Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 15, 2019.
That's a bit rich, you did the same thing earlier with the single mother conversation!
Sorry to say it but it's not, that's the part you got wrong. There's next to no difference between the BoE buying or selling bonds, to say there is would be like saying there's a materiel difference between a -1% and +1% interest rate, about the only thing that changes is how much money you're paying to people for the privilege of locking their money up for a few years and the so called 'debt' figure (aka: how much liquidity (money) is floating around in the economy).
They're not equivalence and I'm happy to be corrected but i don't think anyone said they were, they are however different sides of the same coin (so to speak), one increases the liquidity in the system (QE), the other decrease liquidity (the public purchasing bonds issued by the BoE). The BoE basically uses monetary policy to mitigate the effects of government fiscal policy, the government creates (spends) and destroys (taxes) the money while the BoE does the accounting (moves it around via interest rate, bonds, etc, etc).
The other side of the coin to QE is simply selling back the bonds QT - quantitative tightening. I don't know why this activity in relation to the BoE's independent monetary policy, which in the case of QE involves the BoE essentially increasing money supply and buying existing securities on the open market (and/or later doing the reverse in the case of QT) is being conflated with the issuing of new debt by the treasury's debt management office in order to fund public spending.
I'm not really sure what you're saying that I've got wrong either?
(I've gotta say though this is supposed to be a thread about the general election and instead I've been quoted multiple times re: this nonsense all because the initial reply I gave just commenting that it is conflating different things wasn't accepted by someone)
It appears you have read more of his posts than me! I'm not a follower of the guy, it was retweeted to my feed by someone else.
But typical of you to attack the messenger rather than give an opinion of the actual post.
What you've got wrong is saying QE & QT are completely different, they're not, they're just the two sides of the same coin.
Like i said to say they're completely different would be like saying a -1% interest rate is completely different than a +1% interest rate.
I literally just explained that one is the reverse of the other... re-read my post.
Honestly this is just getting silly now...
I agree that they would have iced anyone who no-showed. However, specially commissioning ice sculptures to show up the people who didn't show sends a message that C4 are pro-action on climate change - and thus support for the parties that also support action. It's nothing on the level of what the BBC have been doing, as I've said before, but it isn't neutral reporting.
It will no doubt entertain some of you to learn that in his car crash with Ferrari this morning (hur hur) Johnson forgot that LBC films its interviews as well as transmitting them on radio. He was thus filmed making "change the subject" gestures at Ferrari when the topic got awkward.
It's only got silly because you've refused to say that your previous claim of them being "completely different" was either a mistake or poorly chosen wording.
I wonder how many people on this forum are Londoners? That would at least explain the vote share.
Neither actually, you're just getting muddled a bit. The conversation wasn't about comparing QE and QT (again those are just the reverse of each other - the buying of existing debt in the secondary market and increasing money supply and the reverse of that) but rather it was another poster conflating increasing public debt (the issuance of new debt) something undertaken to fund government spending and the BoE engaging in QE.
I did take the time to put emphasis on this - yet you then pretend I've said something different... this is frankly ridiculous. I've spent multiple posts just replying to nonsense...
And we so almost got there, no I'm not getting muddled, i was trying to save some time by not going over old ground that's already been covered.
There's no buying of debt and there's no funding of government spending, this is why your claim that a contractionary fiscal policy that may need to be mitigated via QE is "completely different" than an expansionary fiscal policy that may need to be mitigated by QT is wrong, they're not "completely different".
I've not watched the vid - been at work.
But I don't know this chap "LoyalDefender2k" that you're vouching for, and I've no idea whether his claims you're asserting are true are in fact correct. Is the vid evidence of anything? Is it worthy of anyone's time? Who knows.
You seemed certain enough before, but now you're admitting you trusted someone you know nothing about.
It again raises the question of what cognative vigour you're bringing to the debate and the available sources of evidence in the debate.
You are still getting muddled.
The conversation was about labour's uncosted spending - for example the waspi pensions... that does require the issuing of new debt.
Honestly this is such a waste of time... you're not really adding anything here at all other than quoting me and creating noise by making up some argument on my behalf. I've spent enough time replying to this drivel already.
I'm sure you are one of the people who says Boris never answers a question when asked for his opinion. I can say you're giving him a run for his money!
Now on to the grown up part...
I'm not sure if I've missed the party political broadcasts so far, have they been happening?
I'll assume they have, so how do these debates that never seem to have all the parties represented affect the impartiality ruling during an election? All parties above a certain number of candidates standing are supposed to have equal time, including the PPB. This is why even the BNP had a PPB everytime they broke the threshold. But I'm not sure how its fair to have some parties in debates and not all the others who would otherwise qualify for a PPB?
Labour are already notifying staff of redundancy. That really inspires confidence.
As I say, you seem to be approaching this from a undisciplined starting point.
Given you're now disowning your source, are you even able to tell us the question you think isn't being answered?
The Brexit Party spokesman in the debate was reasonably well chosen, didn’t come across as a swivel eyed loon which was more than I was expecting.
'Spokesman' - literally the chairman of the Brexit Company (tm). I mean Farage hasn't bothered turning up to anything else apart from the A.Neil interview (assuming that's still occurring). Probably knows its worthless bothering.
I have no interest in Boris personal family life like i have no interest in which number of the Karma Sutra Corbyn is going to try out with his wife tonight.
What does interest me is which ones take national security seriously and that respect Boris wins over Corbyn hands down.
The heads of the security service restricted his access to intelligence when he was foreign secretary because they didn't trust him.
But he looks likely to make being a bigot easier.
What is it about him that means you take him seriously?
Separate names with a comma.