Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Is he doing that on racial lines?

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Is he doing that on racial lines?

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Is he doing that on racial lines?

Do you need to show Danish ancestry to collect the cash ?

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Is he doing that on racial lines?

A similar approach in the USA might be to spend more on schools, health care programmes and other social infrastructure in deprived areas, which in America would mean particularly high spending on inner cities, Native American reservations, the cotton belt of the Deep South etc. I suspect parts of Appalachia would benefit too. Indeed it sounds very much like LBJs Great Society Programme when Biden went into politics.

It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Fenman said:

contrarian said:

Fishing said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

@Fishing

Thank you for the link.

I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.

However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.

That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.

In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.

There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.

Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.

People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.

I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.

Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.

I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.

I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.

A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").

That holds here.

Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.

Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.

So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.

Is he doing that on racial lines?

Do you need to show Danish ancestry to collect the cash ?

There are no original ideas in politics, we've just come back around to Danegeld.

algarkirk said:

IanB2 said:

Economist: In Britain and Europe we look at how the bonds that hold the United Kingdom together are fraying.

The union is now weaker than at any point in living memory. The causes are many, but Brexit is the most important. Political leaders in London, Edinburgh and Belfast have put their country at risk by the way they have managed Britain’s departure from the European Union.

Boris Johnson, the prime minister, has done it carelessly, by putting party above country and espousing a hard Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, has done it determinedly, by exploiting Scots’ dislike of the Brexit settlement. Arlene Foster, first minister of Northern Ireland and head of the Democratic Unionist Party has done it stupidly, by rejecting the softer Brexit proposed by Theresa May, Mr Johnson's pre­decessor.

If the Scots, Northern Irish or even the Welsh choose to go their own way, they should be allowed to do so—but only once it is clearly their settled will. That is by no means the case yet, and this newspaper hopes it never will be.

An interesting take, as always, by the Economist. But if this influential weekly had understood the dynamics of ordinary people 20 or 30 years before it did it might have done a lot of good. Its intellectual disdain for popular politics is a problem not a solution. It (almost) never got to grips with the democratic deficit or the meaning of ever closer union.

They fail to answer a key question: What is this other sort of Brexit (the unhard one) that would have actually got through the commons? Mrs May would like to know too; she tried. SFAICS Boris got through the nearest thing to the only runner. What should he have done?

And Brexit is not the main driver of disunion either for NI or Scotland. The NI problems go back not to 2016 but more like 1171 and thereafter; and the Scotland issue goes back to the devolution debacle where we end up with Scotland having an alternative government while, say, Yorkshire, with the same population as Scotland looks after local issues. It was a pure danegeld offer, accepted with both hands.

The divisive referendum was pre Brexit. Brexit is not the real issue.

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Have we discussed this?

https://twitter.com/ElectsWorld/status/1382617400772804608?s=20

France, presidential election poll (1st round) :

Among 25-34 years old :

#LePen (RN) : 37 %
#Macron (LREM) : 18 %
#Mélenchon (FI) : 14 %
#Bertrand (LR) : 7 %
#Jadot (EELV) : 7 %
#Hidalgo (PS) : 6 %
#DupontAignan (DLF) : 3 %

In France the electoral gradient tends to be the opposite of ours, with the youngsters being the Right Wing Populists.

HYUFD said:

CatMan said:

Discussions on how terrible May was seem to ignore that the Tories only got *1.2%* less in 2017 than they did in 2019.

She did better than Hague and Howard to be fair to her

Toms said:

TimT said:

Yay. Second shot (Pfizer) booked for Wednesday.

I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??

Foxy said:

Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.

londonpubman said:

Foxy said:

Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.

Were there any heaters present? I was in a pub garden yesterday - we weren't near any heaters and it was cold!

Toms said:

TimT said:

Yay. Second shot (Pfizer) booked for Wednesday.

I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

HYUFD said:

CatMan said:

Discussions on how terrible May was seem to ignore that the Tories only got *1.2%* less in 2017 than they did in 2019.

She did better than Hague and Howard to be fair to her

Ooh setting the bar high there.

Not to forget they were against Blair (at his peak still for Hague) not Corbyn.

She also got more seats and votes than Cameron did in 2010 against Brown after the 2008 crash

From a much higher starting point and Brown is not Corbyn.

Plus she chose the date of the election.

Yes, Brown did not inspire his base as Corbyn did, certainly in 2017.

The LDs got 23% in 2010, just 7% in 2017 too

SandyRentool said:

Toms said:

TimT said:

Yay. Second shot (Pfizer) booked for Wednesday.

I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??

You got the placebo?