a whole, it's a borough of contrasts. The presence of a lot of super-rich people pulls up the figures for average incomes in London to a misleading degree.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. A "little" inflation allows price adjustments without them being overtly visible. Your house staying at the same nominal price for 10 years feels a lot less painful than a 30% drop even though you end up in pretty much the same place with 3% inflation for 10 years ( though if your wages rise in line your mortgage has dropped in real terms too).
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
Whether Sterling is $1.50 as opposed to $1.30, or inflation is 2% as opposed to 1% means bugger all to 99% of the population.
The only thing that means bugger all to a large % of those who voted Leave is stopping immigration .
It is foolish to look for too much detail from U.S. state polling yet, but the patterns seem to be: Ohio is very marginal. Nevada and New Hampshire appear marginal. Pennsylvania is not yet marginal, but much better for Trump than would be expected on a UNS. On the other hand, North Carolina is better for Clinton than would be expected and would make up for all but five Pennsylvanian votes. VERY tentatively, Michigan and Colorado do not look as marginal as they ought to be (especially Michigan) but perhaps there's not enough evidence for even that agnostic prediction yet.
There are polls out with Clinton +1 in Utah and level in Georgia.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
The "hard Brexiteers'" problem is that they are in the minority. So as far as they're concerned it was a pyrrhic victory: they'll get nothing except EU-lessness.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
It's the nature of complex deals that nobody gets what they want. Fortunately most adults have the maturity to understand that. There are always going to be refuseniks whatever May decides. Brexit will always be too hard or too soft for some. Ultimately, that's just tough shit.
Most importantly, those who don't like something will be able to elect politicians with a mandate to do something about their problem - whether it's VAT on fuel or spousal visas, these things will be decided by the votes of British people, not Jean-Claude Drunker or an EU court of political appointees.
Mr. Quidder, that may be what precipitates global nuclear war.
And the end to free bus passes for pensioners. Although as every potential destination will have been flattened by ICBMs and every bus driver will be an irradiated corpse, the impact will be blunted somewhat.
Edited extra bit: just demanglified it.
Edited extra bit 2: mildly amused at humans. As Dr. Prasannan said, Cannae took place today (when Hannibal brilliantly managed to surround an army that was twice as big as his). He also led an army of men, horses and elephants across the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
Men can do such things, yet also tremble at the prospect of leaving the EU.
I think previous generations would be bemused by the idea that important political decisions should be based upon short-run changes in GDP.
Imagine George Washington saying to his colleagues in 1776, " Hang on chaps, if we leave the British Empire, GDP will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be from 1777 to 1780.".
Of course George Washington was not urging s halt in immigration which was of course the power house driving USA's GDP ever higher
No, but as far as I am aware the USA had and has control of who they let in. We don't (yet).
They were also pretty hard on the indigenous population. I'm not sure how analogous immigration policy in 18thC USA is with 21stC UK.
Comments
I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
Isinbayeva has never been caught or missed a test. She cannot compete.
Two times cheat Gatlin could win a medal.
With Brexit, even though doom mongers were shouting catastrophic consequences very loudly, at the end of the day people could vote for it and know that a senior Tory would still be PM afterwards, with not mad Kipper in sight. It was a a way of saying up yours to the establishment in the form of a grabbing them by the throat and saying "buck up or else" rather than a knockout blow
With Trump, if he gets in he is President, leader of the free world etc. I think there will be genuine last minute bottling by people flirting with the Donald. It's a much more black and white case than Brexit
That all been said the US have for a long time allowed drugs cheats back & some suggest more, but they can't stop them regardless.
Whereas, ours are not cheats, they just forget.
I personally believe about 80% are at it.
"The £3m maintenance is from donations (hence the need to rent it out privately)"
And if they don't get those donations? Who ends up paying for the maintenance?
Charles: I love engineering, and I love bold and brash schemes. I should be the sort of person who's calling out for it to be built. But I'm not, because it simply lacks a coherent purpose. A place for meditation should not cost £175m.
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
The Home Office wins an appeal against a court ruling which allowed four Syrian refugees to join family in the UK https://t.co/nybwZqWfMk
There are definitely UK athletes doping* but to suggest anything similar to Russia is just fantasy stuff.
* also by "doping" I would include playing fast & loose with the rules eg medical exemptions etc.
The best thing about being British right now...
is not having to choose between Trump & Clinton.
Imagine George Washington saying to his colleagues in 1776, " Hang on chaps, if we leave the British Empire, GDP will be 2% lower than it would otherwise be from 1777 to 1780.".
