ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Snowy, the thing is the argument for losing business is used in every attempt to tighten up regulation Min wage - would lose jobs to toher cheaper countries tighter regs - lose business to NYSE it is the typical free market argument as you know,for the free market to work it needs somehwere to be cheaper and less deregulated yes we all wanted that because we wanted £2 pairs of kids jeans from ASda, eh guess what they are produced in far east sweat shops we wnate all the benefits of a free market and not the negative, take house prices for example now at least we have a chance to redress that, but we won;t because as soon as a new reg is published we will hear screams from business on how it will cost them money Seriously, I am so glad you're not chancellor with opinions of that nature. go on there care to give a counter argument and state why when it is agreed the laissez faire touch of the FSA caused these problems that we should not have tighter regulation (I won;t hold my breath for a rational debate of this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Snowy, the thing is the argument for losing business is used in every attempt to tighten up regulation Min wage - would lose jobs to toher cheaper countries tighter regs - lose business to NYSE it is the typical free market argument as you know,for the free market to work it needs somehwere to be cheaper and less deregulated It's not just a typical free market argument, actually. It is an argument that bases policy on the never-ending expansion of the economy. yes we all wanted that because we wanted £2 pairs of kids jeans from ASda, eh guess what they are produced in far east sweat shops we wnate all the benefits of a free market and not the negative, take house prices for example I'm getting pretty offended by this now, Ian. I didn't want what you suggest. A lot of people I know have often questioned it. Stop lumping everyone together into what is, in itself, a free market argument. now at least we have a chance to redress that, but we won;t because as soon as a new reg is published we will hear screams from business on how it will cost them money Indeed you will and you'll also be hearing from politicians of all hues that this is true (as we have been doing - Heathrow expansion for one example). We have to grow, grow, grow until the day that the petrie dish is full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 I'm getting pretty offended by this now, Ian. I didn't want what you suggest. A lot of people I know have often questioned it. Stop lumping everyone together into what is, in itself, a free market argument. you may not but millions of others did, Asda/Primark etc. thus grew on the back of this, heck I am just to blame, we spent £10 on 4 t-shirts for Amy at the weekend the population wants it and the polticans of any hue can not back against it because simply they would never get elected in as we have discussed ad nauseum snowy we have few other options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 you may not but millions of others did Okay - so stop telling us that everyone wanted it. the population wants it and the polticans of any hue can not back against it because simply they would never get elected in I think a lot of that is the fact that the population has been told that they want it by their supposed 'biggers and betters'. as we have discussed ad nauseum snowy we have few other options The only thing I'm getting nauseated with is the proposition that there are no alternatives. We have plenty. Please read back through all of this thread to see some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What do Weimar Germany, Zanu PF and Labour have in common? Crank up the printing presses, it's hyperinflation time! Alistair Darling is this week expected to give the Bank of England formal approval to effectively print more money to kick-start the British economy. The Bank will be able to spend up to £150 billion in the coming months to buy-up company and Government debts. The policy, known as quantitative easing, will be used to inject more money into the economy. It is now deemed necessary as interest rates rapidly approach zero. The Chancellor is expected to sanction the scheme on Thursday in a formal exchange of letters with Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England. The Bank's Monetary Policy Committee is this week also expected to cut interest rates from one percent to a new record low of 0.5 percent. They may be cut even further to a nominal rate of 0.1 percent. Many mortgage lenders are unlikely to pass on any reduction to borrowers. Just a third of lenders reduced their standard variable rates in line with last month's cuts. However, fears are growing that savers will again suffer and a further reduction will mean there is virtually no financial incentive to put money aside. If rates are cut this week, the Bank will have little scope for further reductions prompting the need for quantitative easing to be introduced. However, economists warn that the unprecedented action is risky as inflation could be fuelled in future. Michael Saunders, chief UK economist at Citigroup said: "If done on a large enough scale, [quantitative easing] is a powerful form of stimulus. "It is likely to ultimately stabilise the economy and buy time for the financial system to heal - unless the stimulus has to be withdrawn because of signs that inflation expectations are ramping higher - for instance, a collapse in the pound, a surge in survey measures of inflation expectations or sharply higher gilt yields. "It may be a long and uncertain road back to normal monetary policy." In an interview yesterday, Sir John Gieve, the outgoing deputy governor of the Bank of England, warned that the decision about when to begin increasing rates to stop inflation