blandy Posted January 9, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2009 outside of a recession there is a good argument that saving is positive, defintelty, which is why 5 years ago I took out a cash ISA. in a recession it is nonsense to suggest saving is a cure as the Tories have done Apart from saving means that banks have more deposits which ought to, in turn, put them in a better position to lend further down the line. Secondly, if you don't take the time and put in the effort to show people that saving is a good idea at a moment when people might actually take some notice then you have missed an opportunity which won't arise again for a while. In a few years time when things are picking up, very few will want to hear about the benefits of saving. obviously we have to get lending moving that is the key ... The key to what? Ah yes, the key to trying to rebuild the thing which has just collapsed. Castles built on sand. I Totally agree with this post. Are we not in the current mess because lending/credit was accepted as the normal way to pay for everything, rather than get the money, then buy? So much so that lending was made to people who had not an earthly chance of ever paying it back. That lending was done so people could get commission, regardless of the suitability of the borrower. Then the loans were traded, more people got their commission on the trades and no-one looked to see if what they were doing was sensible. All built on sand, as snowy says. We should surely be migrating towards a situation where lending to "responsible" borrowers who can pay it back is encouraged, and the money for that lending has to come from bank deposits and building Soc. deposits. Given the Gov't is also having to borrow heavily, both to pay increased unemployment benefit, to bail out banks and so on, then things like the VAT cut are just gestures and should not have been done. I guess the trouble is that if you make saving too attractive, no one will spend, and thus shops and factories lose trade and the cycle continues. So short term it needs saving not to be penalised, whilst also making loans available, via whatever medium (banks, Gov't etc) to keep the wheels turning. Debt repayment also needs making as easy as possible, and then longer term saving needs to be encouraged more, and lending less. Also a bigger chance comes with the way we as a country spend. If we throw away less, re-use more, invest in environmental programmes - rail, rivers, energy efficiency etc we can actually change the way the planet is headed. As demand for Air and road travel drops, start putting in to place viable alternatives for the next 100 years, rather than looking to just weather the storm in the hope it'll magic itself away. Invest in new energy technologies to replace Oil and Carbon. Save the World as well as alter our financial system and dependency on "stuff we haven't got" (i.e. the dependency on other people's money to get us gadgets and gizmos we don't need now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 I am totally open for a better solution snowy - fire away ... tell me in broad terms your thoughts on turning from a market economy to another that can still pay for the thinsg we need , Health, education police etc. As you have asked me to devise a completely new economic system (on my own without the years studying as an economist or without policy think tanks and academic research to back me up, &c.) you'll have to forgive me as I consider my response... p.s. Why can someone not hold the valid opinion that doing one thing is wrong (and as a result not work tirelessly to perpetuate it) without having to devise a replacement system? simply mate I believe yif you criticse a current system and you have said he should be blown away something has to replace it, like with BIAD at least some say some system because from where I stand I can think of nother viable alternative Pete agree with all that I have to say but if you want to go that way I think a lot would have to nationalised and then we have the costs of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 simply mate I believe yif you criticse a current system and you have said he should be blown away something has to replace it, like with BIAD at least some say some system Well, put 'simply', Ian, I believe that there is no point in just making some random suggestion in order to say, "at least I suggested an alternative". You have asked me to come up with a completely new economic system. Off the cuff. Off the top of my head. I don't think it is the most remarkable answer for me to say that I cannot do that. It still does not sway me from my condemnation of the current system nor does it make that opinion less valid nor does it decrease my confusion with your stance. Whilst bemoaning something, you keep suggesting that the best thing for everyone to do is concentrate on breathing new life into the system which you bemoan. because from where I stand I can think of nother viable alternative That would suggest that you believe this system is viable. :confused: :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 no it is not I have always said that I have always advocated miles more state intervention which is happening anyway at least the rabid free marketerers have shut up for a while ! Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying. * Hansard, HC 6Ser vol 191 col 413 (16 May 1991) Norman Lamont said this and though the reason is different how many free markerteers believe this is a 'price worth paying' well maybe one In an article for the Conservatives' official "Blue Blog", Mr Lansley stressed that he understood the "human misery" caused by the economic slump, particularly its impact on mental health. But he went on to state that he had been studying the positive benefits of previous economic downturns on the public's health. "Interestingly, on many counts, recession can be good for us. People tend to smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at home with their families," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why, Ian, did you decide to go off on an anti-Tory rant? A bit of a shame when most of this thread has tried to ignore that kind of crap. All in all, pretty banal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 not really snowy because it comes to the heart of the debate it is simple in some terms (I know you do not like me saying 'simple') but this whole credit crunch as the article I linked earlier showed it was called ny total free market deregulation ... the oppsitie also unsutiable is total state control free marketerers like Lamont do believe a recession is a price you have to play ever so often for economic growth despite the impact it has on soceity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 not really snowy because it comes to the heart of the debate If you say so, Ian. So the 'heart of the debate' is anti-Tory rants? Well, enjoy your debate. Yep, I think banal had it covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 no snowy read what I said the heart of the debate is over the mess the free marketers got us into the tories subscribe to this theory as the Lamont quote states, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We should surely be migrating towards a situation where lending to "responsible" borrowers who can pay it back is encouraged, and the money for that lending has to come from bank deposits and building Soc. deposits. Given the Gov't is also having to borrow heavily, both to pay increased unemployment benefit, to bail out banks and so on, then things like the VAT cut are just gestures and should not have been done. I guess the trouble is that if you make saving too attractive, no one will spend, and thus shops and factories lose trade and the cycle continues. So short term it needs saving not to be penalised, whilst also making loans available, via whatever medium (banks, Gov't etc) to keep the wheels turning. Debt repayment also needs making as easy as possible, and then longer term saving needs to be encouraged more, and lending less. Also a bigger chance comes with the way we as a country spend. If we throw away less, re-use more, invest in environmental programmes - rail, rivers, energy efficiency etc we can actually change the way the planet is headed. As demand for Air and road travel drops, start putting in to place viable alternatives for the next 100 years, rather than looking to just weather the storm in the hope it'll magic itself away. Invest in new energy technologies to replace Oil and Carbon. Save the World as well as alter our financial system and dependency on "stuff we haven't got" (i.e. the dependency on other people's money to get us gadgets and gizmos we don't need now). Pete - I'm slightly confused with your post mate and especially when you say you disagree with Ian but agree with Snowy The Banks will do the lending, the fact that they are not is not the gvmts fault and a time is rapidly approaching where they start "playing the game" rather than just looking after their preferred friends - shareholders and the people who have tried to prosper from the worlds economic downturn when they were the ones that caused it. the VAT cut was never going to be any major salvation. It's just part of a package. This is not aimed at you but I honestly wonder about people when they comment on the effect of the VAT cut. What exactly were they expecting? The solution to the problem has to come from many sources. You are right in that we need to re-address the way certain things happen and surely that is what a lot of the initiatives are talking about. New projects for this and that. There are clear divides in the political views on this because one party wants us to do nothing while the other would prefer to see action. No VT'er has the answer to all of this that's certain. The world is readjusting. My "area" this year is the emerging markets of Africa, Middle East, CEE and Russia. Multi nationals are looking at these as the normal powerhouses are not as profitable as they were. That's not to say it's all doom and gloom because it isn't - unless of course you believe everything anyone with an agenda tells you Ah well that's one NYR broken anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well, enjoy your debate. Yep, I think banal had it covered. Why the personal insult? Just because Ian has differing political views to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 no snowy read what I said the heart of the debate is over the mess the free marketers got us into the tories subscribe to this theory as the Lamont quote states, And so does New Labour and so do the Republicans and so do the Democrats....... BTW, it's not just about free marketeers but about the economic system. Oh, here we go we're back at our starting point of about a dozen posts ago. What progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 these things do go round and round snowy ... because humans will always want to buy things and trade and that means the market will always be there, the question is how to regulate and stablise it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well, enjoy your debate. Yep, I think banal had it covered. Why the personal insult? Just because Ian has differing political views to you? There was no personal insult. It was a comment which referred to my previous post which pointed out that the content of an anti-Tory rant was pretty banal in the context of what Ian and I had been talking about. p.s. Ian's political views do not differ very much from me. If you compared our points of view about economics in this and many other threads then you'll see that he and I share a huge amount of common ground in our disenchantment with the current economic system. Our difference lies with what ought to be done and my difficulty with Ian is that he seeks to rebuild a system with which he (and I) have a huge problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 snowy I am a realist as I posted above whilst humans want to trade there will always be a market system we can not change that hwo much we would love to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The 'credit crunch' is starting to be felt in Evesham. Woolworths closed, M&S closing, Post Offices closing left right and center (not strictly CC but its related). There are a few agricultural jobs but because of cheap foreign labour alot of people would rather stay on benefits than work for minimum wage, and with no gaurantee of long term employment. Generally jobs are few and far between. Thought I'd steer the conversation away from the politics a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 snowy I am a realist as I posted above whilst humans want to trade there will always be a market system we can not change that hwo much we would love to Fair enough, Ian. I shan't condemn you for being a realist though you do, generally, strike me as, at least, a closet idealist. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 it is no longer a credit crunch but a full blown world wide recession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Quote: Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying. * Hansard, HC 6Ser vol 191 col 413 (16 May 1991) Norman Lamont said this and though the reason is different how many free markerteers believe this is a 'price worth paying' thing is Ian , after this the economy recovered to become the strongest in Europe ..a thriving economy that labour inherited ...so was Lamont right or wrong ..and you have to choose your answer carefully as none other than Gordon brown agreed with Lamonts stance and policies ..or do i have to dig the article out again for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Quote: Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying. * Hansard, HC 6Ser vol 191 col 413 (16 May 1991) Norman Lamont said this and though the reason is different how many free markerteers believe this is a 'price worth paying' thing is Ian , after this the economy recovered to become the strongest in Europe ..a thriving economy that labour inherited ...so was Lamont right or wrong ..and you have to choose your answer carefully as none other than Gordon brown agreed with Lamonts stance and policies ..or do i have to dig the article out again for you well he is wrong tony and can I ask you if you believe in a recession that a government should be passive or active ? that is the main economic debate is it not ? we saw in the 80's and 90's how horrible a passive government can be the test of active will be seen now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 the test of active will be seen now the trouble for me is that the result wont be seen until years down track ..same as many people won't have paid for Christmas yet , just in the case of "governments" it could be 10 + years before the damage kicks in Brown has an election to face at some point and needs the "now" ..the country needs a long term strategy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts