There's an awful lot of references to cocks in Bane of Souls, for those of you interested in the subject. Cockfighting used to be the most popular spectator sport in the country, you know. Every village used to have a cockpit. Seems a bit bizarre now.
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
1998 -> 2000 the Gov't ran increasing surpluses sticking to Conservative spending plans. Then Look at 2001 -> 2007. It heads back to a deficit. The thing is Britain was NOT in a reccession at this point, we were growing. The surpluses should have kept on coming. 2001 -> 2007 is where Labour got it completely wrong.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Generally though, Keynesianism is about using Govt spending (and therefore surpluses and deficits) to smooth growth around trend. It's not about forever stockpiling in case of a once in a lifetime economic nuclear winter.
Yes, and that was done around the (small) 80 recession and the early 90s recession. We didn't then have a recession in 2001 (When by historical stats one was due), recessions will come about eventually - they always do - and OK noone realised quite how severe the 2008 one would be but 2001 - 2007 was a historic opportunity to at least run balanced budgets which was squandered.
One thing I didn't like about Oborne's article was that he didn't mention that the Lib Dems also consider themselves a progressive party and yet none of their MPs have been jailed. I don't believe progressives are more likely to cheat as he sees it, but there is something about the Labour movement in this country that seems dodgy. I think it explains why many people choose the Lib Dems. They don't want to climb Labour's greasy pole.
Looking at the surplus/deficit chart you'd have thought there would have to be a recession in ~2001, except there wasn't.
There was in the US, and some European countries, though, I thought. The dotcom bubble burst, etc. Arguably deficit spending at that point in time kept us out of recession.
Of course that only moves back the point in time of culpability a few years, as Blair indicated in his book.
However, while government debt is important, what is more important is proper regulation of the banks. Brown gloated of not properly regulating the banks "light-touch regulation", continuing the Thatcherite mantra of no regulation is good regulation. The Coalition have failed to cure the banking sector, create safeguards to avoid a repeat of the credit crunch, but have kept the ball rolling with low interest rates, QE and government mortgage guarantees.
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
1998 -> 2000 the Gov't ran increasing surpluses sticking to Conservative spending plans. Then Look at 2001 -> 2007. It heads back to a deficit. The thing is Britain was NOT in a reccession at this point, we were growing. The surpluses should have kept on coming. 2001 -> 2007 is where Labour got it completely wrong.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Indeed. The Tories have convinced themselves that the last Labour Government was totally responsible for the financial crisis and no other factors were involved. It's obviously a good idea for them to peddle this line in public but it's not so clever to base policy decisions on the same assumption.
One thing I didn't like about Oborne's article was that he didn't mention that the Lib Dems also consider themselves a progressive party and yet none of their MPs have been jailed. I don't believe progressives are more likely to cheat as he sees it, but there is something about the Labour movement in this country that seems dodgy. I think it explains why many people choose the Lib Dems. They don't want to climb Labour's greasy pole.
Given the other subject matter on thread, you might have chosen a more felicitous way of expressing your last point.
Andrew Neil on DP pointing out to Labour's Shadow Housing Minister that if they get into power in 2015 and designated the new town sites on their first day they probably still wouldn't have started by 2020......Neil studied New Towns at University......
It's a shamelessly political opportunistic move by Labour. And they won't do it, however much Tim witters on otherwise.
Labour's record on housing between 1997 and 2010 was abysmal in every single area. I see no reason to believe that they've learnt their lesson, or even begun to understand the issues.
I repeat: Northstowe was first mooted back in 2006. Since then the plan has been altered many times: it gained Eco-Town status, lost it, and has been involved with battles between the planners and the developers. The initial plan was for it to have 6,000 homes; the current plan says it will have 9,500 homes on the same footprint.
Construction has still not started. When it does, it will take 25 years to complete. My own village of Cambourne was started in 1997, will have 4,250 homes, and is still not complete.
Yet Labour seem to think they'd start construction on new towns in any meaningful way within five years?
Labour simply do not understand housing. And if Tim got his way, we would be repeating the same mistakes that plagued past developments.
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
snip.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Generally though, Keynesianism is about using Govt spending (and therefore surpluses and deficits) to smooth growth around trend. It's not about forever stockpiling in case of a once in a lifetime economic nuclear winter.
Yes, and that was done around the (small) 80 recession and the early 90s recession. We didn't then have a recession in 2001 (When by historical stats one was due), recessions will come about eventually - they always do - and OK noone realised quite how severe the 2008 one would be but 2001 - 2007 was a historic opportunity to at least run balanced budgets which was squandered.
No, you're misrepresenting both Keynesianism and the 2008 event.
2008 wasn't a normal cyclical slowdown. It was a rare global crisis. The way you ride out a crisis like that depends on the nature of the crisis and the structure of your economy, not necessarily whether you're in surplus or deficit. In fact your surplus / deficit going into a crisis can be almost irrelevent - check out the figures for Spain for example.
Keynesianism is about more boring run of the mill cyclical upturns and downturns (not even recessions necessarily - if trend growth was 3%, you'd arguably be justified fiscal loosening if growth dips below that).
Brown gloated of not properly regulating the banks "light-touch regulation", continuing the Thatcherite mantra of no regulation is good regulation. The Coalition have failed to cure the banking sector, create safeguards to avoid a repeat of the credit crunch.
Completely wrong. Brown created the largest financial regulatory bureaucracy in the world, with nearly 4,000 employees at the FSA plus countless more 'compliance officers' ticking boxes in all the banks. The fact that it was spectacularly useless at its job wasn't 'no regulation', it was bad regulation, obsessed with trivia and completely failing to deal with the big picture or even with straightforward consumer protection. Most notably, Brown managed the remarkable feat of leaving no-one in charge of avoiding systemic failures.
The coalition has made massive improvements here. The new structure is much more sensible, with clear lines of responsibility for prudential supervision.
One thing I didn't like about Oborne's article was that he didn't mention that the Lib Dems also consider themselves a progressive party and yet none of their MPs have been jailed. I don't believe progressives are more likely to cheat as he sees it, but there is something about the Labour movement in this country that seems dodgy. I think it explains why many people choose the Lib Dems. They don't want to climb Labour's greasy pole.
Given the other subject matter on thread, you might have chosen a more felicitous way of expressing your last point.
Perhaps it shows how we've moved on since the Victorian days. I don't think many peopled reacted with 'Hello Sailor' when Disraeli spoke of the greasy pole he'd climbed.
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
1998 -> 2000 the Gov't ran increasing surpluses sticking to Conservative spending plans. Then Look at 2001 -> 2007. It heads back to a deficit. The thing is Britain was NOT in a reccession at this point, we were growing. The surpluses should have kept on coming. 2001 -> 2007 is where Labour got it completely wrong.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Indeed. The Tories have convinced themselves that the last Labour Government was totally responsible for the financial crisis and no other factors were involved. It's obviously a good idea for them to peddle this line in public but it's not so clever to base policy decisions on the same assumption.
Exactly right. The deficit was a symptom of the banking crisis. But Tories have convinced themselves it was the disease and have prescribed the wrong medicine as a result, and it could be disastrous if we're not lucky.
Andrew Neil on DP pointing out to Labour's Shadow Housing Minister that if they get into power in 2015 and designated the new town sites on their first day they probably still wouldn't have started by 2020......Neil studied New Towns at University......
It's a shamelessly political opportunistic move by Labour. And they won't do it, however much Tim witters on otherwise.
The Labour spokeswoman also struggled with 'where will you build them?'.......
The challenge for the Tories is 'how do you sufficiently incentivise local authorities to build houses' given their belief in 'localism'.
For Labour its relatively easy - they'll do it in the 'national interest' and local residents can go hang......
The Tories have convinced themselves that the last Labour Government was totally responsible for the financial crisis and no other factors were involved.
Royal Mail share sale did not contribute to improved public finances
09.49 Last week that ONS decided that the £2bn netted by the government for selling its 60pc stake in Royal Mail should not reduce headline government borrowing- meaning the public finances improved even without this boost.
So where does the cash go ?
The sale of RM actually hit the PSF figures by £330m because of the giveaway to RM staff.
@FaisalIslam "UK "identifiably" spends £8,788 per head. England: £8,529. Scotland: £10,152. N Ireland: £10,665 Wales: £9,709. New regional pub spend data"
Or in another words England gets 3% LESS than average, Wales 10% above average. Scotland 16% above, and N Ireland 24% above, identifiably..
More dodgy unionist claptrap numbers, no wonder we are so deep in debt given these numpties cannot add up numbers. You will not have to worry about Scottish numbers after next year
Brown gloated of not properly regulating the banks "light-touch regulation", continuing the Thatcherite mantra of no regulation is good regulation. The Coalition have failed to cure the banking sector, create safeguards to avoid a repeat of the credit crunch.
Completely wrong. Brown created the largest financial regulatory bureaucracy in the world, with nearly 4,000 employees at the FSA plus countless more 'compliance officers' ticking boxes in all the banks. The fact that it was spectacularly useless at its job wasn't 'no regulation', it was bad regulation, obsessed with trivia and completely failing to deal with the big picture or even with straightforward consumer protection. Most notably, Brown managed the remarkable feat of leaving no-one in charge of avoiding systemic failures.
The coalition has made massive improvements here. The new structure is much more sensible, with clear lines of responsibility for prudential supervision.
Out of interest how much of Brown's compliance bureaucracy was about making sure the banks were trustworthy and how much was about crime / terrorism? It seems like developed countries have been putting a lot more law enforcement burden on financial institutions over the last couple of decades, particularly after 9/11, and tying everyone up in red tape in the process. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not, but obviously it doesn't really affect "Can I sell these derivatives to another financial institution" either way.
Andrew Neil on DP pointing out to Labour's Shadow Housing Minister that if they get into power in 2015 and designated the new town sites on their first day they probably still wouldn't have started by 2020......Neil studied New Towns at University......
It's a shamelessly political opportunistic move by Labour. And they won't do it, however much Tim witters on otherwise.
The Labour spokeswoman also struggled with 'where will you build them?'.......
The challenge for the Tories is 'how do you sufficiently incentivise local authorities to build houses' given their belief in 'localism'.
For Labour its relatively easy - they'll do it in the 'national interest' and local residents can go hang......
The same as HS2 or any motorway then
Where are Labour on the Great North-South Railway these days?
@DavidCameron: Great to see Labour city leaders backing #HS2. A high speed North-South railway is vital for our country's future. pic.twitter.com/69qU8dpe2X
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
1998 -> 2000 the Gov't ran increasing surpluses sticking to Conservative spending plans. Then Look at 2001 -> 2007. It heads back to a deficit. The thing is Britain was NOT in a reccession at this point, we were growing. The surpluses should have kept on coming. 2001 -> 2007 is where Labour got it completely wrong.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Indeed. The Tories have convinced themselves that the last Labour Government was totally responsible for the financial crisis and no other factors were involved. It's obviously a good idea for them to peddle this line in public but it's not so clever to base policy decisions on the same assumption.
Exactly right. The deficit was a symptom of the banking crisis. But Tories have convinced themselves it was the disease and have prescribed the wrong medicine as a result, and it could be disastrous if we're not lucky.
And they are also unable to comprehend that allowing free reign to mega-businesses (not just the banks - we also have the utility companies, supermarkets etc etc) is not always in the interests of the consumer - it had led to massive greed, often allied with incompetence, in boardrooms, and a feeling that the consumer (ie the voter) is being ripped off. This is why Labour's energy price freeze (whatever you might think of it economically) had such resonance and why the Tories have still been unable to articulate an effective response.
Andrew Neil on DP pointing out to Labour's Shadow Housing Minister that if they get into power in 2015 and designated the new town sites on their first day they probably still wouldn't have started by 2020......Neil studied New Towns at University......
It's a shamelessly political opportunistic move by Labour. And they won't do it, however much Tim witters on otherwise.
The Labour spokeswoman also struggled with 'where will you build them?'.......
The challenge for the Tories is 'how do you sufficiently incentivise local authorities to build houses' given their belief in 'localism'.
For Labour its relatively easy - they'll do it in the 'national interest' and local residents can go hang......
In some ways I agree with Labour on that - local residents can go hang if the development is the right one. Overruling local opposition just to get a poor development would be a travesty.
What annoys me about Tim's attitude is that he concentrates on the number of homes built, without giving any thought to the other things that are needed to make a development successful. This includes a whole range of topics, like transport (roads, bus and rail), jobs, shops, facilities, green spaces, and community facilities.
Developers hate these sorts of things, as they cost them money with little benefit. That is why S106 agreements are so important, and sadly councils are not very good at getting screwing the developers down, either on the requirements or fulfilment.
The siting of any new settlement is also vital.
As I keep on saying: we need to build communities, not houses.
There's an awful lot of references to cocks in Bane of Souls, for those of you interested in the subject. Cockfighting used to be the most popular spectator sport in the country, you know. Every village used to have a cockpit. Seems a bit bizarre now.
"Quote" rel="JosiasJessop"> We have a bank account with the Co-op, and their customer service is rather poor, to say the least. The staff are all very friendly (but that seems to be the case with all the banks), but their Internet banking service is absolute crud. Mrs J hates it.
One of their biggest problems is the lack of branches, which means I have to go into Cambridge whenever I deal with them. The Lloyds deal would have been of great advantage to the Co-op, if only they had been in a position to take advantage of it.
We need to discuss whether we move our money or not... ………………………………………………………………………………………
I must bank at a different Co-op. I live in a small Essex town without a bank and although going one way it's a long way to a Co-op branch, going the other the Co-op's just as near as any other. However I can put cheques received into a special envelope, take them to the Post Office and two days later my account is credited. As a charity treasurer I can't do that with NatWest, which the charity insists I use. When I do have to use a Co-op branch the staff are helpful and informative. The internet service is excellent; statements always up to date, questions are answered promptly.
if, effective money supply = nominal money supply x velocity of money
(which it obviously is)
and
if, the velocity of discretionary spending > velocity of loan repayments
then
bankstas create the boom-bust cycle through shifting discretionary spending into loan repayments
every time they start a credit boom there's an initial boost and then it gradually trends to a bust as ever higher proportions of discretionary spending are soaked up in debt repayments
basically the ancients were right - usury (or at least the lending for consumption aspect of it) is malign and destructive
on the other hand by the same principle
if, the velocity of investment > velocity of stored wealth
(which is more or less certain)
then, lending for investment has the opposite and benign effect
#
banker (good) = turning static wealth into investment banksta (bad) = lending for consumption
#
By not *effectively* regulating the bankstas New Labour *effectively* deregulated them.
Out of interest how much of Brown's compliance bureaucracy was about making sure the banks were trustworthy and how much was about crime / terrorism? It seems like developed countries have been putting a lot more law enforcement burden on financial institutions over the last couple of decades, particularly after 9/11, and tying everyone up in red tape in the process. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not, but obviously it doesn't really affect "Can I sell these derivatives to another financial institution" either way.
Its remit was all mixed up, which as you imply was a large part of the problem. Certainly insider trading and money laundering were two large elements of it, which is fair enough in principle, but the implementation was bureaucratic and ineffective. For example, every single person working in any vaguely banking role (including people who never handle any fund transfers nor have access to privileged information about public companies) had to be FSA-registered, and as part of that, they had to pass the daftest exams imaginable - memorising the paragraph numbers from acts of parliament, for example. And yet the Rev Flowers was deemed a suitable person to run a bank.
I must bank at a different Co-op. I live in a small Essex town without a bank and although going one way it's a long way to a Co-op branch, going the other the Co-op's just as near as any other. However I can put cheques received into a special envelope, take them to the Post Office and two days later my account is credited. As a charity treasurer I can't do that with NatWest, which the charity insists I use. When I do have to use a Co-op branch the staff are helpful and informative. The internet service is excellent; statements always up to date, questions are answered promptly.
I'm glad to know your experience has been different to ours. We had some rather annoying problems with them, especially when we were buying our house.
You think the Internet service is excellent? That does surprise me. Do you use any other banl's Internet service?
When growth is (firmly) re-established, will the Gov't (Of whatever colour) put into practice the other part of Keynes' economics to run a surplus in the good times ?
Governments generally have done that, including the last one.
Can you tell us which years between 1997-2010 the last govt ran a surplus ?
1998 -> 2000 the Gov't ran increasing surpluses sticking to Conservative spending plans. Then Look at 2001 -> 2007. It heads back to a deficit. The thing is Britain was NOT in a reccession at this point, we were growing. The surpluses should have kept on coming. 2001 -> 2007 is where Labour got it completely wrong.
I can't be arsed arguing about the past Govt, shouldn't have brought it up as beliefs are too entrenched.
Indeed. The Tories have convinced themselves that the last Labour Government was totally responsible for the financial crisis and no other factors were involved. It's obviously a good idea for them to peddle this line in public but it's not so clever to base policy decisions on the same assumption.
Exactly right. The deficit was a symptom of the banking crisis. But Tories have convinced themselves it was the disease and have prescribed the wrong medicine as a result, and it could be disastrous if we're not lucky.
The deficit was a symptom of the credit bubble. It was serviceable until the inevitable bust. Now it isn't.
Roberts - 2008 was not a 'rare global crisis'. It was the warm up act for the main correction to come.
The world moved off a gold standard some ago into a world of fiat money creation. To make this viable and sustainable requires fiscal discipline - something politicians lack, as it doesn't get them re-elected.
Most sovereign borrowers are now horribly in debt and printing money to finance their deficits. The OECD, the BRICS, the Japs - everyone. And so national banking systems are also woefully over exposed. It will NOT go on forever, or indeed all that much longer.
Free market captialism, including the freedom to fail, has been replaced with crony capitalism and corporatism. A global reset is coming. The world's economy is going to get the 'alt, ctrl, delete' treatment.
In some ways I agree with Labour on that - local residents can go hang if the development is the right one. Overruling local opposition just to get a poor development would be a travesty.
What annoys me about Tim's attitude is that he concentrates on the number of homes built, without giving any thought to the other things that are needed to make a development successful. This includes a whole range of topics, like transport (roads, bus and rail), jobs, shops, facilities, green spaces, and community facilities.
Developers hate these sorts of things, as they cost them money with little benefit. That is why S106 agreements are so important, and sadly councils are not very good at getting screwing the developers down, either on the requirements or fulfilment.
The siting of any new settlement is also vital.
As I keep on saying: we need to build communities, not houses.
Why do you think I post about new towns and garden cities if I'm only interested in numbers? Posting the same thing over and over is pointless if you haven't understood the basic. The whole point of new towns is that they are big enough to sustain services an transport links
How many times last year did you post about new towns, or is this just a new meme?
I will leave it up to other to decide which one of us has a good handle on the basics, and which one of us is just parroting a party line.
And you still have not answered why we should take Labour plans seriously after the mess they made of housing between 1997 and 2010.
Roberts - 2008 was not a 'rare global crisis'. It was the warm up act for the main correction to come.
The world moved off a gold standard some ago into a world of fiat money creation. To make this viable and sustainable requires fiscal discipline - something politicians lack, as it doesn't get them re-elected.
Most sovereign borrowers are now horribly in debt and printing money to finance their deficits. The OECD, the BRICS, the Japs - everyone. And so national banking systems are also woefully over exposed. It will NOT go on forever, or indeed all that much longer.
Free market captialism, including the freedom to fail, has been replaced with crony capitalism and corporatism. A global reset is coming. The world's economy is going to get the 'alt, ctrl, delete' treatment.
So when do you think the UK ceased to have "free market capitalism?"
We had some rather annoying problems with them, especially when we were buying our house.
Incidentally bank transfers for housing purchases came up in the Bitcoin Senate hearing the other day: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/316346-1 It's in the testimony of Anthony Gallippi of BitPay, starting about 1:09:30.
PS. I think I like the way these Senate hearings work. I know the UK has witnesses coming before select committees, but I think it needs to do some more work to recreate the Senate's adorable "Smartest people in the world being questioned by a genial but confused old person" vibe.
PPS. If anyone from North Dakota happens to be reading this, you need to reelect Heidi Heitkamp.
Yes, and that was done around the (small) 80 recession and the early 90s recession. We didn't then have a recession in 2001 (When by historical stats one was due), recessions will come about eventually - they always do - and OK noone realised quite how severe the 2008 one would be but 2001 - 2007 was a historic opportunity to at least run balanced budgets which was squandered.
It should be noted that Britain has been in an industrial depression since 2000 (and that the FTSE100 peaked back in 1999).
The reason why Britain didn't have a corresponding recession in 2001 was that was when the great borrowing binge took off.
Its not difficult to get a growing economy when you're borrowing £100bn+ each and every year.
But what you get with it is a severely unbalanced consumption dominated economy.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m UK Charity Commission examining if former Co-op Bank chair Paul Flowers falsely claimed expenses from drugs charity http://bbc.in/18qw0CV
I must bank at a different Co-op. I live in a small Essex town without a bank and although going one way it's a long way to a Co-op branch, going the other the Co-op's just as near as any other. However I can put cheques received into a special envelope, take them to the Post Office and two days later my account is credited. As a charity treasurer I can't do that with NatWest, which the charity insists I use. When I do have to use a Co-op branch the staff are helpful and informative. The internet service is excellent; statements always up to date, questions are answered promptly.
I'm glad to know your experience has been different to ours. We had some rather annoying problems with them, especially when we were buying our house.
You think the Internet service is excellent? That does surprise me. Do you use any other banl's Internet service?
I must confess I've never used them for a "big" purchase. Like, for example a house.
As for the internet service, when I switched to the Co-op internet current account banking was in its infancy, but my experience with other credit cards is that their service is no better than that provided by the Co-op, and indeed, the team at the Co-op are much more friendly and helpful. The add-ons are just what I want, too.
Roberts - 2008 was not a 'rare global crisis'. It was the warm up act for the main correction to come.
The world moved off a gold standard some ago into a world of fiat money creation. To make this viable and sustainable requires fiscal discipline - something politicians lack, as it doesn't get them re-elected.
Most sovereign borrowers are now horribly in debt and printing money to finance their deficits. The OECD, the BRICS, the Japs - everyone. And so national banking systems are also woefully over exposed. It will NOT go on forever, or indeed all that much longer.
Free market captialism, including the freedom to fail, has been replaced with crony capitalism and corporatism. A global reset is coming. The world's economy is going to get the 'alt, ctrl, delete' treatment.
So when do you think the UK ceased to have "free market capitalism?"
I think we've witnessed a creeping move in this direction since 1945. I'm sure the collapse has moved faster under Labour governments as they deliberately overspend and damage the markets - but the Tories are certainly not without blame either and the 1980s was a particular period of sowing the seeds of destruction as banks became too big to fail. We need a well regulated free market in pretty much everything and have it in almost none - especially banking, public services and energy.
Yes, and that was done around the (small) 80 recession and the early 90s recession. We didn't then have a recession in 2001 (When by historical stats one was due), recessions will come about eventually - they always do - and OK noone realised quite how severe the 2008 one would be but 2001 - 2007 was a historic opportunity to at least run balanced budgets which was squandered.
It should be noted that Britain has been in an industrial depression since 2000 (and that the FTSE100 peaked back in 1999).
The reason why Britain didn't have a corresponding recession in 2001 was that was when the great borrowing binge took off.
Its not difficult to get a growing economy when you're borrowing £100bn+ each and every year.
But what you get with it is a severely unbalanced consumption dominated economy.
Don't forget that Brown pumped the cash from the spectrum auction into the system too. There's another £22.5 billion that helped things along.
WATO leading on Flowers and his charity expenses- now it emerges that the Lib Dems have an affinity credit card with the COOP bank......
Ed Balls accusing Clegg of lying over the £50k donation.....his "Flowers was not involved at all" line coming under pressure since it directly contradicts Flowers' sworn testimony - so Balls pulls a "PBTory" and says "he was hiring rent boys"....
I must bank at a different Co-op. I live in a small Essex town without a bank and although going one way it's a long way to a Co-op branch, going the other the Co-op's just as near as any other. However I can put cheques received into a special envelope, take them to the Post Office and two days later my account is credited. As a charity treasurer I can't do that with NatWest, which the charity insists I use. When I do have to use a Co-op branch the staff are helpful and informative. The internet service is excellent; statements always up to date, questions are answered promptly.
I'm glad to know your experience has been different to ours. We had some rather annoying problems with them, especially when we were buying our house.
You think the Internet service is excellent? That does surprise me. Do you use any other banl's Internet service?
I must confess I've never used them for a "big" purchase. Like, for example a house.
As for the internet service, when I switched to the Co-op internet current account banking was in its infancy, but my experience with other credit cards is that their service is no better than that provided by the Co-op, and indeed, the team at the Co-op are much more friendly and helpful.
The staff are certainly friendly, as I said in my first post. I wouldn't necessarily call them more helpful than NatWest or Barclays. Indeed, they made me wonder if they didn't want me transferring a couple of hundred grand out of the account... ;-(
Still, different people, different experiences ...
Good to see a Labour supporter has managed to close down a subject by deciding it wasn't to their taste and constantly whining...
Anyhow, regarding tubes being open all night, ticket offices being shut down and the staff being made to patrol the station area instead, I would support the staff and union if they decided to kick up a fuss... The staff will go from working until 11pm behind a secure window to being out in the open in some of the roughest parts of London in the middle of the night dealing with drunks, and general ne'er do wells, with their other option being probable redundancy.
I think we've discussed black cocks and Jack Dromey enough for today.
And that's a sentence, I never thought I'd have to utter on pb, or anywhere else for that matter
Thank the Lord!
We'll be spared your hypocritical sanctimony too!
Hypocrisy that exists only in your head. Either point to a post of mine where I have attacked a politician of any political stripe of deviance or STFU. In other words, put up or shut up.
WATO leading on Flowers and his charity expenses- now it emerges that the Lib Dems have an affinity credit card with the COOP bank......
Ed Balls accusing Clegg of lying over the £50k donation.....his "Flowers was not involved at all" line coming under pressure since it directly contradicts Flowers' sworn testimony - so Balls pulls a "PBTory" and says "he was hiring rent boys"....
Blimey - The Rev Flowers appears to have a rap sheet longer than snoop doggy dogg.
@MSmithsonPB: I back call by @ATCooperNo10, co-founder of British Polling Council & ex No10 that the CON incumbency polling be published
I've a feeling the Tories might have to expose Dan as a charlatan here
Under BPC rules AIUI Hodges has two days to produce the poll otherwise Milord will have done us all a favour and destroyed any lingering crumbs of credibility he has left.
I think we've discussed black cocks and Jack Dromey enough for today.
And that's a sentence, I never thought I'd have to utter on pb, or anywhere else for that matter
Thank the Lord!
We'll be spared your hypocritical sanctimony too!
Hypocrisy that exists only in your head. Either point to a post of mine where I have attacked a politician of any political stripe of deviance or STFU. In other words, put up or shut up.
To be fair I cant see the hypocrisy, but the sanctimony is painful. Especially as I don't see that anyone has taken a moral stance on what Dromey may or may not have done.
Bobajob you seem to be arguing against someone/thing that isn't there. People are amused by someone getting caught in an embarrassing situation, its always been the same. If you think of yourself as a progressive type that is appalled by any un PC behaviour Id have thought you'd be pleased at the lack of it in this case.
I think we've discussed black cocks and Jack Dromey enough for today.
And that's a sentence, I never thought I'd have to utter on pb, or anywhere else for that matter
Thank the Lord!
We'll be spared your hypocritical sanctimony too!
Hypocrisy that exists only in your head. Either point to a post of mine where I have attacked a politician of any political stripe of deviance or STFU. In other words, put up or shut up.
Back to front old chap - you accused others of the offence you are protesting your innocence of - without any proof. You are the hypocrite.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m UK Charity Commission examining if former Co-op Bank chair Paul Flowers falsely claimed expenses from drugs charity http://bbc.in/18qw0CV
I assume a legitimate tweet is ok Mr Moderator?
Yes, tweets from reputable UK based journalists and news organisations are acceptable.
I think we've discussed black cocks and Jack Dromey enough for today.
And that's a sentence, I never thought I'd have to utter on pb, or anywhere else for that matter
Thank the Lord!
We'll be spared your hypocritical sanctimony too!
Hypocrisy that exists only in your head. Either point to a post of mine where I have attacked a politician of any political stripe of deviance or STFU. In other words, put up or shut up.
Back to front old chap - you accused others of the offence you are protesting your innocence of - without any proof. You are the hypocrite.
I'll take that as your taking the "shut up" option then. Sadly, I doubt you will. Talk about something else for a change, if you are capable. If I want puerile rubbish I have endless sites I can find it on.
F1: Ricciardo delighted to be heading into battle against Alexander the Great: "If I can beat him in open warfare I'll be the greatest general ever," the deluded perma-cheery Australian said.
Backed France against the South Africans at 3.55 with Betfair. Whilst South Africa are probably favourites, the French are unpredictable. Their margin of defeat to the All Blacks was just 7 points, so if they can run the Kiwis that close then they stand a realistic chance of beating the Springboks (Ladbrokes has them at 2.88).
I've also backed the Australians to beat the Scots by over 12 points with Ladbrokes, at 1.91.
Comments
Helpful hint to lefties on here: when tim goes very very quiet about a story, it's prudent to follow his lead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25035191
And that's a sentence, I never thought I'd have to utter on pb, or anywhere else for that matter
Of course that only moves back the point in time of culpability a few years, as Blair indicated in his book.
However, while government debt is important, what is more important is proper regulation of the banks. Brown gloated of not properly regulating the banks "light-touch regulation", continuing the Thatcherite mantra of no regulation is good regulation. The Coalition have failed to cure the banking sector, create safeguards to avoid a repeat of the credit crunch, but have kept the ball rolling with low interest rates, QE and government mortgage guarantees.
I dislike cockfighting as well.
Labour's record on housing between 1997 and 2010 was abysmal in every single area. I see no reason to believe that they've learnt their lesson, or even begun to understand the issues.
I repeat: Northstowe was first mooted back in 2006. Since then the plan has been altered many times: it gained Eco-Town status, lost it, and has been involved with battles between the planners and the developers. The initial plan was for it to have 6,000 homes; the current plan says it will have 9,500 homes on the same footprint.
Construction has still not started. When it does, it will take 25 years to complete. My own village of Cambourne was started in 1997, will have 4,250 homes, and is still not complete.
Yet Labour seem to think they'd start construction on new towns in any meaningful way within five years?
Labour simply do not understand housing. And if Tim got his way, we would be repeating the same mistakes that plagued past developments.
This stuff is *really* difficult to get right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstowe
2008 wasn't a normal cyclical slowdown. It was a rare global crisis. The way you ride out a crisis like that depends on the nature of the crisis and the structure of your economy, not necessarily whether you're in surplus or deficit. In fact your surplus / deficit going into a crisis can be almost irrelevent - check out the figures for Spain for example.
Keynesianism is about more boring run of the mill cyclical upturns and downturns (not even recessions necessarily - if trend growth was 3%, you'd arguably be justified fiscal loosening if growth dips below that).
The coalition has made massive improvements here. The new structure is much more sensible, with clear lines of responsibility for prudential supervision.
The reality-based community sees regulation on a Good - Bad spectrum.
Lefties see it on a More - Less spectrum (and for them more is good).
They will never learn.
The challenge for the Tories is 'how do you sufficiently incentivise local authorities to build houses' given their belief in 'localism'.
For Labour its relatively easy - they'll do it in the 'national interest' and local residents can go hang......
@DavidCameron: Great to see Labour city leaders backing #HS2. A high speed North-South railway is vital for our country's future. pic.twitter.com/69qU8dpe2X
What annoys me about Tim's attitude is that he concentrates on the number of homes built, without giving any thought to the other things that are needed to make a development successful. This includes a whole range of topics, like transport (roads, bus and rail), jobs, shops, facilities, green spaces, and community facilities.
Developers hate these sorts of things, as they cost them money with little benefit. That is why S106 agreements are so important, and sadly councils are not very good at getting screwing the developers down, either on the requirements or fulfilment.
The siting of any new settlement is also vital.
As I keep on saying: we need to build communities, not houses.
We have a bank account with the Co-op, and their customer service is rather poor, to say the least. The staff are all very friendly (but that seems to be the case with all the banks), but their Internet banking service is absolute crud. Mrs J hates it.
One of their biggest problems is the lack of branches, which means I have to go into Cambridge whenever I deal with them. The Lloyds deal would have been of great advantage to the Co-op, if only they had been in a position to take advantage of it.
We need to discuss whether we move our money or not...
………………………………………………………………………………………
I must bank at a different Co-op. I live in a small Essex town without a bank and although going one way it's a long way to a Co-op branch, going the other the Co-op's just as near as any other. However I can put cheques received into a special envelope, take them to the Post Office and two days later my account is credited. As a charity treasurer I can't do that with NatWest, which the charity insists I use.
When I do have to use a Co-op branch the staff are helpful and informative.
The internet service is excellent; statements always up to date, questions are answered promptly.
