are we still a fair country

Relax and chat about anything not covered elsewhere.
Post Reply
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

mulberryhawk wrote:If the financial sector was not so bloated and over leveraged then taxpayers wouldent have to backstop the system with over £1 trillion.
Where do you get that figure of £1 trillion from?

AFAIK, the UK bank bailouts came to mere billions (and were drawfed by the debts racked up by the previous Labour government).
mulberryhawk wrote:Even Qe ( which I think its fair to say you are not the biggest fan of :) ) is a direct consequence of the UK`s over reliance on the Financial sector.
That's debatable.

I bet Greece wishes they could print money right now, and they don't have a huge financial sector.

The fact is that, even without the bank bailouts, we'd still be saddled with a huge amount of sovereign debt and low exports bringing wealth into the economy (only we'd have 10% less money coming into the Exchequer, meaning deeper cuts and/or higher taxes would be necessary). So we'd still be reaching for the QE lever IMHO.
mulberryhawk wrote:I just wonder how you would weigh up the costs and benefits of having one sector so pivotal to an economic models success.
It would be great if we could have a more diversified economy - Having too many eggs in a single basket is never a good idea.

But I wish that the other sectors of the economy were bigger, not that fragile UK economy were given a further kick in the nuts by losing the financial sector... :)

Jeff
mulberryhawk
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am

I plucked the £1 trillion figure out of thin air for impact:) ,only joking heres the link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/real ... ng-bailout

The £1 trillion firewall was esentially set aside to be used but it wasent needed. The point still remains that over £1 trillion of tax payers money was at risk due to the banking sectors "ingenuity"....

The debts racked up by the labour gov would arguably not have been racked up if the banking sector had not been allowed to use excessive leverage resulting in phantom gdp that in fact was reliant on asset prices continuing to soar.

If you look at Labours spending during their years in power their budget defeceit never exceeded the 3.5% level up until the crisis in 2007/2008. Not that im singing their praises, just pointing out the facts that they never broke any fiscal golden rules.

QE was in response to plummeting investor and consumer confidence which resulted in the collapse of asset prices globally, causing the nationalising of RBS and thus the assets on the banks balance sheet became the assets of the tax payers.

In order to support the share price of the bailed out RBS QE was used to buy up gilts reducing the rate the government could borrow at and also gentally encouraging fearful investors out of the government bond markets into the stock market in search of real yield to preserve the purchasing power of their capital.

QE in conjunction with record low interest rates allowed both companies and households to continue to pay back borrowed money on mortgage and card debt .

Thus supporting individuals asset prices allowing them to continue consuming, helping the economy to grow albeit somewhat anaemically but better than increasing interest rates resulting in a countrywide epedemic of non performing loans, further impairing the balance sheet of the banks which we now own and inevitably leading to the use of the whole £1 trillion.

So QE in effect was used to support the share price of the bailed out banks, support the asset prices now transferred onto the governments balance sheet, support consumption and the paying down of corporate and consumer debt, to reduce the borrowing rate of the government enabling them to support the ailing economy, and also had the beneficial side effect of inflation devaluing sterling making our exports more attractive and imports less attractive helping to rebalance the economy.

Not to mention that inflation also reduces the overall debt burden of both the government and individuals. Ok, it comes at a trade off which is a slight rise in the standard of living but that was probably overdue given the consumption mad model we have become accustomed to over the last decade.
User avatar
superfrank
Posts: 2762
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm

it's about time people stop believing the myth that the financial sector is somehow a massive net earner for the UK... it's bolux. investment banks earn most of their money from governments in one way or another (i.e. the taxpayer) and the rest from leeching on proper businesses.

Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8410489.stm
Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.

The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.
steven1976
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am

Superfrank, if the banks arent bringing in new money and imports are higher than exports it very grim. Which it is and as much as people expect the government to sort out their lives it may come to a point where they cant when the 170billion debt needs repaying to china or whoever.

This guy is he helping paying large income taxes or hurting by spending 200k on a night out on foreign drinks ?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mystery-t ... -name-hope
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Whitehall department savings scheme overspent by £500m, says report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17276978

You couldn't make it up! :lol:

Jeff
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Interesting that you quote a left-wing study reported by a left-wing news organisation! You're not turning red on us, are you Frank? :lol:

For a bit of balance, consider this (copied from http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... eGFzCRAhSw):

Financial and professional services continue to make a
substantial contribution to the UK economy. Key aspects include:
● Over 1 million people working across the UK in financial services, nearly 4% of total
UK employment. About one third are employed in London and two thirds in the rest
of the UK.
● The UK financial services trade surplus of £36bn in 2010 helping to offset the £98bn
deficit in trade in goods.
● The UK’s financial services industry contributing £124bn to UK GDP in 2009,
accounting for 10% of total economic output.
● UK financial services contributing £53bn in tax revenue in 2009/10, 11% of total UK
tax receipts


Myth my arse. :)

Jeff
superfrank wrote:it's about time people stop believing the myth that the financial sector is somehow a massive net earner for the UK...
Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8410489.stm
Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.
Last edited by Iron on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

mulberryhawk wrote: The £1 trillion firewall was esentially set aside to be used but it wasent needed. The point still remains that over £1 trillion of tax payers money was at risk due to the banking sectors "ingenuity"....
But that assumes that, if the banks hadn't been based in London, we wouldn't have acted. Who's to say that we wouldn't have contributed massively to an IMF bailout fund had the banks been located elsewhere, just as we may be stumping up big time towards a Eurozone bailout fund in the near future?
mulberryhawk wrote:The debts racked up by the labour gov would arguably not have been racked up if the banking sector had not been allowed to use excessive leverage resulting in phantom gdp that in fact was reliant on asset prices continuing to soar.
You can't blame the banks for Labour's delusions...
mulberryhawk wrote:If you look at Labours spending during their years in power their budget defeceit never exceeded the 3.5% level up until the crisis in 2007/2008. Not that im singing their praises, just pointing out the facts that they never broke any fiscal golden rules.
Public debt soared under Gordon Brown's premiership - see http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/u ... onal-debt/. And given that we only spent 37 billion on the bank bailouts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm), the banks can't be blamed for that.
mulberryhawk wrote: QE in conjunction with record low interest rates allowed both companies and households to continue to pay back borrowed money on mortgage and card debt .
IMHO, all QE does it kick the proverbial can down the road, with ugly consequences. There's a reason why the German's won't touch QE with a 10 ft barge pole...

Politicians are generally only interested in winning the next election. So if the pain can be delayed till after the next election, then they've either got 5 years to sort out the mess, or they can land the newly elected government with a huge mess to sort out, which will hopefully result in the current regime returning to power five years further down the road.

Jeff
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

How would you make up the tax revenue decrease that would result from lowering duty on alcohol?

The money for the increases in benefits you advocate need to come from somewhere...

Jeff
mister man wrote:ill have a pint of birra moretti please but
i hope thats not a bar in the UK
mister man
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm

no i dont think you could make it up

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70235.html
User avatar
superfrank
Posts: 2762
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm

mister man wrote:no i dont think you could make it up

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70235.html
that's just a continuation of a trend that actually accelerated in the Labour years.

Social mobility also decreased sharply under Labour - one of the good things about the Thatcher years was that social mobility increased hugely.
User avatar
superfrank
Posts: 2762
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm

Jeff,

it was my mistake to say "financial sector" - what i really meant was the banking sector (or certain large elements of it). much of the financial services net gain comes from the insurance sector, in which the UK is a big player.

if an investment bank or hedge fund makes loads of money it has effectively taken the money from somewhere else - it hasn't created any wealth.

SF
mulberryhawk
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am

But that assumes that, if the banks hadn't been based in London, we wouldn't have acted.
RBS had a balance sheet that was over 2 Trillion when it was nationlised in 2007. Just to clarify thats one UK bank with a balance sheet over 100% of gdp......that had to be bailed out by the government and taxpayers. Do you genuinely believe that the UK government would contribute such a considerable ammount to either the IMF or another country. :shock:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55253388-0125 ... z1oQYZlutG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog ... uk-economy

Also dont forget that it was not that long ago the UK went cap in hand to the IMF. :oops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm

You can't blame the banks for Labour's delusions...
Labour and Tory delusions, The conservatives promised to match Labours spending pound for pound prior to the 2007 crisis and Cameron and co gave Tony Blair a rousing standing ovation on his final PMQ`s appearance. :roll:
For three years after Cameron and Osborne took over their party in 2005, they pledged to "match Labour's spending plans". The nonsense the Conservatives spoke about fiscal policy back then was almost as irresponsible as that spouted by Gordon Brown.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... borne.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8dSVnQCDA

Also there is a such thing called moral hazard which applies in free market economics, but when it came to the 2007 bailout I dident hear any calls from the right extolling the virtues of a "free market" financial system that encourages survival of the fittest ordinarily. Hmmm right wing economic rhetoric was unusually absent from that debate, I wonder why.

Public debt soared under Gordon Brown's premiership - see http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/u ... onal-debt/. And given that we only spent 37 billion on the bank bailouts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm), the banks can't be blamed for that.
Liberal use of the word "soared" I would have said....
After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007.
IMHO, all QE does it kick the proverbial can down the road, with ugly consequences. There's a reason why the German's won't touch QE with a 10 ft barge pole...
The LTRO is a belated and ham fisted approach to the spiraling debt cycle being experienced in Europe at the minute. Effectively QE in all but name. But with aggregrate unemployment at over 10% in Europe and over 20% in the periphery, and with bond prices at unsustainable levels its arguably too little too late.
mister man
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Ferru123 wrote:How would you make up the tax revenue decrease that would result from lowering duty on alcohol?

The money for the increases in benefits you advocate need to come from somewhere...

Jeff
mister man wrote:ill have a pint of birra moretti please but
i hope thats not a bar in the UK

ive already answered that before in this thread too.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Not really - You've evaded most of my questions.

OK, you've told us that you'd get rid of Foreign Aid. But would that be enough to fund the benefit increases you're after, particularly if you're cutting duty on alcohol?

Jeff
mister man
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm

yes it would be enough. and yes ive answered before more than once, i suggest a reading course, as well as recognising a reply you could then, research cost/benefit ratios and price elasticity.a cut in alcohol duty down to similar european levels of our competitors, would slow the rate of closure of british pubs, thus reducing unemployment, help our brewers,thus reducing unemployment, help our glass maunfacturers thus reducing umemployment, help our potttery industries, thus reducing unemployment, and our specialist bar equipment and supply manufacturers thus reducing unemployment. If we were to reduce our massive fuel duties, similar savings and reductions in unemployment could be made in our logistics and transport industries many of which are going to the wall due to foreign companies having the advantage of lower fuel costs.
the savings to the economy benefit bill would far outweigh the reduction costs.
also you could scrap the nhs reforms that nobody but a few nutcases in the tory party wants,certainly the doctors nurses and virtually all professional bodies oppose it, the price tag to even implement this needless bill is 3billion, before it does anything.
I could go on but little point debating with a closed mind.
the fee we are paying for our taxpayer owned banks to pay the bankers in unwarranted bonuses this year alone would cover the entire payments for all job seekers allowance, and if they the banks left the country we would still own them, and they cant while in majority state ownership.
The inescapable truth is we are governed by a prime ministers and a cabinet mostly eton educated who wouldnt know fairness and how to govern as if we are all in this together, if a fairness fairy came and sprinkled them all with reality dust.
i dont know who to feel most sorry for,the poor and desperate being targeted by this government,or the ignorant who are currently allowing cameron to sleep walk us into social anarchy, and moral bankruptcy.
the latter will suffer,like the former soon enough.
as a betting man, my odds on more riots this summer are 10/1 0n..
Post Reply

Return to “Chill Out Area”