| Non-motoring > GB and the IMF | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Hard Cheese | Replies: 118 |
|
Thu 19 May 11 07:53
GB and the IMF - Hard Cheese
|
|
Can't beleive that Gordon Brown and Managing Director of the IMF are being mentioned in the same breath ... What next, John Prescott running the UN? |
|
Thu 19 May 11 08:42
GB and the IMF - DP
|
|
I heard it on the radio this morning, and genuinely checked my watch to make sure it wasn't April 1st. UK taxpayers will be paying off his legacy for decades. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 08:52
GB and the IMF - madf
|
| No chance. A man with all of the charm of a mamba... |
|
Thu 19 May 11 09:09
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
|
His name has been previously mentioned in the context before as successor in line. It was firmly squashed by Cameron. At least you know he wont be raping Hispanic hotel maids! |
|
Fri 20 May 11 22:47
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
>> At least you know he wont be raping Hispanic hotel maids! Yeah, he contented himself with screwing us. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 09:11
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| I suspect the job will go to a non European this time round and my favourite would be India's Montek Singh Ahluwalia |
|
Thu 19 May 11 09:39
GB and the IMF - Hard Cheese
|
|
Or Wontek Singh Bigchek? |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:07
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
Brown probably deserves more serious consideration than he's likley to get from the popular press. His work at the time of the banking crisis is well regarded internationally and much of the present mess is due to the neccessity to bale out capitalism's failure. Cameron, unfortunately, will not play the statesman on this preferring to go for political point scoring. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:35
GB and the IMF - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Brown probably deserves more serious consideration than he's likley to get from the popular press. >> His work at the time of the banking crisis is well regarded internationally and much >> of the present mess is due to the neccessity to bale out capitalism's failure. I know you're just trolling, and I'm rising to it, but what planet were you on when Brown created the fiscal disaster that is the UK over the last decade? I understand that you don't like the coalition on account of their bonfire of quangos, but really. Remember, Australia is in the midst of a boom and Germany is doing fine. Only those nations engaged in profligate spending of borrowed money fueled by inflation of prices of widely-held assets (the family home) over the last decade are stuffed. And then his great idea of QE, which involved borrowing more money to cure an overleveraged economy. You cannot fight fire with fire. That now leaves us with inflation at 5% and rising (to make up for our devalued currency, inter alia). It certainly apparently solved the problem for a bit, but in reality it made the problem bigger. www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/i-would-show-hotel-maids-my-slides%2c-pledges-brown-201105163820/ Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 19 May 11 at 11:35
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:46
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/i-would-show-hotel-maids-my-slides%2c-pledges-brown-201105163820/ >> He would chuck mobile phones at them. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:07
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
Mapmaker, Putting an alternative view is not trolling. Brown may, for all sorts of reasons, not be the right person for the job. Amongst those reasons might be his temperament and the fact that the World Bank American/IMF European duopoly cannot look right from India, Russia or Brazil. He deserves better than the ya boo dismissal he's getting in the UK press and from the PM. A cull of Arm's Length Bodies was on the slate of all parties in the 2010 election & work to inform a review began well before Brown fell. The runners, riders and potential fallers were subject of discussion whenever quangocrats got together as far back as 2008/9. I'm a lifelong soft leftie - nothing to do with the current government. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:44
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> His work at the time of the banking crisis is well regarded internationally >> of the present mess is due to the neccessity to bale out capitalism's failure. >> Cameron, unfortunately, will not play the statesman on this preferring to go for political point scoring. really? Capitalism was working just fine as it was and a free market would have allowed the consequences of bad investment decisions to punish all the participants - including you and me through our various direct/indirect links with the failing Banks. But GB couldn't allow Northern Rock and the rest to fail without risking his own future, could he? The socialism model of intervention in propping up failing banks the world over has postponed the pain but it is now biting the Irish, Portuguese, Greeks, with a vengeance. Good job that Cameron and Co are dealing with the UK problem as firmly as they are, in the best interest of UK plc at heart, even if that makes them unelectable next time round. As for IMF's view of Brown, they already had a few years of experience of him as Chairman of the fund's policy committee and they don't speak highly of him. Cameron's vs Brown's policies - I don't expect a Socialist will ever agree with a Capitalist like me. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:52
GB and the IMF - Hard Cheese
|
|
>> Cameron, unfortunately, will not play the statesman on this preferring to go for political point scoring. >> Cameron, fortunately, will play the statesman on this preferring to go for common sense rather than patriotism. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:53
GB and the IMF - DP
|
|
>> Brown probably deserves more serious consideration than he's likley to get from the popular press. >> His work at the time of the banking crisis is well regarded internationally and much >> of the present mess is due to the neccessity to bale out capitalism's failure. UK national debt was at £800bn before the banks got a penny. I am no fan of the bankers, but they were a very conveniently timed excuse for Brown and his cohorts. The fact is, the British economy was in the hole long before the banking bubble burst. Brown himself had ample opportunity to regulate the financial sector before the wheels fell off, but instead chose to do the opposite (if anything), quite happy to sit back and let a sector which pays a third of all UK corporation tax do as it pleased. My kids will be paying for this man's incompetence. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:22
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> this man's incompetence. >> incompetence example: In April 2007, in his capacity as "Chairman of the IMF's International Monetary and Financial Committee", he was suggesting IMF should sell their gold reserves. One financial journalist reminded GB that between 1999 and 2002 he sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves when the gold market was a low. Brown replied "diversification of our reserves and reducing risk was in the national interest, it was the right long-term decision for our economy, the sale had happened while achieving value for money". Last edited by: John H on Thu 19 May 11 at 12:23
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:53
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> One financial journalist reminded GB >> that between 1999 and 2002 he sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves when the >> gold market was a low. Brown replied "diversification of our reserves and reducing risk was >> in the national interest, it was the right long-term decision for our economy, the sale >> had happened while achieving value for money". >> And what was the trend in gold prices in the 20yrs before 2002? |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:58
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> And what was the trend in gold prices in the 20yrs before 2002? >> Golden rule of investing: the past is no guide to the future. If GB and you don't know that, you are not qualified (i.e. you are incompetent) to make financial decisions affecting your household, let alone the country and the world. To add insult to injury, he remained/remains blind to his bad decision even with hindsight. Last edited by: John H on Thu 19 May 11 at 13:00
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:02
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| Actually the past is the only guide to the future. Not always reliable but its all we have. Not learning from the past in matter financial as well as economic and political is the chief failing of mankind. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:16
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> Actually the past is the only guide to the future. Not always reliable but its >> all we have. Not learning from the past in matter financial as well as economic >> and political is the chief failing of mankind. >> investment lessons to be learnt from the past: 1. past performance is no guide to the future 2. don't let Gordon Brown anywhere near your financial affairs. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:18
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> investment lessons to be learnt from the past: >> >> 1. past performance is no guide to the future That's not an investment lesson, that's small print you have to publish when marketing an investment product. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:16
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Actually the past is the only guide to the future. Not always reliable but its >> all we have. Not learning from the past in matter financial as well as economic >> and political is the chief failing of mankind. Especially as gold, compared to other commodities, is bought primarily for speculative and hedging purposes, having little intrinsic value. You can perhaps predict how the price of oil will shift with growing demand, but predicting gold prices is primarily an exercise in technical, rather than fundamental analysis. The rise in gold prices since around 2001, is an unsustainable bubble, there is nothing fundamental about the demand. Of course, in hindsight, it would have been great to ride the gold bubble, but that is hardly prudent investing. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 19 May 11 at 13:17
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:18
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> Of course, in hindsight, it would have been great to ride the gold bubble, but >> that is hardly prudent investing. >> selling off 60% of the nation's reserves in a short period is utter foolishness. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:21
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> Of course, in hindsight, it would have been great to ride the gold bubble, >> but >> >> that is hardly prudent investing. >> >> >> >> selling off 60% of the nation's reserves in a short period is utter foolishness. Not really. In hindsight it was the wrong decision, but you can only make decisions based upon the information you have at the time. The gold price could easily have gone the other way, and then you would be claiming that he was the world's best investor. People talk about "our reserves" as if there is some major significance to how much gold you have. It is just an investment. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 15:38
GB and the IMF - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> People talk about "our reserves" as if there is some major significance to how much >> gold you have. It is just an investment. >> I thought they were reserves, to be kept in case of dire need. If you have sold them off, whether at the top or the bottom of the market, then you have defeated the object of holding them. Dire need equals: needing to fight a world war sufferering a major natural disaster facing a major depression |
|
Thu 19 May 11 16:48
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> I thought they were reserves, to be kept in case of dire need. If you >> have sold them off, whether at the top or the bottom of the market, then >> you have defeated the object of holding them. >> >> Dire need equals: >> >> needing to fight a world war >> sufferering a major natural disaster >> facing a major depression They are really to hedge currency risk, in the event that something causes a crash in your currency. But there are other, arguably better, ways to do that. The proceeds of the sale were invested in multiple currencies, which is the diversity that Brown was planning for. Calling them gold reserves makes them sound like they are some real commodity that you need in times of a crisis, such as oil reserves, food reserves, or even military reserves. It all falls into the trap of thinking that gold is in some way useful, that we sold off something that we actually needed. It wasn't even as if he sold off a huge proportion of our assets, just $3.5 billion at the time. The highest that the gold price had been over the previous 30 years was about twice the price he paid, and nobody could have forseen the bubble of the last 10 years. Easy to find lots of clever pundits to tell you now that it was a bad decision to sell. I wonder how many back in 2001 would have made such confident predictions. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 22:18
GB and the IMF - MD
|
|
>> needing to fight a world war Under equipped. >> sufferering a major natural disaster Under equipped. >> facing a major depression As we are now. Get rid of layers of slacking under qualified ponces and get people back working. Make something to sell and sell it and get back to basics. If we as a race don't do the aforementioned, rest assured that time will bring these things to bear whether we like it or not. The party is over. M. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:21
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Golden rule of investing: the past is no guide to the future. If GB and >> you don't know that, you are not qualified (i.e. you are incompetent) to make financial >> decisions affecting your household, Gold took off from 2002. Almost certainly this was a result of the events of 11/9/2001 creating a realisation that the world was far less stable than most thought. Not a forseeable event. I asked an open question albeit, following the first rule of cross examination, one to which I already knew the answer. I didn't insult you by questioning your competence. Why can you not reply in the same vein? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 19 May 11 at 13:24
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 19:09
GB and the IMF - smokie
|
|
I'm not left and I didn't/don't support Gordon or Labour but a close family member was a v senior member of the Treasury and worked closely with GB. His opinion was that GB was a man of generally higher intellect than many of his predecessors and was far far better than the press managed to portray him. And fwiw I don't really see how the collapse of Britain is solely his fault, when it's actually a global collapse. Or maybe he should take the blame for that too...? |
|
Thu 19 May 11 19:46
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
|
>> And fwiw I don't really see how the collapse of Britain is solely his fault, >> when it's actually a global collapse. Or maybe he should take the blame for that >> too...? He was a man of principals and intellect for sure, but surely unfit for, and unable to cope with leadership (I know people who worked in the cabinet office) There are reports that he suffered from a form of Autism. He was responsible for slowly and surely borrowing more and spending more prior to the crash. Fiscally the country was in no fit state to survive the crash. So yes - His fault. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 21:18
GB and the IMF - smokie
|
| He wasn't a dictator, there is collective responsibility in Cabinet and Parliament. And the Civil Servants who advised him. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 07:31
GB and the IMF - Manatee
|
|
>> My kids will be paying for this man's incompetence. >> What all our kids will be paying for is PFI. While claiming that public borrowing was within prudent limits, Labour allowed the build up of massive PFI debts that were just ignored in the counting. This is not hindsight, I have been agog at this for a long time. The opposition should have been shredding Labour over this, but of course they connived at it. Just as with the raid on pensions, they mumbled a bit and let it go because they would have done exactly the same thing. I used to think I didn't understand it. Unfortunately I think I do, and it's the politicians who choose not to. Example - "Greece will go bust, unless it can borrow more money"? Who are we trying to kid? You don't make a bankrupt solvent by lending him money so it will go bust anyway unless the existing debt is forgiven or Greece just defaults. Watch this space. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 20 May 11 at 07:31
|
|
Fri 20 May 11 07:40
GB and the IMF - Manatee
|
| I might have added that the next banking crisis is in the making...a lot of the Greek debt is held by German and French banks who got away with it last time... |
|
Fri 20 May 11 07:54
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
....a lot of the Greek debt... A lot of bubbles might burst. :) |
|
Fri 20 May 11 22:57
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
Bromptonaut said: >> His work at the time of the banking crisis is well regarded internationally and much >> of the present mess is due to the neccessity to bale out capitalism's failure. You mean the way that GB massively increased government spending so that the deficit threatened to destroy the country? Or the way that he did not see the impending liquidity crisis? Or the way that he separated off the regulation of banking to the Financial Services Authority which failed to do its job? Or the way he claimed to have ended boom and bust? FYI the deficit is/was about £150 billion per year, which is due to massive over spending, and not due to the banking crisis. The idea that our problems are due to the banking crisis is a lie propagated by Nu Labor to hide their incompetence. It is easier to create a scape goat than to accept responsibility for ones failings. Or to face the truth. Some of these Nu Labor people such as Ken Livingston say that the deficit is due to unemployment, but the numbers do not add up. It is just a lie. You might argue that the Tories would have been equally incompetent were they in power, but they weren't, and we don't know if that would have been the case. I suspect they have their own unique way to show incompetence. ;) |
|
Thu 19 May 11 11:31
GB and the IMF - Alanovich
|
|
>> What next, John Prescott running the UN? >> Nah, I nominate Phil the Greek for that. Pride of Britain, the Royals. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:19
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
...Pride of Britain, the Royals.... Many a true word spoken in jest, or in this case, snidey jest. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:22
GB and the IMF - Alanovich
|
|
Do learn how to take a joke, Iffy. Might help push that Death Clock date a bit further to the right. :-) |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:24
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
...Do learn how to take a joke, Iffy... Alanovic, I take (nearly) all your posts as a joke. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:37
GB and the IMF - Alanovich
|
|
>> I take (nearly) all your posts as a joke. >> Sadly, I don't get the same feeling about yours. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:00
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
...Sadly, I don't get the same feeling about yours... I think we both know where each other is coming from. Zones of agreement, zones of disagreement, but almost always in the right spirit. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 12:33
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> Do learn how to take a joke, Iffy. Might help push that Death Clock date >> a bit further to the right. >> >> :-) >> You must be joking! www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/feeling-happy-dont-be-too-smug-as-chances-are-you-will-die-young-2651567.html |
|
Thu 19 May 11 13:56
GB and the IMF - -
|
|
The UK's downward spiral was in top gear long before Brown got to the helm, he was B.liar's gopher for the whole time, and had to provide ever more borrowed funds to keep nulab in bought votes. He nor anyone else stood a chance as PM with the rocket ship nulabbritain in full pelt. As for cameron sorting things out, what a joke, he's trying to plug and paint over bullet holes beside the port holes whilst half the underwater hull of the ship is missing, not a hope in hell. They all cook the books and shift the goal posts, this lot are no different to the previous mob, who are no different to the previous tory govt, it will ever be thus, you can't trust a politician, ever. Until we stop borrowing money we can't pay back, fighting others wars, and stop giving it away too, both to other countries and to those here who have no moral right to funds then it will continue just as before, politicians fiddling whilst the country burns. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 14:05
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| What a cheery view you have of the world GB . |
|
Thu 19 May 11 14:10
GB and the IMF - Suppose
|
|
>> The UK's downward spiral was in top gear long before Brown got to the helm, >> he was B.liar's gopher for the whole time, and had to provide ever more borrowed >> funds to keep nulab in bought votes. >> >> He nor anyone else stood a chance as PM with the rocket ship nulabbritain in >> full pelt. >> >> As for cameron sorting things out, what a joke, he's trying to plug and paint >> over bullet holes beside the port holes whilst half the underwater hull of the ship >> is missing, not a hope in hell. >> >> They all cook the books and shift the goal posts, this lot are no different >> to the previous mob, who are no different to the previous tory govt, it will >> ever be thus, you can't trust a politician, ever. >> >> Until we stop borrowing money we can't pay back, fighting others wars, and stop giving >> it away too, both to other countries and to those here who have no moral >> right to funds then it will continue just as before, politicians fiddling whilst the country >> burns. >> .... and then when nothing but ashes is left, the country will rise from the ashes under the leadership of the BNP. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 16:49
GB and the IMF - -
|
|
>> .... and then when nothing but ashes is left, the country will rise from the >> ashes under the leadership of the BNP. Don't trust their leader either, but if you do fair enough. ''What a cheery view you have of the world GB '' Realistic from what i've seen of various govts that have led us down the toilet during my life. Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 19 May 11 at 16:51
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 16:54
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
|
You know, from what I read on here from various people, I must live in a different country. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 14:11
GB and the IMF - Hard Cheese
|
|
Well that's another GB I totally disgree with. >>He deserves better than the ya boo dismissal he's getting in the UK press and from the PM.>> No, it's not a matter of what he deserves, rather we all deserve better than him at the helm of any financial institution. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 15:45
GB and the IMF - Cliff Pope
|
|
If you were on an interview panel for a top job, and one of the applicants had a somewhat controversial career path, then regardless of any hidden merit he might be concealing, you wouldn't take the risk of appointing him? You wouldn't say, peculiar old bloke, had some bad luck, bit gauche, probably unemployable, let's give him a job. Or not the top job anyway. Lavatory cleaner or car park attendant perhaps. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 16:38
GB and the IMF - madf
|
|
GB's long term track record is of unremitting failure. Making the wrong long term decisions.. So he had a good three months helping to sort out the financial crises he helped create? Big deal. The facts are that his long term legacy was to help deman politics and politicians : he - remember - was the PM who sat and did nothing despite being repeatedly warned that MPs were thieving expenses. And of course turned out to be a thief big style himself. As for statesmanship? Remember his treatment of his opponenets? Bullying, smearing, lying - and that's only his Labour opponents.. Refusing to let the Opposition have access to civil servants prior to the election. Not turning up for EU signing meetings. Lying about spending cuts he made. Anyone who thinks he's suited to run anything needs a reality check. Last edited by: madf on Thu 19 May 11 at 16:38
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 17:40
GB and the IMF - WillDeBeest
|
|
Until we stop borrowing money we can't pay back... So, GB, if you compiled a table of European countries and their ratio of national debt to GDP, the UK would have only Greece and Ireland keeping it from the top spot, would it? Let's take 2009, the last full year when Brown was in charge and his supposed profligacy was at its height. I don't mean to pick on you personally, GB - and I'm sure you've taken the trouble to find out for yourself - but the Tories and their cronies in the press have pulled off a good trick in getting the "nation's maxed-out credit card" accepted as fact. This has allowed them to trumpet the cuts they wanted to make anyway, for ideological reasons, as The Only Way, and get people on sites like this to do their justifying for them. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 17:50
GB and the IMF - -
|
|
WDB i'm not in the least interested in where we come in any league tables, if i have the lowest debt in my street, i'm still in debt. Given our historic wealth and the way we managed to finally pay of war debts we should be riding at the top of the pile, whilst other countries throw money round like confetti. As for cuts, i agree with them, but they don't go anywhere near far enough, and the very first one should have been foreign aid of any form, followed immediately by the halt to all hostilities in foreign lands unless directly a threat to our country. Simplistic, yes, sorry about that. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 18:03
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
I quite like Cameron. Like any politician he is motivated by power, but I also believe he is a patriot and will try to do the best for his country. Those two things can go hand-in-hand. I can't think of anyone else who is any better suited to the job of prime minister. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 18:08
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> So, GB, if you compiled a table of European countries and their ratio of national >> debt to GDP, the UK would have only Greece and Ireland keeping it from the >> top spot, would it? >> I don't mean to pick on you personally, GB - and I'm sure you've taken >> the trouble to find out for yourself - but the Tories and their cronies in >> the press have pulled off a good trick in getting the "nation's maxed-out credit card" >> accepted as fact. >> So these charts putting the UK at the top of the debt league are lies? G7 Countries - external gross debt/GDP ratios, 2003Q2 - 2008 Q2 www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_6156/3078296/1_fullsize.bmp G7 Countries - ratios of short-term external gross debt/GDP, 2003Q2 - 2008 Q2 www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_6156/3078296/2_fullsize.bmp "Michael Saunders from CitiGroup has calculated ‘external debt’ – ie, what Britain owes the rest of the world. It is not 40% but 400% of GDP, the highest in the G7 by some margin. The next down, France, is 176%. America, flagellating itself for blowing such a debt bubble, is just 100%. Japan is about half America. The below graph shows ‘external debt’ – both in mid-2008, and five years ago. Narrow it down to short-term debt, ie IOUs that have to be paid back within a year, and the picture grows even bleaker. It adds up to 300% of GDP – six times that of France whose loans are long-term. Saunders says, with some understatement, that this makes “the UK economy and financial system highly vulnerable when, as now, global banking and capital flows dries up.” " Last edited by: John H on Thu 19 May 11 at 18:13
|
|
Thu 19 May 11 18:31
GB and the IMF - WillDeBeest
|
|
It may be accurate, John, but it's not relevant to my question. External debt isn't government debt - it's all the money owed by all entities in a country to creditors outside that country, so includes private and corporate debt as well as the government's. Those figures (which end in 2008) illustrate why the UK economy was vulnerable to a sudden shortage of credit, but say little or nothing about Brown's abilities, since he had - at best - only indirect control over that aspect of the economy. I could make a cheap shot to the effect that a self-proclaimed capitalist ought to understand that, but I'm in a good mood so I'll let it pass. };---) |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:20
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> I could make a cheap shot to the effect that a self-proclaimed capitalist ought to >> understand that, but I'm in a good mood so I'll let it pass. >> };---) >> Some people are who are posting on this thread are too thick to discuss matters related to finances and economics, but I'm in a foul mood and don't wish to be rude to them, so I'll let it pass. |
|
Thu 19 May 11 18:37
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> So these charts putting the UK at the top of the debt league are lies? They're the wrong charts to look at, when talking about the debt that government has taken on. This is far more indicative. tinyurl.com/6hz2vry |
|
Fri 20 May 11 06:37
GB and the IMF - madf
|
|
Article from Bloomberg on potential choices for new IMF leader.. www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-18/sex-scandal-is-another-travesty-at-imf-s-door-william-pesek.html GB is dismissed as follows: (at the end) "New Chapter Europe has some solid candidates. Christine Lagarde, France’s finance minister, is a case in point. Gordon Brown is not, given his unsteady leadership while serving as U.K. prime minister. Brown’s successor, David Cameron, would be right to oppose his bid for Strauss-Kahn’s job." Says it all.. PS Bloomberg is of course US run... |
|
Fri 20 May 11 23:02
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
gordonbennet said: >> They all cook the books and shift the goal posts, this lot are no different >> to the previous mob, who are no different to the previous tory govt, it will >> ever be thus, you can't trust a politician, ever. I hated Thatcher and her government, but with age comes what I like to think of as wisdom, and not just sore knees and a faint smell of wee. I admire her ability to do what she thought right for the country, and to ignore the populist press. I also admire her ability to ignore vested interest such as the print unions. I suspect that the problem with Cameron, like Blair, is that he prefers to pander to the broadsheets for short term gain. He might be a media manager, rather than a real politician. I hope I am wrong. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 11:04
GB and the IMF - Mapmaker
|
|
Various observations: Gold reserves. Gold is completely pointless. (Yes it has made some people lots of money over the last decade.) Save for use in jewellery and HiFi connectors etc., solid bars of gold are useless. GB was right to sell them, his timing was just rather unfortunate. They had no material value in the context of the nation. Brompton the soft lefty. A political position I really do not understand. I apologise for suggesting you were trolling, I thought you were, I now realise you were not. Generally I can see alternative points of view; on GB I cannot. There is no doubt whatsoever that he has a brilliant mind. There is also no doubt that, as Chancellor, he presided over an increase in UK public debt the sort of which has never been seen before. Similarly an extraordiary increase in UK private debt on the back of rising house prices through keeping interest rates too low. "Aha" you say, interest rates were not in his power. Au contraire, his target inflation rate was too high - being about 3-4% (RPI). And GB has persuaded people it "wasn't his fault" as it was a worldwide thing. Poppycock. Australia and Germany - to name but two - are not in crisis. The Irish, Greeks etc. are in it even worse than we are. Just goes to show that you don't have to be in crisis - and you don't have to be vaguely OK either. Entirely down to management of the economy. Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 20 May 11 at 11:07
|
|
Fri 20 May 11 11:55
GB and the IMF - Iffy
|
|
...soft lefty. A political position I really do not understand... That is just one of the many things in this thread I do not understand. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 12:53
GB and the IMF - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> solid bars >> of gold are useless. GB was right to sell them, his timing was just rather >> unfortunate. They had no material value in the context of the nation. >> >> >> That would be true if he had pulled our wealth out of a useless asset and re-invested in something more productive and lasting. Name five national assets purchased by GB with the proceeds of the gold sale: 1) ... 2) ... 3)... 4)... 5) ... er |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:06
GB and the IMF - Alanovich
|
|
It's pretty pointless to say that gold is intrinsically worthless. So is paper money. Gold is just a global currency really. Like penguins gathering pebbles to exchange for lady penguins' favours. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:11
GB and the IMF - Focusless
|
|
>> It's pretty pointless to say that gold is intrinsically worthless. So is paper money. And the Mona Lisa? Not arguing - just curious. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:16
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
| The Mona Lisa has no value, its not for sale. No-one can "buy" it, keep it as an asset and then re-sell it. It worthless. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:29
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
|
"No-one can "buy" it, keep it as an asset and then re-sell it. It worthless" Just because an item is not for sale it doesn't mean its worthless. Obviously until an item is on the market its worth is unknown but its not worthless. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:44
GB and the IMF - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The Mona Lisa has no value, its not for sale. No-one can "buy" it, keep it as an asset and then re-sell it. It worthless. I have devoted several billion dollars from my personal fortune to a plan to acquire this precious art work for myself. I won't go into detail for obvious reasons. Suffice it to say that a small nuclear conflict will break out somewhere in the world in about six months' time. Under cover of the blind panic that will grip the western world and its leaders, my agents will make a complicated series of moves ending in the disappearance from the closed, shuttered Louvre of the object of my desires and its removal to the viewing room I have already prepared for it in one of my underground compounds. From that moment on it will remain unsullied by the eyes of the great unwashed and will be MINE! ALL MINE! Heh heh heh heh heh... (Adjusts dark glasses. Caresses muzzled and defanged angora snow leopard. Sips virgins' blood through alabaster straw from gold, jewel-encrusted goblet). |
|
Fri 20 May 11 13:59
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| You forget Mr AC that we have been monitoring you and your henchmen ever since you joined this forum. Your dastardly plans for world domination will come to no good and your future may well involve a tank full of piranha fish |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:28
GB and the IMF - Focusless
|
|
Thinking about the Mona Lisa and gold again while walking the dog, I don't think I was comparing like with like. That is, the Mona Lisa is a work of art, and perhaps might be considered equivalent to exquisite gold jewellery. It's the relatively worthless canvas and paint that Da Vinci threw together which are the equivalent of the gold itself.