Er......... and where has that particular line of enquiry led to so far. And, Nike's contribution to the campaign for office of a certain ex-athlete , now a top official.
Nowhere.
Or, are they waiting for the Olympics to be over.
many innocent Russian athletes have been treated very badly. Just because the IAAF could not deal with the Russian authorities much much earlier.
Also feel sorry for the Russian whistleblower, Yuliya Stepanova. Letting her compete would have sent a signal that what she did was the right thing, maybe even encouraging others to come forward. She's been let down badly.
The Trust is liable for maintenance costs. The government could - if they wish - take over ownership of the bridge and pay the maintenance costs.
As far as I'm concerned if private donors want to give over £100m (and I think there is an element of double counting as the £175m includes an endowment to cover maintenance) for something that will have a public benefit then that's fine by me
On that note, how long before the US will have had more presidents than England has had Kings or Queens since 1066?
Trouble is we are a world away from this and it's bending lots of other bits of the economy to breaking point. The Weimar Republic is a warning of course but we are in serious danger of following Japan post 1989. Get the printing presses going Mr Carney and stop dicking about with QE.
I don't believe that's the case. For instance, the £30m being spent on Temple Tube.
But again, it's a project looking for a purpose. Worse, it's the rich trying to impose something they think'll be cool on London and getting taxpayers to pay for some of it, whilst heavily restricting its use.
It doesn't have a practical purpose. It's typical of the very worst architecture: a form looking for function. And sadly finding none.
Now they might not have had a choice, but they are doped. What can you do? Hence the originally attempted fudge which was Russian athletes who aren't based or tested under Russia could complete in rio.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-fundraising-totals-july-2016-226553
By the way, anyone have any ideas what's happening with the yen in the past couple of weeks? Closed at 100.8 to the dollar today, from 125 a year ago and a right pain in the arse when trying to buy stuff from Japan in dollars - as I am right now.
Personally, I am still nervous of QE or printing as it is more accurately known. It is a very dangerous thing to let politicians near. So I would borrow. Under traditional economics this would risk squeezing out private sector investment but in a world where capital moves freely I think this is less of a risk.
If our government can borrow for less than nothing why are we trying to get the Chinese to fund Hinkley C? Let's do it ourselves and get on with it. Let's build at least 3 new runways in the south, link up Heathrow and Gatwick by a very fast train and get on with HS3 in the north.
There are risks in this as Japan shows all too well but we are running out of options.
bribingsupporting both sides.Prices of currencies and commodities are really all over the place and have been for a year or so, if nothing else it will help British exports.
Hey, that McLaren just got 10% cheaper than the Ferrari, not that someone about to buy either will notice too much. They will notice the Jaguar against the BMW though.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
the HMT contribution is forgone VAT. If the Garden Bridge doesn't happen then they don't get the money to spend elsewhere.
Prestige buildings are usually "imposed" by some visionary or other. Things designed by consensus are rarely interesting.
The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well.
@Felix
Of course nobody wants 1975 rerun and 26 point something inflation, but the huge housing bubble and the even bigger bond bubble are seriously scary and distorting. The latter is largely invisible to most people of course but BHS and Tata pension woes are largely caused by this and are canaries in a pensions coal mine rapidly filling with fire damp gas. Many savers will get just as totally screwed unless this is unwound pronto as they were in 1975-81 by inflation.
If you are talking about everybody who voted for Leave, I did for one. And I very much doubt that what people like me wanted and still want is the same as what the frothing UKIP wants.
For all the moaning about Cameron's retirement honours for the chums that have helped him up the greasy pole it is a far better (and cheaper) system than exists on the other side of the pond.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php
They endorsed Obama in '08 and LBJ vs Goldwater in '64. Otherwise Republicans all the way.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
I must say, that does make me LOL. Increase the strength (and therefore weight) of a roof, and you usually need a stronger support structure, and they need stronger foundations. The last place you want to add weight is the roof.
If TfL are spending £30 million on the tube, then surely that should not be counted as part of the bridge's budget?
And when it comes to the maintenance costs, it looks like Boris agreed to underwrite those costs,
"The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well."
No, it really does not, and particularly not at £175m.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
That is, if such riffraff are allowed on:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/06/garden-bridge-mobile-phone-signals-tracking-london
But for a while they are advocating a contradiction, in terms of single market access w/o FoM, they may yet resolve that tension.
I reckon the big stumbling block is we have to maintain our contribution to the EU budget.
I reckon we'd lose our rebate, and we really would be sending £350m per week to the EU.
http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=781d962e0d3dfabcf455f7eff&id=bd1bc671e5