"I can forgive many of the sins of the Trump-is-Hitler, Brexit-is-Beelzebub lobby. I mean, we all lose the plot occasionally. We’re all susceptible to freaking out.
One day you’re a paragon of measured political chatter and the next you’re on Twitter at 3am screaming ‘FASCIST!’ at eggs and plotting to make Hampstead a republic so you don’t have to share citizenship with former miners and women called Chardonnay who don’t like the EU.
Meltdowns happen. I get it. Let’s not be too hard on these people who’ve left the land of reason for the world of WTF, where Godwin’s Law is permanently suspended...
On bill Maher on Friday he tried to take the criminal position that trump is wrong but might not be the new Hitler and to say so doesn't help the argument against trump. to which he was shouted down and told repeatedly to f##k off and that Hitler worked up to killing the Jews, he didn't kill them on day one.
We have heard that argument put on here. Lots of other lines to take seem to turn up "randomly" in various places at the same time especially in respect to Trump. Never any shortage of useful idiots for the inter-billionaire bloodletting going on at the moment.
According to a new report from Bloomberg, most of the money Google spent on it self-driving car project, now spun off into a new entity called Waymo, has gone to engineers and other staff. While it has helped retain a lot of influential and dedicated workers in the short run, it has resulted in many staffers leaving the company in the long run due to the immense financial security. The Verge reports:
Bloomberg says that early staffers "had an unusual compensation system" that multiplied staffers salaries and bonuses based on the performance of the self-driving project. The payments accumulated as milestones were reached, even though Waymo remains years away from generating revenue. One staffer eventually "had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years." The huge amounts of compensation worked -- for a while. But eventually, it gave many staffers such financial security that they were willing to leave the cuddly confines of Google. Two staffers that Bloomberg spoke to called it "F-you money," and the accumulated cash allowed them to depart Google for other firms, including Chris Urmson who co-founded a startup with ex-Tesla employee Sterling Anderson, and others who founded a self-driving truck company called Otto which was purchased by Uber last year, and another who founded Argo AI which received a $1 billion investment from Ford last week.
"I can forgive many of the sins of the Trump-is-Hitler, Brexit-is-Beelzebub lobby. I mean, we all lose the plot occasionally. We’re all susceptible to freaking out.
One day you’re a paragon of measured political chatter and the next you’re on Twitter at 3am screaming ‘FASCIST!’ at eggs and plotting to make Hampstead a republic so you don’t have to share citizenship with former miners and women called Chardonnay who don’t like the EU.
Meltdowns happen. I get it. Let’s not be too hard on these people who’ve left the land of reason for the world of WTF, where Godwin’s Law is permanently suspended...
On bill Maher on Friday he tried to take the criminal position that trump is wrong but might not be the new Hitler and to say so doesn't help the argument against trump. to which he was shouted down and told repeatedly to f##k off and that Hitler worked up to killing the Jews, he didn't kill them on day one.
Honestly, I'm quite worried that the pan is about to boil over in the US - not from Trumpers and Joe Average - but the unhinged egged on by celebs and the MSM.
I've been following the Flynn stuff very closely for the last couple of weeks - it looks very likely that Priebus is behind a lot of this, assisted by the sacked Democrat AG. Priebus has a lot of form here - he was outed as the coup coordinator a month out from the election.
Trump needs to dump him and do a Carter on the CIA.
"I can forgive many of the sins of the Trump-is-Hitler, Brexit-is-Beelzebub lobby. I mean, we all lose the plot occasionally. We’re all susceptible to freaking out.
One day you’re a paragon of measured political chatter and the next you’re on Twitter at 3am screaming ‘FASCIST!’ at eggs and plotting to make Hampstead a republic so you don’t have to share citizenship with former miners and women called Chardonnay who don’t like the EU.
Meltdowns happen. I get it. Let’s not be too hard on these people who’ve left the land of reason for the world of WTF, where Godwin’s Law is permanently suspended...
On bill Maher on Friday he tried to take the criminal position that trump is wrong but might not be the new Hitler and to say so doesn't help the argument against trump. to which he was shouted down and told repeatedly to f##k off and that Hitler worked up to killing the Jews, he didn't kill them on day one.
There is some sense in what he says (Piers) - constant Hitler comparisons are over the top. The comedian was being hysterical in his attack, and no need for that language on a talk show.
But he's become a complete toady with Trump, it's embarrassing. He's gone from someone admittedly unpopular, with contrarian but real opinions on various issues, to just a warmed-over Katie Hopkins.
"Appalling as both are, these two characters exemplify in their own very different ways why the modern Left has collapsed as an electoral force.
Which is why it is so revealing that Baroness Chakrabarti has chosen to leap to the defence of Mr Shiner. Speaking on Sunday she told us how upset she is at Mr Shiner’s downfall.
He had, she said, done “very good work” before “losing his way”.
How telling this is about her world view. She believes not only that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party must be protected from the accusation that it harbours anti-Semites but also that Phil Shiner must be protected from the idea that he is a nasty piece of work who deserves everything that has come to him.
It's.A.Labour.Thing
"He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews"
The trouble there is that it's true, and not really paradoxical, though it is an exceedingly silly way of putting it. The Nazis wanted there not to be any Jews in Germany, and having all the Jews in Germany go more or less voluntarily to Palestine was a way of achieving that end which they investigated at some length. They also looked at Madagascar as a destination. See the Haavara Agreement, or read this http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/30/book-review-eichmann-in-jerusalem/ or read the Arendt book reviewed there.
"Appalling as both are, these two characters exemplify in their own very different ways why the modern Left has collapsed as an electoral force.
Which is why it is so revealing that Baroness Chakrabarti has chosen to leap to the defence of Mr Shiner. Speaking on Sunday she told us how upset she is at Mr Shiner’s downfall.
He had, she said, done “very good work” before “losing his way”.
How telling this is about her world view. She believes not only that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party must be protected from the accusation that it harbours anti-Semites but also that Phil Shiner must be protected from the idea that he is a nasty piece of work who deserves everything that has come to him.
It's.A.Labour.Thing
"He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews"
The trouble there is that it's true, and not really paradoxical, though it is an exceedingly silly way of putting it. The Nazis wanted there not to be any Jews in Germany, and having all the Jews in Germany go more or less voluntarily to Palestine was a way of achieving that end which they investigated at some length. They also looked at Madagascar as a destination. See the Haavara Agreement, or read this http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/30/book-review-eichmann-in-jerusalem/ or read the Arendt book reviewed there.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
The interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
One final observation on Stoke before I retire for the week to that cities streets. This aint an election about Leave or Remain. It is for the London media. It is about Stoke its problems and the future, Brexit is just part of that picture. The skill is to get them all together into one message. Has anyone done that? The election will in the end be won on postal votes and organisation on the day. I leave you to guess who is weak in that area.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
Said this for ages, at some point interest rates will have to return to historic norms. Whoever is in power when that happens will be in big trouble.
"Appalling as both are, these two characters exemplify in their own very different ways why the modern Left has collapsed as an electoral force.
Which is why it is so revealing that Baroness Chakrabarti has chosen to leap to the defence of Mr Shiner. Speaking on Sunday she told us how upset she is at Mr Shiner’s downfall.
He had, she said, done “very good work” before “losing his way”.
How telling this is about her world view. She believes not only that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party must be protected from the accusation that it harbours anti-Semites but also that Phil Shiner must be protected from the idea that he is a nasty piece of work who deserves everything that has come to him.
It's.A.Labour.Thing
"He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews"
The trouble there is that it's true, and not really paradoxical, though it is an exceedingly silly way of putting it. The Nazis wanted there not to be any Jews in Germany, and having all the Jews in Germany go more or less voluntarily to Palestine was a way of achieving that end which they investigated at some length. They also looked at Madagascar as a destination. See the Haavara Agreement, or read this http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/30/book-review-eichmann-in-jerusalem/ or read the Arendt book reviewed there.
That really isn't the same thing as saying that Hitler supported Zionism. If he'd won he would have got around to liquidating the Jews in Palestine as well if he could.
"I can forgive many of the sins of the Trump-is-Hitler, Brexit-is-Beelzebub lobby. I mean, we all lose the plot occasionally. We’re all susceptible to freaking out.
One day you’re a paragon of measured political chatter and the next you’re on Twitter at 3am screaming ‘FASCIST!’ at eggs and plotting to make Hampstead a republic so you don’t have to share citizenship with former miners and women called Chardonnay who don’t like the EU.
Meltdowns happen. I get it. Let’s not be too hard on these people who’ve left the land of reason for the world of WTF, where Godwin’s Law is permanently suspended...
On bill Maher on Friday he tried to take the criminal position that trump is wrong but might not be the new Hitler and to say so doesn't help the argument against trump. to which he was shouted down and told repeatedly to f##k off and that Hitler worked up to killing the Jews, he didn't kill them on day one.
There is some sense in what he says (Piers) - constant Hitler comparisons are over the top. The comedian was being hysterical in his attack, and no need for that language on a talk show.
But he's become a complete toady with Trump, it's embarrassing. He's gone from someone admittedly unpopular, with contrarian but real opinions on various issues, to just a warmed-over Katie Hopkins.
Morgan said he wouldn't have voted for Trump. He simply couldn't resist winding up Maher and his boring guests. Much as I dislike Morgan I enjoyed his crap cutting.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
and that won't change while saving pays nothing. If we want to get the national debt down we need to encourage savings, and interests rates of fractions of a percent wont do it.
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
Labour effectively at 5/1 for Copeland (unless you think that they'll finish outside the top two, which really would be an earthquake)? I don't mind if I do:
This us oly the third time I have ever posted here over a period years of lurking. However reading NikP's post on Stoke has motivated me. It is pure fantasy. The libdems are aiming for the scenario that casino royale has eluded to. I believe it is about a 30% chance that their extremely heavy campaign and GOTV will give them the low 30% of the vote they need. I have them at 40 to 1which must be value.
Well if you make them a somewhere between 3 and 7/2 chance you really should be filling your boots at 50 on betfair.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
Said this for ages, at some point interest rates will have to return to historic norms. Whoever is in power when that happens will be in big trouble.
If inflation is coming off an one off effect due to currency depreciation is there logic for raising rates - external rather than internal factors. Perhaps if wage inflation is rising but that doesn't seem to be the case. The reverse if anything.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
Said this for ages, at some point interest rates will have to return to historic norms. Whoever is in power when that happens will be in big trouble.
We are now in an absurd situation where Millennials are spending far more on rent than they would on mortgages, because of the rules introduced after the GFC governing minimum equity ratios. Many cannot save for a deposit so are condemned to renting, while their predecessor generation is mortgaged to the hilt on rising assets but cannot bear interest rate rises. It's a lock.
"Appalling as both are, these two characters exemplify in their own very different ways why the modern Left has collapsed as an electoral force.
Which is why it is so revealing that Baroness Chakrabarti has chosen to leap to the defence of Mr Shiner. Speaking on Sunday she told us how upset she is at Mr Shiner’s downfall.
He had, she said, done “very good work” before “losing his way”.
How telling this is about her world view. She believes not only that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party must be protected from the accusation that it harbours anti-Semites but also that Phil Shiner must be protected from the idea that he is a nasty piece of work who deserves everything that has come to him.
It's.A.Labour.Thing
"He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews"
The trouble there is that it's true, and not really paradoxical, though it is an exceedingly silly way of putting it. The Nazis wanted there not to be any Jews in Germany, and having all the Jews in Germany go more or less voluntarily to Palestine was a way of achieving that end which they investigated at some length. They also looked at Madagascar as a destination. See the Haavara Agreement, or read this http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/30/book-review-eichmann-in-jerusalem/ or read the Arendt book reviewed there.
That really isn't the same thing as saying that Hitler supported Zionism. If he'd won he would have got around to liquidating the Jews in Palestine as well if he could.
I have already said that it is an exceedingly silly way of putting it.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
I suggest the BoE doesn't do anything until the effects of Trumpism on Fed rates come to light.
But he's become a complete toady with Trump, it's embarrassing. He's gone from someone admittedly unpopular, with contrarian but real opinions on various issues, to just a warmed-over Katie Hopkins.
Peter Thompson Demographics behind the French Presidential election are interesting. 57% of 18-24 yo support Centre Right or Right. 26% youth unemployment. https://t.co/G6O9VLrDuW
The really big point is that far from being a tumultuous, cacophonic, unstable, firecracker of a polity, Brexit Britain is starting to feel like a relative island of calm, more at ease with itself than it has been for many years, led by a sort of 1950s Prime Minister, who is nearly 20 points ahead in the polls.
The spotlight of worry has swivelled round elsewhere, to Greece, France and to the United States. If Brexit is a revolution, it is so far turning out to be a very British and incremental one, lacking in violence or upset. More tea, vicar?
Well that was the point. It WAS a British revolution. We trudged to the polls on a Summers day and decided to change the course of the nation for the next century. And in so doing we changed the government too.
Afterwards the establishment and MSM had a collective meltdown (Faisal is still in a state of extreme heightened emotion) but the people just shrugged and went back to watching Coronation Street.
Now we're on our way out of the EU with the reassuring presence of this generations Super Mac (Mrs May) at the helm and things are stable with the economy going far better than even the most excitable of Brexiteers could have expected.
All typically British.
A very good post, Mr. Gin. I remember the day after the referendum trying to explain to an American pal of mine that we had just had a revolution because that it is how it felt to me at the time. When I saw people in the polling station who I know had not voted for donkeys' years, if ever, my first thought was, "Crikey, leave could well win this". My second thought, "This will stand politics in the UK on its head" and so it has. Some people who have always thought of themselves, rather smugly, as "progressive", supporters of change and modernisation now find themselves in the role of counter-revolutionaries desperate to retain the old status quo.
As you say most people having set the revolution in motion have gone back to their normal concerns and are content to let the politicians find the best way to implement their decision. All very British. However, I rather suspect that if those people feel their wishes are being ignored they will come back to the ballot box and stomp all over the people who are doing the ignoring. TM, perhaps, understands this.
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
The complexity in the tax system does not emanate from the fact we have zero, basic, higher and additional rate bands.
Although UC is proving difficult (as expected) to bring in, it is at least attempting to address the marginal rate issue from the withdrawal of certain benefits which creates the disincentive to work.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
It would for sure impact demand - but over 50% of the UK's housing stock is now owned outright, much more nearly so and pensioners are richer than workers for the first time. Raising interest rates gives more spending power into the economy for this enormous demographic. Overall a rate rise might be good for the UK - but who wins and who loses therefrom might be politically painful.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Peter Thompson Demographics behind the French Presidential election are interesting. 57% of 18-24 yo support Centre Right or Right. 26% youth unemployment. https://t.co/G6O9VLrDuW
Doesn't Fillon want to axe 100k jobs? Not sure that will help the unemployment figures, unless they are all civil servants responsible for compiling job stats.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Peter Thompson Demographics behind the French Presidential election are interesting. 57% of 18-24 yo support Centre Right or Right. 26% youth unemployment. https://t.co/G6O9VLrDuW
Doesn't Fillon want to axe 100k jobs? Not sure that will help the unemployment figures, unless they are all civil servants responsible for compiling job stats.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
In really big news today, the Settle to Carlisle railway is reintroducing scheduled services pulled by a steam locomotive. Huzzah!
The good doctor Sunil will no doubt be packing his bags for a journey North as we speak, and Mr. Jessup will be penning a post as to why this is a massive retrograde step, will do nothing to increase capacity and only the technology of the mid-twentieth century can get us through the 21st century.
The really big point is that far from being a tumultuous, cacophonic, unstable, firecracker of a polity, Brexit Britain is starting to feel like a relative island of calm, more at ease with itself than it has been for many years, led by a sort of 1950s Prime Minister, who is nearly 20 points ahead in the polls.
The spotlight of worry has swivelled round elsewhere, to Greece, France and to the United States. If Brexit is a revolution, it is so far turning out to be a very British and incremental one, lacking in violence or upset. More tea, vicar?
Well that was the point. It WAS a British revolution. We trudged to the polls on a Summers day and decided to change the course of the nation for the next century. And in so doing we changed the government too.
Afterwards the establishment and MSM had a collective meltdown (Faisal is still in a state of extreme heightened emotion) but the people just shrugged and went back to watching Coronation Street.
Now we're on our way out of the EU with the reassuring presence of this generations Super Mac (Mrs May) at the helm and things are stable with the economy going far better than even the most excitable of Brexiteers could have expected.
All typically British.
A very good post, Mr. Gin. I remember the day after the referendum trying to explain to an American pal of mine that we had just had a revolution because that it is how it felt to me at the time. When I saw people in the polling station who I know had not voted for donkeys' years, if ever, my first thought was, "Crikey, leave could well win this". My second thought, "This will stand politics in the UK on its head" and so it has. Some people who have always thought of themselves, rather smugly, as "progressive", supporters of change and modernisation now find themselves in the role of counter-revolutionaries desperate to retain the old status quo.
As you say most people having set the revolution in motion have gone back to their normal concerns and are content to let the politicians find the best way to implement their decision. All very British. However, I rather suspect that if those people feel their wishes are being ignored they will come back to the ballot box and stomp all over the people who are doing the ignoring. TM, perhaps, understands this.
No surprise that May is more popular than her party, or Corbyn is less popular than his (except Scotland).
What does surprise me is that outside London the Labour brand is being damaged and is much less popular than Conservatives in the Midlands and even marginally in the North....
The Midlands will be horrible for Labour at the next GE. Miliband and Corbyn could have been designed to do the maximum damage to the party in this part of the world.
Yougov people if you're reading this.....STOP PUTTING WALES WITH THE MIDLANDS FFS!!!!!!!........rant over.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Yes, but you have to examine what the market will bear. It won't bear such a large hike without a severe impact on aggregate demand. There is much less to recommend a rise than there is to recommend a continued freeze.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Mr Bob, it's some years since I lived in the area, but there was a distinct difference between the two towns. And not just the Tyne!
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
I agree, though I suppose that's kind of what Stoke-on-Trent is, I suspect some residents in Tunstall don't like being lumped together with Hanley!
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Not really. There is nothing wrong with liking to have a local identity. It certainly doesn't make one parochial in the negative sense. Indeed, as anyone who knows their literature will be aware, there is scope for even more localism within Stoke since it is an amalgamation of 6 separate towns (Arnold Bennett forgot one of them) and has only existed in a unitary form since 1910.
Labour effectively at 5/1 for Copeland (unless you think that they'll finish outside the top two, which really would be an earthquake)? I don't mind if I do:
The complexity in the tax system does not emanate from the fact we have zero, basic, higher and additional rate bands.
Although UC is proving difficult (as expected) to bring in, it is at least attempting to address the marginal rate issue from the withdrawal of certain benefits which creates the disincentive to work.
Reposted from a previous thread, as relevant here:
There isn't a million miles between Universal Basic Income, Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal and the Working Tax Credit (which is being merged into UC). But a "proper" UBI would ease the problem of punitive benefit withdrawal rates that are equivalent to 90%+ marginal income tax rates on the poor.
I did wonder if UBI would become more politically palatable in the UK post-Brexit - the "economically correct" level of UBI ought to sustain an austere but acceptably comfortable, non-poverty-stricken standard of living And in the UK such a standard of living would be beyond what e.g. many rural Romanians and Bulgarians can sustain through hard toil. With free movement, and given that restriction to citizens only would be unacceptable, the implications are obvious, and this alone would be a clincher of an argument against. Post-Brexit though, the terms of the debate are different.
Here's a fun fact for fans of alternative history. Although the Beveridge Committee in the end opted for a social insurance system, UBI was also considered and one of its members, Juliet Rhys-Williams (a Liberal politician who later became a Tory and member of the Monday Club!), strongly dissented with the final proposal, preferring a negative income tax.
No surprise that May is more popular than her party, or Corbyn is less popular than his (except Scotland).
What does surprise me is that outside London the Labour brand is being damaged and is much less popular than Conservatives in the Midlands and even marginally in the North....
The Midlands will be horrible for Labour at the next GE. Miliband and Corbyn could have been designed to do the maximum damage to the party in this part of the world.
Yougov people if you're reading this.....STOP PUTTING WALES WITH THE MIDLANDS FFS!!!!!!!........rant over.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
It would for sure impact demand - but over 50% of the UK's housing stock is now owned outright, much more nearly so and pensioners are richer than workers for the first time. Raising interest rates gives more spending power into the economy for this enormous demographic. Overall a rate rise might be good for the UK - but who wins and who loses therefrom might be politically painful.
Er no. Pensioners don't spend enough money as they are not as active in the economy. They don't have children to feed and cloth. They don't take expensive holidays in August. They don't tend to buy the latest fashions. They spend, as a rule, much less on trendy food and going out. Nor do they work – it is unwise to penalise people who work in favour of those who don't.
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
The complexity in the tax system does not emanate from the fact we have zero, basic, higher and additional rate bands.
Although UC is proving difficult (as expected) to bring in, it is at least attempting to address the marginal rate issue from the withdrawal of certain benefits which creates the disincentive to work.
Reposted from a previous thread, as relevant here:
There isn't a million miles between Universal Basic Income, Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal and the Working Tax Credit (which is being merged into UC). But a "proper" UBI would ease the problem of punitive benefit withdrawal rates that are equivalent to 90%+ marginal income tax rates on the poor.
I did wonder if UBI would become more politically palatable in the UK post-Brexit - the "economically correct" level of UBI ought to sustain an austere but acceptably comfortable, non-poverty-stricken standard of living And in the UK such a standard of living would be beyond what e.g. many rural Romanians and Bulgarians can sustain through hard toil. With free movement, and given that restriction to citizens only would be unacceptable, the implications are obvious, and this alone would be a clincher of an argument against. Post-Brexit though, the terms of the debate are different.
Here's a fun fact for fans of alternative history. Although the Beveridge Committee in the end opted for a social insurance system, UBI was also considered and one of its members, Juliet Rhys-Williams (a Liberal politician who later became a Tory and member of the Monday Club!), strongly dissented with the final proposal, preferring a negative income tax.
I don't suppose you have a link to a specific UBI proposal that you think is like negative income tax or working tax credits?
In really big news today, the Settle to Carlisle railway is reintroducing scheduled services pulled by a steam locomotive. Huzzah!
The good doctor Sunil will no doubt be packing his bags for a journey North as we speak, and Mr. Jessup will be penning a post as to why this is a massive retrograde step, will do nothing to increase capacity and only the technology of the mid-twentieth century can get us through the 21st century.
Definitely a 'Huzzah' On a slightly downbeat note however, I find it much more impressive to see a steam train than travel on one! Similarly, seeing a train pass over the viaduct is more impressive than going over it on a train. I did the journey a few years ago and was mightily disappointed when the viaduct just seemed like another bridge when looking out of the window.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Mr Bob, it's some years since I lived in the area, but there was a distinct difference between the two towns. And not just the Tyne!
The 'people who insist' are, in my experience, 'the people of Gateshead'.......easiest way to wind them up is to refer to 'the Newcastle Millennium Bridge' or 'The Sage Newcastle'.....
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Not really. There is nothing wrong with liking to have a local identity. It certainly doesn't make one parochial in the negative sense. Indeed, as anyone who knows their literature will be aware, there is scope for even more localism within Stoke since it is an amalgamation of 6 separate towns (Arnold Bennett forgot one of them) and has only existed in a unitary form since 1910.
The point is Gateshead doesn't have separate identity any more than Walthamstow has a separate identity to Leyton. Durham City, yes, Gateshead, no. They are Geordies and the culture is that of the mother city of Newcastle. Which is hardly surprising given that Newcastle is 400 yards away.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
It would for sure impact demand - but over 50% of the UK's housing stock is now owned outright, much more nearly so and pensioners are richer than workers for the first time. Raising interest rates gives more spending power into the economy for this enormous demographic. Overall a rate rise might be good for the UK - but who wins and who loses therefrom might be politically painful.
Er no. Pensioners don't spend enough money as they are not as active in the economy. They don't have children to feed and cloth. They don't take expensive holidays in August. They don't tend to buy the latest fashions. They spend, as a rule, much less on trendy food and going out. Nor do they work – it is unwise to penalise people who work in favour of those who don't.
You seem to have a view of pensioners as poor old people. They're rich! (On average). What % of supercars are bought by the over 60? Alot. Who is buying cruises and running the heating on full? Who overspends on christmas presents? Who bets on politics? Who goes to theatre? Who drinks champagne? I'd contend that much of the exuberant spending in our consumption heavy economic model is spent by those pesky oldies and all their wonga.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Mr Bob, it's some years since I lived in the area, but there was a distinct difference between the two towns. And not just the Tyne!
The 'people who insist' are, in my experience, 'the people of Gateshead'.......easiest way to wind them up is to refer to 'the Newcastle Millennium Bridge' or 'The Sage Newcastle'.....
WRONG. My wife is a Geordie, from Gateshead. She says she is from Newcastle. I know the area well. You are talking about a small parochial group.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
You seem to have a view of pensioners as poor old people. They're rich! (On average). What % of supercars are bought by the over 60? Alot. Who is buying cruises and running the heating on full? Who overspends on christmas presents? Who bets on politics? Who goes to theatre? Who drinks champagne? I'd contend that much of the exuberant spending in our consumption heavy economic model is spent by those pesky oldies and all their wonga.
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
I actually did some sums on a universal income. To make it a meaningful amount of money, you end up taxing the better off to pay for it - and they see no return on it at all.. The numbers are so big, you just need to have one Unforseen Result and it could prove a disaster.
Of course, you could start with a small amount - but then it achieves nothing.
And no-one has explained how it would interact with the Benefits System - and which benefits would be cut as a result. Given the complexity of the Benefits System there are bound to be large numbers of losers and winners.
My conclusion is that supporters need to do a LOT of detailed work. The fact that they have not published such work - if they have done it - says it all to me.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Mr Bob, it's some years since I lived in the area, but there was a distinct difference between the two towns. And not just the Tyne!
The 'people who insist' are, in my experience, 'the people of Gateshead'.......easiest way to wind them up is to refer to 'the Newcastle Millennium Bridge' or 'The Sage Newcastle'.....
WRONG. My wife is a Geordie, from Gateshead. She says she is from Newcastle. I know the area well. You are talking about a small parochial group.
Not in my experience of living there for 15 years. Now back to your Focus Group of One.....
The complexity in the tax system does not emanate from the fact we have zero, basic, higher and additional rate bands.
Although UC is proving difficult (as expected) to bring in, it is at least attempting to address the marginal rate issue from the withdrawal of certain benefits which creates the disincentive to work.
Reposted from a previous thread, as relevant here:
There isn't a million miles between Universal Basic Income, Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal and the Working Tax Credit (which is being merged into UC). But a "proper" UBI would ease the problem of punitive benefit withdrawal rates that are equivalent to 90%+ marginal income tax rates on the poor.
I did wonder if UBI would become more politically palatable in the UK post-Brexit - the "economically correct" level of UBI ought to sustain an austere but acceptably comfortable, non-poverty-stricken standard of living And in the UK such a standard of living would be beyond what e.g. many rural Romanians and Bulgarians can sustain through hard toil. With free movement, and given that restriction to citizens only would be unacceptable, the implications are obvious, and this alone would be a clincher of an argument against. Post-Brexit though, the terms of the debate are different.
Here's a fun fact for fans of alternative history. Although the Beveridge Committee in the end opted for a social insurance system, UBI was also considered and one of its members, Juliet Rhys-Williams (a Liberal politician who later became a Tory and member of the Monday Club!), strongly dissented with the final proposal, preferring a negative income tax.
Yes, UBI is a right wing idea, not a lefty plot to destabilise capitalism.
No surprise that May is more popular than her party, or Corbyn is less popular than his (except Scotland).
What does surprise me is that outside London the Labour brand is being damaged and is much less popular than Conservatives in the Midlands and even marginally in the North....
The Midlands will be horrible for Labour at the next GE. Miliband and Corbyn could have been designed to do the maximum damage to the party in this part of the world.
Yougov people if you're reading this.....STOP PUTTING WALES WITH THE MIDLANDS FFS!!!!!!!........rant over.
No surprise that May is more popular than her party, or Corbyn is less popular than his (except Scotland).
What does surprise me is that outside London the Labour brand is being damaged and is much less popular than Conservatives in the Midlands and even marginally in the North....
The Midlands will be horrible for Labour at the next GE. Miliband and Corbyn could have been designed to do the maximum damage to the party in this part of the world.
Yougov people if you're reading this.....STOP PUTTING WALES WITH THE MIDLANDS FFS!!!!!!!........rant over.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
What is interesting is that Estonia with a flat tax is not a country bereft of services. It has universal free healthcare, free education and the longest paid maternity leave in the OECD.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
It would for sure impact demand - but over 50% of the UK's housing stock is now owned outright, much more nearly so and pensioners are richer than workers for the first time. Raising interest rates gives more spending power into the economy for this enormous demographic. Overall a rate rise might be good for the UK - but who wins and who loses therefrom might be politically painful.
Er no. Pensioners don't spend enough money as they are not as active in the economy. They don't have children to feed and cloth. They don't take expensive holidays in August. They don't tend to buy the latest fashions. They spend, as a rule, much less on trendy food and going out. Nor do they work – it is unwise to penalise people who work in favour of those who don't.
You seem to have a view of pensioners as poor old people. They're rich! (On average). What % of supercars are bought by the over 60? Alot. Who is buying cruises and running the heating on full? Who overspends on christmas presents? Who bets on politics? Who goes to theatre? Who drinks champagne? I'd contend that much of the exuberant spending in our consumption heavy economic model is spent by those pesky oldies and all their wonga.
Like Mr. Navabi's set, the Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association (and especially their wives) are also trying their best.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
I've always wondered what would happen if I bet based on embargoed polling.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
No surprise that May is more popular than her party, or Corbyn is less popular than his (except Scotland).
What does surprise me is that outside London the Labour brand is being damaged and is much less popular than Conservatives in the Midlands and even marginally in the North....
The Midlands will be horrible for Labour at the next GE. Miliband and Corbyn could have been designed to do the maximum damage to the party in this part of the world.
Yougov people if you're reading this.....STOP PUTTING WALES WITH THE MIDLANDS FFS!!!!!!!........rant over.
Isn't a problem with that request that Wales by itself will only have about 50 respondents in a 1000-person poll, so the returns would be too statistically unreliable? Also, that as Wales tends to trend much the same as England politically (Assembly apart, perhaps), there's no great reason to split them up?
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
I actually did some sums on a universal income. To make it a meaningful amount of money, you end up taxing the better off to pay for it - and they see no return on it at all.. The numbers are so big, you just need to have one Unforseen Result and it could prove a disaster.
Of course, you could start with a small amount - but then it achieves nothing.
And no-one has explained how it would interact with the Benefits System - and which benefits would be cut as a result. Given the complexity of the Benefits System there are bound to be large numbers of losers and winners.
My conclusion is that supporters need to do a LOT of detailed work. The fact that they have not published such work - if they have done it - says it all to me.
The only way it might work is if the Silicon Valley set are right and mass robotic automation really does destroy millions of jobs and nothing replaces them. A tax on robots might deliver funds for UI. This would have to emerge out of a complete change of attitude about the place and role of work in society.
Paying people to not work may be the only way forward.
If I lived in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I'd be offended if someone said I lived in Stoke!
That just demonstrates how parochial an area it is. Reminds me of people who insist that Gateshead is an entirely separate town to Newcastle when it is palpably a suburb in the same city, whatever the local administrators say. These petty obsessions hold cities back – Manchester and London have the right idea – merge and govern. Size matters.
Mr Bob, it's some years since I lived in the area, but there was a distinct difference between the two towns. And not just the Tyne!
Brexit makes the economics of independence much more complicated. First, the timing is dreadful: because of the low oil price, independence any time soon would bequeath Scotland an appalling fiscal deficit that would require crippling tax increases and spending cuts. Second, any trade barriers erected between the EU and UK would then be raised at the Anglo-Scottish border, quadrupling the costs of Brexit. For the SNP to argue that such barriers would be against the UK’s interests is beside the point: they would be erected by the EU, not the UK.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
I've always wondered what would happen if I bet based on embargoed polling.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
Its not a criminal offense so far as I'm aware, you just might not get the polling in the future if the pollster becomes aware.
The third was a surprise to me. How did that happen?
Bulgaria, although not a member of the ERM, pegs its currency to the Euro. This imposes severe fiscal discipline on the government, as they can no longer print their own money without threatening the peg.
If the Eurozone were agile they'd agree an accelerated transition programme rather than the usual ERM then wait for 2 years model for Euro membership.
Wake me up when it happens...
Estonia is interesting in there with a flat rate tax system.
I am a big supporter of flat tax. Sadly, politically it is a non-starter (like legalising drugs).
I could be persuaded to go for a flat tax coupled with a universal income. Complexity in the tax system is hugely wasteful, unfair and – in many cases – creates a disincentive to work. Anything that enhances simplicity, creates positive incentives and reduced poverty trapping is worthy of consideration.
I actually did some sums on a universal income. To make it a meaningful amount of money, you end up taxing the better off to pay for it - and they see no return on it at all.. The numbers are so big, you just need to have one Unforseen Result and it could prove a disaster.
Of course, you could start with a small amount - but then it achieves nothing.
And no-one has explained how it would interact with the Benefits System - and which benefits would be cut as a result. Given the complexity of the Benefits System there are bound to be large numbers of losers and winners.
My conclusion is that supporters need to do a LOT of detailed work. The fact that they have not published such work - if they have done it - says it all to me.
I think the unspoken assumption is that by paying extra tax to fund UBI, the better off earn the return of not being killed and eaten, along with their spouses, offspring and pets, by the underclass.
The trouble is, as was pointed out on Newsnight last night, the class 'pensioner' covers a huge range these days. You have people who are very frail with long term health problems in their 90s and who possibly haven't retired with buckets loads of cash on the back of public sector pensions and house assets. It is the younger retired who have the wonga.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
I've always wondered what would happen if I bet based on embargoed polling.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
Its not a criminal offense so far as I'm aware, you just might not get the polling in the future if the pollster becomes aware.
They only get upset if people violate their embargo.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
I've always wondered what would happen if I bet based on embargoed polling.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
Clearly there is no regime designed with betting in mind, but:
We know that the betting markets have had effects on for example the price of sterling. Manipulating the price of sterling directly is clearly market abuse. Under the MArket Abuse Regulation, the following applies:
"financial instruments ..., the price or value of which depends on or has an effect on the price or value of a financial instrument referred to [above], including... contracts for difference"
It's amazing - and telling - just how terrified the PB Tories are of Labour changing its leader. Proves the old theory that Mother Theresa's support is a mile wide, and an inch deep.
To who? Most likely a fellow Corbynista even if he went. After all when IDS went the Tories simply replaced him with fellow rightwinger Michael Howard it took another general election defeat before the membership were ready to elect Cameron
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
The way I read @Essexit 's original post was that:
(i) hedge funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win (ii) they wanted to skew the betting market to send false signals to rivals (limited capital compared to the amounts that are to be made)
Presumably they were investing remain on the betting markets to send this false signal to make money elsewhere - my assumption is that for this to be meaningful it would need to be on a regulated market.
In really big news today, the Settle to Carlisle railway is reintroducing scheduled services pulled by a steam locomotive. Huzzah!
The good doctor Sunil will no doubt be packing his bags for a journey North as we speak, and Mr. Jessup will be penning a post as to why this is a massive retrograde step, will do nothing to increase capacity and only the technology of the mid-twentieth century can get us through the 21st century.
It would be a big huzzah if it was the Settle to Carlisle (or more accurately, the Leeds to Carlisle) service operating steam. Instead, it's Appleby to Skipton, which means that Tornado won't be steaming into Leeds today. Boo.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
I've always wondered what would happen if I bet based on embargoed polling.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
Clearly there is no regime designed with betting in mind, but:
We know that the betting markets have had effects on for example the price of sterling. Manipulating the price of sterling directly is clearly market abuse. Under the MArket Abuse Regulation, the following applies:
"financial instruments ..., the price or value of which depends on or has an effect on the price or value of a financial instrument referred to in those points, including... contracts for difference"
Contracts for difference being spread bets.
Mike was responsible for the second largest increase in Sterling in 2016 when he accidentally tweeted an old ICM referendum poll thinking it was the new one.
I occasionally tease him about that, that he should expect a visit from the rozzers for market manipulation
Tories a bit mispriced for sure - but it's frankly astonishing that two years in and with a massive amoiunt of noise around Brexit etc that the opposition aren't streets ahead. Labour would seem to have no hope of forming a government any time soon.
No, they haven't. Not a sliver. The Corbynista had a fabulous dream. But it was only a dream.
The question, as was mentioned in a post over the weekend, I believe, is at what point if ever the Momentumista loses faith with Jezza and realises that it too wants to put its "overthrow the Tories" mantra into practice.
NPXMPX2 still some way off, according to his post.
This is no longer up to the Corbynista. Corbyn is highly unlikely to be LOTO by 2020. He has had enough personally as far as I can see. The process has begun.
What are the mechanics for that to happen?
He resigns or offers to resign in exchange for the 38 signatures required to get X (fill in lefty names as they are rolled out and kite tested) on to the ballot.
After all this? Well of course I am nowhere near the beating heart of the Labour Party but to a distant outsider it would seem to contravene every indication given by Jezza and his buddies to date.
His own buddies (Abbot and co.) have given him 12 months to turn around the polling, on live TV.
Maybe they are as mad as they sound and they believe he will do it.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Yes, but you have to examine what the market will bear. It won't bear such a large hike without a severe impact on aggregate demand.
Well of course you wouldn't hike rates from pretty much 0% to 2.5% overnight.
If they did it I'd expect it to happen slowly over a couple of years.
Lets say by 2020, 2% inflation. 2.5% interest rate with tax maintained at a sensible level and bobs your uncle - We're back to normal.
You seem to have a view of pensioners as poor old people. They're rich! (On average). What % of supercars are bought by the over 60? Alot. Who is buying cruises and running the heating on full? Who overspends on christmas presents? Who bets on politics? Who goes to theatre? Who drinks champagne? I'd contend that much of the exuberant spending in our consumption heavy economic model is spent by those pesky oldies and all their wonga.
Certainly, in my circle we're doing our bit!
+1 I think a lot of well off pensioners spend a lot on their families and themselves. A gradual rise in interest rates over the next 2 years would be a very healthy sign of a truly recovering economy.
In his last blog post on the referendum, Cummings suggests that the betting markets may have been skewed by hedge funds. He doesn't have hard evidence, but points out the following: - Betting markets have become more important as a way of predicting results - He knows that some funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win - The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made y With all that in mind, why wouldn't they do it?
Because if that is why they were doing it they could be locked up.
For what?
The amount of money required to skew markets and send false signals to rivals is small compared to the amounts to be made
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Betting markets are not regulated in the same way as financial markets though. You can't get done for "Insider trading" there, the regulations simply don't exist. You might get banned by the bookies but that is another matter entirely.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc. Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
The way I read @Essexit 's original post was that:
(i) hedge funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win (ii) they wanted to skew the betting market to send false signals to rivals (limited capital compared to the amounts that are to be made)
Presumably they were investing remain on the betting markets to send this false signal to make money elsewhere - my assumption is that for this to be meaningful it would need to be on a regulated market.
Hence market abuse. But assumptions.
As bettors without the necessary capital or equipment to trade forex, we can benefit from their abuse though (If it is that) as they'll be looking to maximise income on other markets (Forex say) whilst incurring a loss on Betfair. & those backing sterling on the day off the back of the Brexit odds should have realised that the capability was there for this sort of play and so heavily discounted the betting market reaction.
The upshot is that for SindyRef 2 should it come about, sterling traders ought to keep their wits about them. You're playing with the big boys and sharks in that sort of market anyhow.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Yes, but you have to examine what the market will bear. It won't bear such a large hike without a severe impact on aggregate demand.
Well of course you wouldn't hike rates from pretty much 0% to 2.5% overnight.
If they did it I'd expect it to happen slowly over a couple of years.
Lets say by 2020, 2% inflation. 2.5% interest rate with tax maintained at a sensible level and bobs your uncle.
The other part in all of this, is the devastating effect low interest rates have on pensions, with both companies and individuals having to "defensively save" (liquidity trap I believe it's called?) to build ever bigger funds to compensate for such measly returns. That is also a huge drag on demand.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Yes, but you have to examine what the market will bear. It won't bear such a large hike without a severe impact on aggregate demand.
Well of course you wouldn't hike rates from pretty much 0% to 2.5% overnight.
If they did it I'd expect it to happen slowly over a couple of years.
Lets say by 2020, 2% inflation. 2.5% interest rate with tax maintained at a sensible level and bobs your uncle.
The main importance of inflation (or so you would think from being on here) is its effect on the achievability of £350m a week for the NHS. Expect loud cries of YEBBUT YOU NEVER SAID NOMINAL when we hit this target in 2021 or thereabouts.
The average mortgage repayment as a proportion of income hasn't changed particularly over the years (Think about the implication on that for a potential rise in interest rates, ho ho ho !) I'm looking to move up the chain in terms of housing in the next year or so. If interest rates are to head north, could the BoE get on with it ?
Do I take it that the liberal media just don't get how Trump has run rings round them once again by being forced to dump his National Security Adviser after just three weeks? I note that he has brilliantly managed to drop his approval rating down to 40% as well. The bloke is a genius.
Do I take it that the liberal media just don't get how Trump has run rings round them once again by being forced to dump his National Security Adviser after just three weeks? I note that he has brilliantly managed to drop his approval rating down to 40% as well. The bloke is a genius.
So now that inflation is *finally* getting back towards trend, any chance that interest rates might begin to move upwards to a more sensible level?
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
They interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
Hopefully not. Most of Gen X are mortgaged to the hilt and raises in interest rates are a surefire way to depress aggregate demand. Many more people are borrowers or parents of borrowers than are savers without any mortgaged children.
So we just indefinitely keep rates around where they was when the economy suffered its heart attack in 2008?
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
That is the rate than most mortgagees are paying on their mortgages now. If you increase the base rate to 3% you are looking at mortgages at something around 6-7%. Result - massive slump in aggregate demand from exactly the group of people that keep the economy moving.
Well, I didn't say increase it to 3% I said increase it to 2-3%. 3% would be at the far upper level.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
Yes, but you have to examine what the market will bear. It won't bear such a large hike without a severe impact on aggregate demand.
Well of course you wouldn't hike rates from pretty much 0% to 2.5% overnight.
If they did it I'd expect it to happen slowly over a couple of years.
Lets say by 2020, 2% inflation. 2.5% interest rate with tax maintained at a sensible level and bobs your uncle.
The main importance of inflation (or so you would think from being on here) is its effect on the achievability of £350m a week for the NHS. Expect loud cries of YEBBUT YOU NEVER SAID NOMINAL when we hit this target in 2021 or thereabouts.
Jesus. Are we still going to be having this same bloody argument in 2021?
Comments
Bloomberg says that early staffers "had an unusual compensation system" that multiplied staffers salaries and bonuses based on the performance of the self-driving project. The payments accumulated as milestones were reached, even though Waymo remains years away from generating revenue. One staffer eventually "had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years." The huge amounts of compensation worked -- for a while. But eventually, it gave many staffers such financial security that they were willing to leave the cuddly confines of Google. Two staffers that Bloomberg spoke to called it "F-you money," and the accumulated cash allowed them to depart Google for other firms, including Chris Urmson who co-founded a startup with ex-Tesla employee Sterling Anderson, and others who founded a self-driving truck company called Otto which was purchased by Uber last year, and another who founded Argo AI which received a $1 billion investment from Ford last week.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/one-reason-staffers-quit-google-s-car-project-the-company-paid-them-so-much
Macron stable at 22% and Fillon drops back a point to 20%
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
I've been following the Flynn stuff very closely for the last couple of weeks - it looks very likely that Priebus is behind a lot of this, assisted by the sacked Democrat AG. Priebus has a lot of form here - he was outed as the coup coordinator a month out from the election.
Trump needs to dump him and do a Carter on the CIA.
But he's become a complete toady with Trump, it's embarrassing. He's gone from someone admittedly unpopular, with contrarian but real opinions on various issues, to just a warmed-over Katie Hopkins.
My Mother put £15,000 into an ISA with a floating rate last year (we figured rates couldn't go lower so no point having a fixed rate) and what happened? BoE, against what Boy George had been promising before the referendum, cut the rate again lol.
The interest she's earning on her ISA is just derisory.
https://youtu.be/wlbDqTaYHJE
The skill is to get them all together into one message. Has anyone done that?
The election will in the end be won on postal votes and organisation on the day. I leave you to guess who is weak in that area.
Surely an inflation rate of around 2-3% and an interest rate of around 2-3% is what we should be aiming for as a sign that the economy is back to a long term sensible situation?
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/831416274790051840
Demographics behind the French Presidential election are interesting. 57% of 18-24 yo support Centre Right or Right. 26% youth unemployment. https://t.co/G6O9VLrDuW
As you say most people having set the revolution in motion have gone back to their normal concerns and are content to let the politicians find the best way to implement their decision. All very British. However, I rather suspect that if those people feel their wishes are being ignored they will come back to the ballot box and stomp all over the people who are doing the ignoring. TM, perhaps, understands this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNzI_25HA5E
Although UC is proving difficult (as expected) to bring in, it is at least attempting to address the marginal rate issue from the withdrawal of certain benefits which creates the disincentive to work.
So lets say we meet in the middle and aim for an interest rate of 2.5% I really think a sensible, healthy economy should be able to cope with an interest rate of 2.5%.
That would still be a lot lower than the interest rates through most of my life up to 2008 - Including during most of the last Labour government until the final two years - When rates were at 5-6% on average.
The good doctor Sunil will no doubt be packing his bags for a journey North as we speak, and Mr. Jessup will be penning a post as to why this is a massive retrograde step, will do nothing to increase capacity and only the technology of the mid-twentieth century can get us through the 21st century.
I've bought £40 a point at 12.5.
Of course there is a risk of losing £500, but I suspect if Labour do lose it will be reasonably narrowly to the Tories.
I did wonder if UBI would become more politically palatable in the UK post-Brexit - the "economically correct" level of UBI ought to sustain an austere but acceptably comfortable, non-poverty-stricken standard of living And in the UK such a standard of living would be beyond what e.g. many rural Romanians and Bulgarians can sustain through hard toil. With free movement, and given that restriction to citizens only would be unacceptable, the implications are obvious, and this alone would be a clincher of an argument against. Post-Brexit though, the terms of the debate are different.
Here's a fun fact for fans of alternative history. Although the Beveridge Committee in the end opted for a social insurance system, UBI was also considered and one of its members, Juliet Rhys-Williams (a Liberal politician who later became a Tory and member of the Monday Club!), strongly dissented with the final proposal, preferring a negative income tax.
Er no. Pensioners don't spend enough money as they are not as active in the economy. They don't have children to feed and cloth. They don't take expensive holidays in August. They don't tend to buy the latest fashions. They spend, as a rule, much less on trendy food and going out. Nor do they work – it is unwise to penalise people who work in favour of those who don't.
I did wonder if UBI would become more politically palatable in the UK post-Brexit - the "economically correct" level of UBI ought to sustain an austere but acceptably comfortable, non-poverty-stricken standard of living And in the UK such a standard of living would be beyond what e.g. many rural Romanians and Bulgarians can sustain through hard toil. With free movement, and given that restriction to citizens only would be unacceptable, the implications are obvious, and this alone would be a clincher of an argument against. Post-Brexit though, the terms of the debate are different.
Here's a fun fact for fans of alternative history. Although the Beveridge Committee in the end opted for a social insurance system, UBI was also considered and one of its members, Juliet Rhys-Williams (a Liberal politician who later became a Tory and member of the Monday Club!), strongly dissented with the final proposal, preferring a negative income tax.
I don't suppose you have a link to a specific UBI proposal that you think is like negative income tax or working tax credits?
Sounds like classic market abuse to me
Of course, you could start with a small amount - but then it achieves nothing.
And no-one has explained how it would interact with the Benefits System - and which benefits would be cut as a result. Given the complexity of the Benefits System there are bound to be large numbers of losers and winners.
My conclusion is that supporters need to do a LOT of detailed work. The fact that they have not published such work - if they have done it - says it all to me.
Stop putting Orkney and Shetland with Scotland.
To expand SOME people can get hauled over the coals, but they tend to be in specific professions e.g. Proffesional footballers, jockeys laying their own non triers etc.
Nothing like that exists for political or event betting.
Looking at the betting markets, I know other people do.
Paying people to not work may be the only way forward.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/even-the-nationalists-are-realising-that-we-all-need-a-good-brexit-deal-5937wjz2m
Fortunately I've never done that.
https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/806620915261906948
We know that the betting markets have had effects on for example the price of sterling. Manipulating the price of sterling directly is clearly market abuse. Under the MArket Abuse Regulation, the following applies:
"financial instruments ..., the price or value of which depends on or has an effect on the price or value of a financial instrument referred to [above], including... contracts for difference"
Contracts for difference being spread bets.
(i) hedge funds had private polling pointing to a Leave win
(ii) they wanted to skew the betting market to send false signals to rivals (limited capital compared to the amounts that are to be made)
Presumably they were investing remain on the betting markets to send this false signal to make money elsewhere - my assumption is that for this to be meaningful it would need to be on a regulated market.
Hence market abuse. But assumptions.
In this case, its a local common in-joke i.e. nothing to see.
Someone ought to commission the IFS to stick something credible together...
I occasionally tease him about that, that he should expect a visit from the rozzers for market manipulation
Beyond ridiculous. @CNN claims the mainstream media asks good questions at presidential pressers. Reminder: https://t.co/0PRssauoJl
If they did it I'd expect it to happen slowly over a couple of years.
Lets say by 2020, 2% inflation. 2.5% interest rate with tax maintained at a sensible level and bobs your uncle - We're back to normal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveUnwin01/status/830921771746459650
& those backing sterling on the day off the back of the Brexit odds should have realised that the capability was there for this sort of play and so heavily discounted the betting market reaction.
The upshot is that for SindyRef 2 should it come about, sterling traders ought to keep their wits about them. You're playing with the big boys and sharks in that sort of market anyhow.
I'm looking to move up the chain in terms of housing in the next year or so. If interest rates are to head north, could the BoE get on with it ?
What a depressing thought.