Last edited by: Focus on Fri 20 May 11 at 16:29
|
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:24
GB and the IMF - John H
|
|
>> The Mona Lisa has no value, its not for sale. No-one can "buy" it, keep >> it as an asset and then re-sell it. It worthless. >> Priceless. For everything else there is Mastercard, or Gordon Brown. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:04
GB and the IMF - Mapmaker
|
|
>> It's pretty pointless to say that gold is intrinsically worthless. So is paper money. I agree. Who said that gold is worthless though? Only you. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:05
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
| If Gold reserves are worthless, how did he sell it? |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:52
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
Depends what you mean by worthless. The issue of it having little intrinsic value. It can't really be used for much, unless you include the fact that it can be turned into jewellery. That's different to oil, which can be bought by somebody and used to generate revenue (by turning it into electricity, using it to ship goods etc). So, the price of oil can spike up, because there is expected to be an increase in shipping, for example. So somebody in the future will likely pay a higher price for oil, because they can use it to generate revenue. The same can't be said for gold, it is primarily speculation. You'll buy it at $1,500 because you are guessing that somebody later might pay $2,000 for it (while expecting to be able to sell it for $3,000). It's intrinsic value isn't increasing, people are just buying it in the hope that somebody will pay more for it. Aside from speculation, there is the issue of using it as a currency hedge, but that doesn't give it intrinsic value, it is the same as the speculation, people hoping that the price of gold won't fall as much as some other currency. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 20 May 11 at 16:53
|
|
Fri 20 May 11 21:43
GB and the IMF - corax
|
|
>> Depends what you mean by worthless. >> >> The issue of it having little intrinsic value. It can't really be used for much, >> unless you include the fact that it can be turned into jewellery. >> >> That's different to oil, which can be bought by somebody and used to generate revenue >> (by turning it into electricity, using it to ship goods etc). In the short term you may be right - in the long term I wonder what will still be around, gold or oil. Gold can't be destroyed, there is only a finite amount of it, it's been traded in history for thousands of years. Oil will become finite, increasing it's value, then it will disappear. As you say, gold can't be used for much, so maybe it's a strange thing to hold as a currency hedge, apart from it's rarity. But humans are strange beings. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 16:44
GB and the IMF - SteelSpark
|
|
>> That would be true if he had pulled our wealth out of a useless asset >> and re-invested in something more productive and lasting. >> >> Name five national assets purchased by GB with the proceeds of the gold sale: >> >> 1) ... >> 2) ... >> 3)... >> 4)... >> 5) ... er It was converted into various foreign currencies, to diversify the currency risk of holding gold. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 18:17
GB and the IMF - Mike Hannon
|
|
I've been away for a couple of days on a car-hunting wild goose chase (France is a big place) and only just caught up with this thread. I'd add my tuppence to the idea that GB isn't such a bad bet for the job but all the argy bargy has already gone on above. But when I read just now that Christine Lagarde is being considered for the job I just couldn't believe my eyes. How anybody French could even be mentioned defeats me. And that's nothing to do with DSK, whom I thought was pretty good at the job and might even have made a good president of France in many ways. I (personally) believe France has been doing a 'Greece' for years but hasn't yet been found out and the thought of any French politician heading the IMF again fills me with amazement. |
|
Fri 20 May 11 18:57
GB and the IMF - madf
|
|
Mike, Don't be unfair to the French. After all, they've basically lost - well on their own they have - every major war since 1815. National pride etc... |
|
Fri 20 May 11 22:01
GB and the IMF - Roger.
|
| Les Grenoiulles:cheese-eating surrender monkeys and awfully FOREIGN to boot! |
|
Sat 21 May 11 00:31
GB and the IMF - Hard Cheese
|
|
>> Les Grenoiulles:cheese-eating surrender monkeys and awfully FOREIGN to boot! >> That sounds just a little eurosceptic ... |
|
Fri 20 May 11 20:38
GB and the IMF - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> It was converted into various foreign currencies, to diversify the currency risk of holding gold. >> Still not real and tangible though, just bits of paper with no intrinsic value. He could have bought a few oilfields, or farmland in Madagascar like the Chinese, or a high speed rail link. |
|
Sat 21 May 11 14:38
GB and the IMF - The Melting Snowman
|
|
The gold thing – always easy to be wise with hindsight. UK debt – one of the reasons ‘we are where we are’ (ghastly phrase) is due to the deindustrialisation of the UK and expansion to the point of over-reliance on the financial sector. When World credit dried up, we were stuffed. What’s the UK’s manufacturing base now? About 11% of GDP I think I read somewhere. The fact is all Govts. are guilty of contributing to this mess. The irksome Tories never saw the value in manufacturing or engineering and they put in place the tools for the de-regulation of the financial sector back in the late 1980s. And of course it was the Tories who introduced the dreadful PFI schemes, which people will be paying off for years. You can only do so much by cutting expenditure. Ultimately you've got to get growth going but I don't have any confidence in the current mob. We need industrialists in charge, not ex-lawyers and media gurus. |
|
Sat 21 May 11 22:41
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
The Melting Snowman said: >> The gold thing – always easy to be wise with hindsight. >> >> UK debt – one of the reasons ‘we are where we are’ (ghastly phrase) is >> due to the deindustrialisation of the UK and expansion to the point of over-reliance on >> the financial sector. When World credit dried up, we were stuffed. What’s the UK’s manufacturing >> base now? About 11% of GDP I think I read somewhere. >> >> The fact is all Govts. are guilty of contributing to this mess. The irksome Tories >> never saw the value in manufacturing or engineering and they put in place the tools >> for the de-regulation of the financial sector back in the late 1980s. And of course >> it was the Tories who introduced the dreadful PFI schemes, which people will be paying >> off for years. >> >> You can only do so much by cutting expenditure. Ultimately you've got to get growth >> going but I don't have any confidence in the current mob. We need industrialists in >> charge, not ex-lawyers and media gurus. I have to disagree. The reason why we have a huge deficit is due to too much government spending. The last government spent like there was no tomorrow, possibly because they wanted to leave the next government in deep doo doo. Of course there was a cost from banking, no doubt, and a big one. But the deficit is due to over spending. The Tories did see the value of manufacturing, but what can you do when overseas labour is so much cheaper? I don't think they were to blame for the collapse of UK manufacturing. One problem was over militant unions and bad management. The answer is to go for goods involving design, and technology where we had a lead over Thailand, Vietnam etc. Today with robot manufacturing, and higher wages in China and India, UK manufacturing is more competitive. A stable economy and interest rate does help companies thrive. I do agree that we need industrialists not media people in charge. Unfortunately the legacy of Nu Labor and Alastair Campbell is that governments focus on manipulation of the media. And as for gold I think it was obvious the price was low. It reminds me of ISAs. When the market is near the peak, sales are huge. They are easy to sell. When market has collapsed, sales are low, and newspaper columnists say do not buy. But when is the best time to buy? (Yes I have made quite a bit of money following this basic advice and ignoring the newspapers.) |
|
Sun 22 May 11 11:55
GB and the IMF - swiss tony
|
|
>> I have to disagree. The reason why we have a huge deficit is due to >> too much government spending. The last government spent like there was no tomorrow, possibly because they wanted to leave the next government in deep doo doo. Of course there was a cost from banking, no doubt, and a big one. But the deficit is due to over spending. >> The Tories did see the value of manufacturing, but what can you do when overseas >> labour is so much cheaper? I don't think they were to blame for the collapse >> of UK manufacturing. One problem was over militant unions and bad management. The answer is to go for goods involving design, and technology where we had a lead over Thailand, Vietnam etc. Today with robot manufacturing, and higher wages in China and India, UK manufacturing is more competitive. A stable economy and interest rate does help companies thrive. Oh come on! Yes labour did it seems, overspend. But, just look around you, the country today is falling apart, roads have massive potholes, the place is getting dirtier due to lack of roadsweeping etc.... The banking fiasco cost the UK big. VERY big. Thatcher did not see the value of manufacturing - she ran it down - she also sold the family silver. Hardly any utility is owned by a UK company. Think water, think gas, think electricity..... where does the profit from this companies, (and others) go? To the country in which they are based, that's where. ANY Government will have a problem trying to balance the books, where there is a lack of money/profit staying in the country... |
|
Sun 22 May 11 12:35
GB and the IMF - Fursty Ferret
|
|
And the absolutely unsustainable public pension situation has nothing to do with the country literally falling apart, of course? This is what is going to stuff the UK over in the next 50 years, not the banking crisis. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 12:57
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And the absolutely unsustainable public pension situation has nothing to do with the country literally >> falling apart, of course? >> >> This is what is going to stuff the UK over in the next 50 years, >> not the banking crisis. Hutton put the cost, as a proportion of GDP, as broadly stable. Peaking around 2015-2020 as the last of the baby boomers retire and then falling back to an historic average. The scandal is not public sector pensions but sucessive governments that allowed the private secto to be robbed of theirs. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 13:37
GB and the IMF - Manatee
|
|