(which it obviously is)
and
if, the velocity of discretionary spending > velocity of loan repayments
then
bankstas create the boom-bust cycle through shifting discretionary spending into loan repayments
every time they start a credit boom there's an initial boost and then it gradually trends to a bust as ever higher proportions of discretionary spending are soaked up in debt repayments
basically the ancients were right - usury (or at least the lending for consumption aspect of it) is malign and destructive
on the other hand by the same principle
if, the velocity of investment > velocity of stored wealth
(which is more or less certain)
then, lending for investment has the opposite and benign effect
#
banker (good) = turning static wealth into investment
banksta (bad) = lending for consumption
#
By not *effectively* regulating the bankstas New Labour *effectively* deregulated them.
You think the Internet service is excellent? That does surprise me. Do you use any other banl's Internet service?
The world moved off a gold standard some ago into a world of fiat money creation. To make this viable and sustainable requires fiscal discipline - something politicians lack, as it doesn't get them re-elected.
Most sovereign borrowers are now horribly in debt and printing money to finance their deficits. The OECD, the BRICS, the Japs - everyone. And so national banking systems are also woefully over exposed. It will NOT go on forever, or indeed all that much longer.
Free market captialism, including the freedom to fail, has been replaced with crony capitalism and corporatism. A global reset is coming. The world's economy is going to get the 'alt, ctrl, delete' treatment.
I've seen you reference the two coal fired power stations which closed earlier this year.
Actually the number is three - Didcot, Kingsnorth and the third being Cockenzie in Scotland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockenzie_power_station
I will leave it up to other to decide which one of us has a good handle on the basics, and which one of us is just parroting a party line.
And you still have not answered why we should take Labour plans seriously after the mess they made of housing between 1997 and 2010.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/316346-1
It's in the testimony of Anthony Gallippi of BitPay, starting about 1:09:30.
PS. I think I like the way these Senate hearings work. I know the UK has witnesses coming before select committees, but I think it needs to do some more work to recreate the Senate's adorable "Smartest people in the world being questioned by a genial but confused old person" vibe.
PPS. If anyone from North Dakota happens to be reading this, you need to reelect Heidi Heitkamp.
The reason why Britain didn't have a corresponding recession in 2001 was that was when the great borrowing binge took off.
Its not difficult to get a growing economy when you're borrowing £100bn+ each and every year.
But what you get with it is a severely unbalanced consumption dominated economy.
UK Charity Commission examining if former Co-op Bank chair Paul Flowers falsely claimed expenses from drugs charity http://bbc.in/18qw0CV
I assume a legitimate tweet is ok Mr Moderator?
If so perhaps he could track him down in that place of mutual interest - the toilets.
As for the internet service, when I switched to the Co-op internet current account banking was in its infancy, but my experience with other credit cards is that their service is no better than that provided by the Co-op, and indeed, the team at the Co-op are much more friendly and helpful. The add-ons are just what I want, too.
One speaks, doesn't one, as one finds.
Ed Balls accusing Clegg of lying over the £50k donation.....his "Flowers was not involved at all" line coming under pressure since it directly contradicts Flowers' sworn testimony - so Balls pulls a "PBTory" and says "he was hiring rent boys"....
Still, different people, different experiences ...
Anyhow, regarding tubes being open all night, ticket offices being shut down and the staff being made to patrol the station area instead, I would support the staff and union if they decided to kick up a fuss... The staff will go from working until 11pm behind a secure window to being out in the open in some of the roughest parts of London in the middle of the night dealing with drunks, and general ne'er do wells, with their other option being probable redundancy.
Filth Say I!
KING . I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers; How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!
Labour trying to copy Prince Hal over Flowers.
Bobajob you seem to be arguing against someone/thing that isn't there. People are amused by someone getting caught in an embarrassing situation, its always been the same. If you think of yourself as a progressive type that is appalled by any un PC behaviour Id have thought you'd be pleased at the lack of it in this case.
(You missed off the 'illegal' in front of drugs too.)
The conversation was heading in a way that was problematic.
The same decision would have been made if it were a politician from any other party.
Here Endeth the discussion on this topic.
"If I can beat him in open warfare I'll be the greatest general ever," the deluded perma-cheery Australian said.
http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/136561.html
Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. But I expect Ricciardo to be somewhere between crushed and annihilated by Vettel in 2014.
In sort-of related news, I'm thinking of using the enormo-haddock blog for Six Nations and maybe tennis-related stuff in the off-season of F1.
Betting PostBacked France against the South Africans at 3.55 with Betfair. Whilst South Africa are probably favourites, the French are unpredictable. Their margin of defeat to the All Blacks was just 7 points, so if they can run the Kiwis that close then they stand a realistic chance of beating the Springboks (Ladbrokes has them at 2.88).
I've also backed the Australians to beat the Scots by over 12 points with Ladbrokes, at 1.91.