rising as recession ends would be "very difficult". Interest rates impact economic activity several months ahead and therefore the Bank may have to increase rates while recession is still ongoing. Sir John said: "We've got to hold on to the fact that inflation will be kept low. "That will require some very difficult decisions because it will require the Bank to start raising rates before it is obvious on the street that the economy is getting better." However, the outgoing deputy governor said he was now optimistic that the worst of the financial crisis was over. "I hope we've reached the bottom," he said. "Confidence in the banking sector should improve. This asset protection scheme they have announced for RBS and will announce for Lloyds in the next few days is a convincing scheme." Mr Darling is also expected to announce plans this week for a new Government-backed "bank" to fund major infrastructure projects. Finance from banks for the schemes has virtually stopped in the wake of the global credit crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 the population wants it and the polticans of any hue can not back against it because simply they would never get elected in I think a lot of that is the fact that the population has been told that they want it by their supposed 'biggers and betters'.Interesting review on R4 this morning about ineqality within society and how inequality tends to see even the poorest increase their consumption levels relative to their wealth, ie the more inequality that exists the more people try to counter their position at the bottom of the scale by trying to be more like those higher up the ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 the population wants it and the polticans of any hue can not back against it because simply they would never get elected in I think a lot of that is the fact that the population has been told that they want it by their supposed 'biggers and betters'.Interesting review on R4 this morning about ineqality within society and how inequality tends to see even the poorest increase their consumption levels relative to their wealth, ie the more inequality that exists the more people try to counter their position at the bottom of the scale by trying to be more like those higher up the ladder. yep thats it some call it social mobility some call it aspirational some may call it short sighted I also heard something on R5 this morning that stated that a large number of those in toruble are in fact the 'middle class' and is this not because they also 'aspired' to move up the next level ? It is inevitable if you pursue free market polcies since the war and lately since the 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What do Weimar Germany, Zanu PF and Labour have in common? Crank up the printing presses, it's hyperinflation time!With the interest rate weapon being seemingly impotent, there is very little alternative and it's an idea that has been floated for nearly a year but has scared off the politicos. What we don't need is for this to be used to pump money into those banks that so despise labour. The money needs to be pumped into the economy not used to shore up capitalisation levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What do Weimar Germany, Zanu PF and Labour have in common? Crank up the printing presses, it's hyperinflation time!With the interest rate weapon being seemingly impotent, there is very little alternative and it's an idea that has been floated for nearly a year but has scared off the politicos. What we don't need is for this to be used to pump money into those banks that so despise labour. The money needs to be pumped into the economy not used to shore up capitalisation levels. I'm happy to be corrected mate but isn't buying up bad government debt essentially the same as what I've bolded above? Further to that will printing money not also mean another fall in the value of Sterling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 What do Weimar Germany, Zanu PF and Labour have in common? Crank up the printing presses, it's hyperinflation time!With the interest rate weapon being seemingly impotent, there is very little alternative and it's an idea that has been floated for nearly a year but has scared off the politicos. What we don't need is for this to be used to pump money into those banks that so despise labour. The money needs to be pumped into the economy not used to shore up capitalisation levels. I'm happy to be corrected mate but isn't buying up bad government debt essentially the same as what I've bolded above? Further to that will printing money not also mean another fall in the value of Sterling? not when the US and eurozone have to do it ... the US have really tried not to do it but that time is close and the eurozone is in a mess as well whoever goes first the rest will follow as night follows day the governments have just the two other options as far as I can see and that is to let banks collapse and see what the hell happens or borrow even more to shore them up thus having the same effect anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 when an arch captialist - Warren Buffet, says this you knwo the situation is **** up He had a more old-fashioned view on the merits of home ownership. "My family and I have enjoyed my present home for more 50 years, with more to come" "Enjoyment and utility should be the primary motives for purchase, not profit," he said. incidentially I agree 100% with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What we don't need is for this to be used to pump money into those banks that so despise labour. The money needs to be pumped into the economy not used to shore up capitalisation levels. I'm happy to be corrected mate but isn't buying up bad government debt essentially the same as what I've bolded above? Well it does depend upon how they structure it - which isn't clear yet. If they are just buying up debt then the stimulus is lessened and the feedback into the real economy is damaged. Further to that will printing money not also mean another fall in the value of Sterling?Yes. To some extent the markets will already have priced it in. Though the reality will harden those positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 when an arch captialist - Warren Buffet, says this you knwo the situation is **** upHe had a more old-fashioned view on the merits of home ownership. "My family and I have enjoyed my present home for more 50 years, with more to come" "Enjoyment and utility should be the primary motives for purchase, not profit," he said. i think this comment is utterly irrelevant to whatever the current situation is. You could have asked buffet this 10 or 20 years ago an dhe'd have given you the same response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 when an arch captialist - Warren Buffet, says this you knwo the situation is **** upHe had a more old-fashioned view on the merits of home ownership. "My family and I have enjoyed my present home for more 50 years, with more to come" "Enjoyment and utility should be the primary motives for purchase, not profit," he said. i think this comment is utterly irrelevant to whatever the current situation is. You could have asked buffet this 10 or 20 years ago an dhe'd have given you the same response. and he would have been right then too I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone. It never makes sense when your material wealth goes up, not because of anything you have done but just because the market deemed it so. then of course the banks based their business on the value of loans which was/is a false position as we can now see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone.So on the one hand you want to reduce the number of people owning homes or pursuing home ownership. On the other hand you want to ban profit making from property, so no private landlords. Treehouse? Poorhouse? Where will we all live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone. How would you Police that? What does it mean in practice? Say someone bought a house for 75K and then got a family, or extended their family and looked to move to a bigger home. In the time between buying it and getting to the stage where they wanted to move the house is now worth 300K, but the house they want is only costing 200K. Does that count as "profit" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone.So on the one hand you want to reduce the number of people owning homes or pursuing home ownership. On the other hand you want to ban profit making from property, so no private landlords. Treehouse? Poorhouse? Where will we all live? Private landlords are scum, I knwo some on here may do it, but some of the stuff my Mrs's has to deal with beggars belief Keep saying it but when history reflects on thie last years the selling off of the council housing stock at very very very low price will be seen as a 'crime' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone. How would you Police that? What does it mean in practice? Say someone bought a house for 75K and then got a family, or extended their family and looked to move to a bigger home. In the time between buying it and getting to the stage where they wanted to move the house is now worth 300K, but the house they want is only costing 200K. Does that count as "profit" ? tax it ... simple but I guess the campaigns to remove inheritance tax just helped to clarify for peopel that property is about money and not about somewhere to live in my lifetime two out of the three recessions was caused by the over inflated housing market, but this time the banks gambled on prices never going down but I guess Richard you support the free market don't you so you will fail once again to answer whether you allow a market to collapse as they will and decide whether to support it or not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Private landlords are scum, I knwo some on here may do it, but some of the stuff my Mrs's has to deal with beggars beliefSo where are all the people going to live in ianrobo world - your two conflicting policy aims leave most of the people with no houses. It makes no sense. Or are you going to nationalise the housing stock, taking all the ex council houses back into public ownership? Or going to finance a govt backed massive house building project? Not really thought through properly is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Private landlords are scum, I knwo some on here may do it, but some of the stuff my Mrs's has to deal with beggars beliefSo where are all the people going to live in ianrobo world - your two conflicting policy aims leave most of the people with no houses. It makes no sense. Or are you going to nationalise the housing stock, taking all the ex council houses back into public ownership? Or going to finance a govt backed massive house building project? Not really thought through properly is it. yes I would do all that as said before in this or another thread spend money building, spend money now with house prices low on buying up empty property fully support the lib dems on this plan it is noticable those countries in shit are those with an high number of private ownership, be it rent or owned. You would not believe the amount of landlords defaulting on mortgages and chucking peopel out, it is madness and long term costs the state more. for every people homeless it costs a basic 2k to house or find them somewhere have I not been consisent on that Gringo ? have long term aim of a bigger % of housing being social housing and reduce the number of private landlords who are only in it for profit, believe Clarry can explain more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts