The labour Leader thread...

robgmun said:
S that's not a surprise, the left lies.
Click to expand...

So does the centre and the right, you're point is?

What did happen was due to the fact that Labour are economic retards we had no money left when the crunch came. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And that is where your serious lack of understanding of economics lets you down and you just resort to regurgitating meaningless political soundbites.
 
That and if George Osborne used the phrase "maxing out the country's credit card" while employed at a bank he would be fired for demonstrating an incredible lack of competence.
 
robgmun said:
What did happen was due to the fact that Labour are economic retards we had no money left when the crunch came. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that it would have been possible to run a government surplus large enough to be able to tough out the credit crunch without going into debt?
 
Caged said:
That and if George Osborne used the phrase "maxing out the country's credit card" while employed at a bank he would be fired for demonstrating an incredible lack of competence.
Click to expand...

And remember when DC said that everyone should stop spending beyond their means and pay off their debt, as that was the prudent thing to do?

I think the financial systems had an immediate coronary and he was briskly taken to one side to be told what an idiot he was and to retract the statement immediately :D:D:D
 
robgmun said:
Seriously you come across as whiny, no one ever said Labour caused a global credit crunch, i noticed that's the new line that the left likes to lie about those on the right says, that's not a surprise, the left lies.

What did happen was due to the fact that Labour are economic retards we had no money left when the crunch came. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:confused: So if there was no money left (as that Liam Byrne note said), how come the UK never went bankrupt - which is normally what happens when you run out of money no? It's just another Tory lie that the right-wing press have convinced the gullible public is the truth.
 
scorza said:
:confused: So if there was no money left (as that Liam Byrne note said), how come the UK never went bankrupt - which is normally what happens when you run out of money no? It's just another Tory lie that the right-wing press have convinced the gullible public is the truth.
Click to expand...

Hence it's the meaningless soundbite I mentioned that if someone had even a few functioning brain cells they would be able to critically dismantle.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
This is just going to be in basic terms, but macro economics and world debt is nothing like your own personal household economics and the loans you owe, so to try and equate them is disingenuous and is what causes the confusion.

A country isn't 'lent' money by another country. If our country wants to borrow, we issue bonds that are bought on the money market (By individuals, companies, pension funds, countries etc). Money can be created out of thin air by central banks by using the fractional reserve system and then it is just eroded away by inflation over time, all you have to do is service the interest until the debt becomes negligible.

A country (especially one who controls it's own money supply) can run a deficit, every year, forever....as long as there is enough growth to outstrip the level of inflation. (not that it matters in the short term if that doesnt happen either, we are looking at the very long term picture.) In fact, in economic terms, running a surplus is a very inefficient and undesirable thing to do - which is why we don't do it!

Just think, we borrowed 2 billion pounds in 1914 to fund world war 1. Which in 1914 was an enormous amount of money. We still haven't paid it off, but now in 2015 2 billion pounds is nothing in comparison to what it was and the interest we pay is negligible - because inflation has eroded the debt away.

We will never, ever pay off the £1.5 Trillion pounds our country owes within the current time frame, but in 1 - 200 years, £1.5 Trillion will just be chump change :cool:

That's not to say our deficit got to levels we were comfortable with after the financial crash (nothing to do with labours spending) and it was prudent to get it back under control, but the methods of doing it are just ideological rather than economic and the Conservatives mantra of aiming for this 'surplus' to pay off the debt is just pandering to simpletons.
Click to expand...

But this explanation still falls over on my last sentence

"Countries are just throwing money at each other and it's becoming diluted. Where does it end?"

Your quote:
"In 200 years £1.5T will be chump change."

Why is this just accepted as okay?

Everything is geared towards growth but there's never any mention of the sustainability of growth. Growth cannot happen forever, at some point there has to be, at the very least, a plateau. This will happen because in this world money if the only infinite thing. Resources which is what everything else is based on, are finite.

When we borrow 1.5T and then we hit an inflation plateau then that 1.5T remains very large.
 
Inflation plateau will never happen. The central bank targets positive inflation and controls inflation through interest rates and money supply growth.

An inflation plateau, as you put it, is exactly what would have happened since 2008 without quantitative easing. Although even then it would eventually have corrected itself, but we would have had a depression first.

Inflation does not require growth to happen. Debt is fixed in nominal terms and so inflation hits debt/cash holders hard and benefits borrowers (the government, mortgage holders etc.)

However, abuse of inflation as a tool to do that affects future borrowing costs as lenders realise they need to charge higher interest rates to cover that extra risk. That is why you target a single inflation rate forever and everyone is on an equal footing and a high level of certainty when creating debt contracts.
 
Last edited:
piggeh said:
I've voted for Corbyn. I don't agree with all his policies but I think he'll be good for British politics and open up a lot of debate.

Kendall is dreadful. Burnham got torn apart by Jeremy Hunt in the pre-election health debate forums. Cooper is the only candidate I think could win on a tory-lite platform.
Click to expand...

I'e voted for Labour in the last 2 general elections because I disagree with the economic policies of the Conservatives and agreed with Labour.

If Corbyn is the leader, at the next general election I won't be voting for Labour. The closest aligned to my personal beliefs will be the Conservatives.

"People's Quantitative Easing" when the economy is back to normal will be a disastrous policy. Seignorage already happens as part of normal Central Bank activity. Corbyn is proposing that we increase it which will mean a long term 2% inflation rate will be impossible with the consequences that brings.

Right to buy for private accommodation combined with rent controls in London will be a disaster as the private rental market will disappear.

Nationalising the energy sector is a backward step. Any incentive for efficiency will disappear. The new government company will know that it can always ask for subsidies when costs become high or use it's monopoly status to charge what it wants. It'll be far worse than even the dysfunctional energy market we have now.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Nationalising the energy sector is a backward step. Any incentive for efficiency will disappear. The new government company will know that it can always ask for subsidies when costs become high or use it's monopoly status to charge what it wants. It'll be far worse than even the dysfunctional energy market we have now.
Click to expand...

Lots of our "private" energy is owned by the French state.
 
Jokester said:
Profits from UK operations subsidise the French side of the business.
Click to expand...

EDF will profit maximise everywhere. Any evidence the French state is telling them to lose money in France?

scorza said:
:confused: What makes you say that? AFAIK as Jokester said it's our high energy prices that are subsidising the nationalised French prices.
Click to expand...

State companies (which EDF isn't really) are notoriously innefficient and require government subsidies. If that is happening to EDF then the French government would be supporting the company.

There is no evidence either of those is happening.

The UK market might be more profitable for EDF, but that's not an intentional thing.

Profits Apple make in the UK isn't subsidising say sales in a less profitable country.

edit:

The point is, it doesn't really matter who owns the private UK companies. Whoever owns it, they will attempt to maximise profits. We aren't worse off because the French government has a stake in EDF.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Nationalising the energy sector is a backward step. Any incentive for efficiency will disappear. The new government company will know that it can always ask for subsidies when costs become high or use it's monopoly status to charge what it wants. It'll be far worse than even the dysfunctional energy market we have now.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic on this one, I think a monopoly has the opportunity to be better managed for whole host of reasons, ironically the CEGB needed no subsidy, it turned a profit routinely to the exchequer and was big enough to issue it's own bonds to fund captial investment, However every single generator in the country needs some form of implicit or explicit subsidy now to stay in business, those that don't have it are clsoing.

The greatest threat from a monopoly is union power, historically power industry workers haven't been too bolshie but the post privatisation manning levels should be considered an upper ceiling on requirements.
 
muon said:
EDF will profit maximise everywhere. Any evidence the French state is telling them to lose money in France?



State companies (which EDF isn't really) are notoriously innefficient and require government subsidies. If that is happening to EDF then the French government would be supporting the company.

There is no evidence either of those is happening.

The UK market might be more profitable for EDF, but that's not an intentional thing.

Profits Apple make in the UK isn't subsidising say sales in a less profitable country.
Click to expand...

So why is electricity cheaper in France than it is in the UK?
 
Presumably other European states being happy to own UK utility companies means there's money to be made in doing it, otherwise why bother. I don't see how it's preferable to have that profit leave the country than being returned to government coffers or being used to keep prices charged to consumers lower.

The issue of nationalised industries being inefficient due to the knowledge of a safety net of extra government support is a totally separate one that can be tackled by having competent people running them. It also didn't seem to stop National Express just handing back the East Coast franchise instead of it dragging down the rest of their business to keep to the terms of their agreement.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I'm agnostic on this one, I think a monopoly has the opportunity to be better managed for whole host of reasons, ironically the CEGB needed no subsidy, it turned a profit routinely to the exchequer and was big enough to issue it's own bonds to fund captial investment, However every single generator in the country needs some form of implicit or explicit subsidy now to stay in business, those that don't have it are clsoing.

The greatest threat from a monopoly is union power, historically power industry workers haven't been too bolshie but the post privatisation manning levels should be considered an upper ceiling on requirements.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the most notorious monopoly in history, Standard Oil, was well know for being a union friendly workplace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom