Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Hatter The Mad]

Interestingly enough, Lehman Brother's collapsed because Gordon Brown wasn't willing to break his own rules. Barcleys were willing to buy Lehman Brothers, but the IFS regulation put in place by Brown meant they were not able to purchase the company over the weekend. Thus on the Monday Lehman went to the wall. They are the only large bank that was allowed to fail.

Correct. Lots of banks failed. The only difference is, Lehman were not bailed out or saved.

 

[bulldog147]

We all should vote for OCUK (never mind all those parties as we can't trust them!)

 

[Dolph]

If Lehmann had somehow different rules from many other, surviving, similar businesses you may have some kind of point. As they had EXACTLY THE SAME RULES yet they failed. Well, the conclusions are obvious.

Anyway -- you said you weren't going to post again -- sounds good to me -- nice talking.

And those rules were put in place by the government (both UK and US) and made things worse. What was your point?

 

[britboy4321]

Quite, the more he posts the more he seems out of his depth and just goes by sun headlines. i bet he doesn't know how and when the recession actually started.

Considering you're 'not posting anymore' you seem to be going pretty mental with all the posting. I blame Brown.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The tories have stated point blank they are going to take money out of the public sector.

Because it needs to be downsized. It is inefficient, and is squandering money whilst presenting little value. The NHS is running at -1% productivity each year since 2006, has had its budget nearly doubled since Labour came in, but we're still on average 20% behind counterparts in Europe in terms of health care and survival rates.

They have also stated the 50% tax is doomed.

Eventually, yes. But they haven't said they'll cut it immediately. Even Labour will cut it eventually. Why? Because 50% tax is too high, and tax bands which are too high decrease tax revenues. http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

 

[Dolph]

The tories have stated point blank they are going to take money out of the public sector. They have also stated the 50% tax is doomed.

This is called 'taking money out of the economy' and 'giving money to the rich'.

Is there anything else I can help you out on?

Public sector spending of the kind expanded under Labour doesn't create economic wealth, only economic drag, so it is not taking money out of the economy, especially if it reduces interest payments on the debt.

The 50% tax rate doesn't actually raise any more revenue and is just jealousy politics at work, and jealousy politics should be strictly prohbited anyway.

 

[britboy4321]

And those rules were put in place by the government (both UK and US) and made things worse. What was your point?

So you're saying there was too much banking regulation? Yet everyone else in the entire universe says there was 'not enough banking regulation'.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. You stick with your thoughts, I'll stick with the rest of the world's thoughts.

Ask Mad Hatter if he thinks there were too many banking regulations or not enough if you don't believe me ...

 

[robgmun]

Considering you're 'not posting anymore' you seem to be going pretty mental with all the posting. I blame Brown.

As you miss my privious post i will say it again, i have changed my mind as i enjoy seeing you falter with every post and showing you up as the ignorant person you are.

 

[Dolph]

So you're saying there was too much banking regulation? Yet everyone else in the entire universe says there was 'not enough banking regulation'.

I'm saying the banking regulation that was in place didn't work, and in some cases actually made things worse through the creation of moral hazard. This is not a minority view by the way

The way to address this is somewhat more complicated. Either less regulation and less hazard, or more but better regulation is the solution. The question is, do we think that the governments of the world can create this 'better' regulation without unintended consequences...

I guess we'll agree to disagree. You stick with your thoughts, I'll stick with the rest of the world's thoughts.

Ask Mad Hatter if he thinks there were too many banking regulations or not enough if you don't believe me ...

It doesn't matter how much regulation there is if it is counter productive...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

So you're saying there was too much banking regulation? Yet everyone else in the entire universe says there was 'not enough banking regulation'.

There was not enough effective banking regulation in the UK. Gordon Brown, typical of his style of organisation, had the Bank of England, the FSA and some other FI regulator whose name escapes me.

None of them had properly defined roles in terms of regulation, and all had overlapping responsibilities (so no one took any). Imagine one window, and lots of people trying to look into it - they bump heads, and no one ends up seeing anything.

This point particularly riles me. People take what the Torys say ("there was too much regulation") out of context. They were saying that there were too many regulatory bodies, and nothing effective.

And it is the truth.

Too many bodies, too many roles, not enough actual regulation.

Just like in the NHS. Just like in the social services. Just like in the MoD, the MoJ, the police. It is Labour's style of Government - to create all these 'authorities' and quangos, meaning the buck never svtually stops with anyone. But the creation of them creates headlines, pretending to the public that the Government is doing something, so it is all good

 

[robgmun]

So you're saying there was too much banking regulation? Yet everyone else in the entire universe says there was 'not enough banking regulation'.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. You stick with your thoughts, I'll stick with the rest of the world's thoughts.

Ask Mad Hatter if he thinks there were too many banking regulations or not enough if you don't believe me ...

It wasn't the amount of regulations, it was the wrong TYPE of regulations at the wrong time. Still waiting for you to wake up mate, why are you so resistant to see the obvious of what was/is going on??

 

[britboy4321]

Public sector spending of the kind expanded under Labour doesn't create economic wealth, only economic drag, so it is not taking money out of the economy, especially if it reduces interest payments on the debt.

The 50% tax rate doesn't actually raise any more revenue and is just jealousy politics at work, and jealousy politics should be strictly prohbited anyway.

Yet again, don't believe me, ask Mad Hatter whether shrinking the public sector takes money in or out of the economy.

You see the government no-longer pays for the public sector, so keeps the money. The money is out of the economy, and with government.

Honestly -- ask Hatter if you think I'm wrong .. hopefully you'll believe him ..

Saying the 50% tax doesn't raise any money even in the short-term eh? Again -- I point you to my esteemed colleague Mr Hatter -- ask him. You won't believe what I say -- so just ask him ..

 

[robgmun]

50% tax approxmatly rasies £1.5 million, was it really worth it? Not to mention that it makes people want to leave the UK for better ecomonic countries (Hong Kong for example). so we lose out on that tax regardless

 

[Hatter The Mad]

britboy4321; I'm sorry to break it to you, but as far as I can see, I've essentially been in agreement with Dolph

Saying the 50% tax doesn't raise any money even in the short-term eh? Again -- I point you to my esteemed colleague Mr Hatter -- ask him. You won't believe what I say -- so just ask him ..

Eventually, yes. But they haven't said they'll cut it immediately. Even Labour will cut it eventually. Why? Because 50% tax is too high, and tax bands which are too high decrease tax revenues. http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

You see the government no-longer pays for the public sector, so keeps the money. The money is out of the economy, and with government.

The public sector doesn't need any more money (ok, I am being liberal here - I cannot say that about every part of the public sector, but it is the case for a lot of areas). You get to a point where you get diminishing returns from increased investment, and we're well beyond that in a lot of places - as seen in the NHS, who are declining in real term productivity by 1% each year.

It is better for the country to ring-fence critical areas like education, the NHS, the MoD and start paying off the deficit with the rest.

You say the "money is with the government" - it isn't ours. It is borrowed. We're broke.

 

[britboy4321]

britboy4321; I'm sorry to break it to you, but as far as I can see, I've essentially been in agreement with Dolph





The public sector doesn't need any more money (ok, I am being liberal here - I cannot say that about every part of the public sector, but it is the case for a lot of areas). You get to a point where you get diminishing returns from increased investment, and we're well beyond that in a lot of places - as seen in the NHS, who are declining in real term productivity by 1% each year.

It is better for the country to ring-fence critical areas like education, the NHS, the MoD and start paying off the deficit with the rest.

You say the "money is with the government" - it isn't ours. It is borrowed. We're broke.

Hatter .. true or false

1) The government pays a public worker £20,000 -- who then goes and buys a load of stuff with it in town.
2) The government does not pay the public worker but sacks him. so he can not afford to buy anything. The government instead gets £20,000 off the national debt, and those businesses did not have as good a day's trading (and some may potentially consider dumping some staff).

Now -- at least be intellectually honest -- will you agree that (1) is the government putting money into the economy and (2) is the government NOT putting money into the economy?

As I said -- be intellectually honest -- or we're all wasting our time ..

 

[Dolph]

Yet again, don't believe me, ask Mad Hatter whether shrinking the public sector takes money in or out of the economy.

You see the government no-longer pays for the public sector, so keeps the money. The money is out of the economy, and with government.

In the long term, it benefits the economy by allowing tax reductions, in the short term it allows deficit reductions, both of these are economically positive processes.

Honestly -- ask Hatter if you think I'm wrong .. hopefully you'll believe him ..

Saying the 50% tax doesn't raise any money even in the short-term eh? Again -- I point you to my esteemed colleague Mr Hatter -- ask him. You won't believe what I say -- so just ask him ..

I don't need to, let's look at some work shall we?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/04/why_tax_the_rich.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/24/budget-tax-wealthy-debt-spending

Unfortunately I can't get a direct link to the IFS piece.

 

[robgmun]

He still hasn't anserwed my question about if he actually know how/why we got into this mess in the first place.

 

[Dolph]

Hatter .. true or false

1) The government pays a public worker £20,000 -- who then goes and buys a load of stuff with it

The government doesn't have this money to start with, it is either taken from the working population (and the productive economy) or borrowed.

What is the economic productivity of the employee? Does his work add more than his cost (including all drag factors) to the productive economy?

2) The government does not pay the public worker but sacks him. he can not afford to buy anything. The government instead gets £20,000 off the national debt.

The government has to borrow £20,000 less.

Now -- at least be intellectually honest -- will you agree that (1) is the government putting money into the economy and (2) is the government NOT putting money into the economy?

As I said -- be intellectually honest -- or we're all wasting our time ..

In neither case is the government putting useful money into the economy, but the latter option is economically better than the former.

 

[britboy4321]

Dolph -- the question was for Hatter. You don't know what it means to put money into the economy or take money out of the economy. That much is obvious. Let me talk with Hatter.

(Hint -- where the government gets the money from, or how much the employee works, makes not a SINGLE JOT of difference. If the government hired an airballoon, floated over central London, and threw a load of money they'd borrowed off the side -- THEY'D BE PUTTING MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY. I want to argue with Hatter, I'm bored of discussing amazingly simple economic theories with you, only for you not to understand - no offense .)

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You don't know what it means to put money into the economy or take money out of the economy

I don't know much about the economics

fyi, in regard to your question, my answer is essentially what Dolph said in his