AF is right. Public sector pension reform is essential. There is at least £2 trillion of unfunded liabilities on benefits already accrued - it is highly debatable whether that is affordable at all, and the accruals need to be capped now. It matters not how deserving the police/NHS staff/ teachers/diversity officers are. I imagine that the public sector pensions will be severely curtailed by degrees. There might have been a chance of managing it by stopping pension enhancements, increasing retirement ages, and capping increases, but now that final salary schemes are all but extinct in the private sector there is absolutely no prospect of civil servants continuing to be feather bedded indefinitely, especially now it is apparent that they have managed to have the cake and keep the ha'penny in terms of pay levels and increases. If I were counting on an inflation proof final salary pension at 60 (or even less) then I would assume that accruals will be stopped pretty soon, with the bigger worry being retrospective changes that will take away benefits already "earned". The change to CPI is the thin end of the wedge. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 19:18
GB and the IMF - Dutchie
|
|
The American banks where lending money to people who could not afford to pay back there debts.And we ended up with a global banking collapse. That was not the fault of Gordon Brown.The problem we had that interest should have been higher to stop people borrowing and we ended up with a credit fuelled boom.The reasons that a country like Germany is doing ok is that they have a investment boom.They wern't borrowing money on debt.We were borrowing money we could not afford to pay back.A subprime boom based on high debt levels.Paying back high interest on our loans. The Liberals would have gone with Labour in a coalition and not the Tories they fell for the trap hook line and sinker.They are sinking .Anything what the Liberals want they don't get the Tory's rule. We have a small economic growth and this coalition is stuck. Banks wont lend and the governement cuts are to fast causing hardship to the weak in our society. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 19:27
GB and the IMF - R.P.
|
|
Dutchie, GB's biggest mistake (catastrophic even) was de-regulation of the banks in 2006. That's when the money men rolled in and squeezed us until our pips squeaked. www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jun/22/politics.economicpolicy Stupid naive policies. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 22:07
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
Pugugly said: >> Dutchie, >> >> GB's biggest mistake (catastrophic even) was de-regulation of the banks in 2006. That's when the >> money men rolled in and squeezed us until our pips squeaked. >> >> www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jun/22/politics.economicpolicy >> >> Stupid naive policies. I think the problem started earlier when he moved responsibility for overseeing banks from the BOE to the Financial Services Authority. They failed to spot the fact that collatoral debt obligations contained large amounts of unsecured debt from people who were liable to default i.e. people in America with low and/or uncertain incomes who purchased houses they could not afford. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 20:05
GB and the IMF - madf
|
|
" That was not the fault of Gordon Brown.The problem we had that interest should have been higher to stop people borrowing and we ended up with a credit fuelled boom" This being the same Gordon Brown who repeatedly promised "no return to boom and bust"..? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ7nRG-IATA It's funny how people forget politicians' promises - even those made on a regular basis... when they are shwon to be empty and no meaning... As for Interest rates...who set the rules for the BOE to set interest rates? Gordon Brown... |
|
Sun 22 May 11 20:21
GB and the IMF - R.P.
|
|
"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown." How he laughed. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 20:44
GB and the IMF - Dutchie
|
|
Good points. The nature of politicians is that they make promises they can't keep thats how they get power that has always been the case. I agree about the banks they should have been regulated. Remember the dot.com boom in America when Greenspan should have put up interest rate and he did't and the collapse followed on shares and stocks and nothing to substanciate it. Hindsight is a good thing the only reason this coalition came to power was ,due to the unpopelarity of Gordon Brown not economic policies.Well the banks are regulated now lets hope that we still have a decent health service left after the cuts are inplemented my biggest concern. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 22:19
GB and the IMF - spamcan61
|
|
>> >> I agree about the banks they should have been regulated. >> Even better, they shouldn't have been deregulated by nulab in the first place. >> >> Hindsight is a good thing the only reason this coalition came to power was ,due >> to the unpopelarity of Gordon Brown not economic policies >> The consequences of deregulating the banks were 100% predictable in advance, it was just a matter of time, as pointed about by many people at the time. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 10:29
GB and the IMF - Mapmaker
|
|
Brompton>> The scandal is not public sector pensions but sucessive governments that >>allowed the private sector to be robbed of theirs. You mean, successive Governments since 1997. i.e. Gordon Brown who ROBBED pension funds of their tax credits, thus making final salary pensions too expensive for employers. I just don't get how you blame anybody but Brown? Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 23 May 11 at 10:31
|
|
Mon 23 May 11 11:05
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
Brown was part of the problem but to suggest he was the sole cause is to mislead. There was recently published account, possibly in the Standard by either Anthony Hilton or Chris Blackhurst setting out the sorry array failure to grasp nettles and of action and inaction going back to Lawson. I cannot find it now and as I'm only ob a cofee break I've not got time to golooking. If I remember & have time I'll do some seraching tonight. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 11:15
GB and the IMF - R.P.
|
| You're probably right B. but he did promote himself as a "prudent" Chancellor and his 12 years on inaction on the matter should strike him out as the head of the IMF. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 12:21
GB and the IMF - Mapmaker
|
|
Brompton>> Brown was part of the problem but to suggest he was the sole cause is >> to mislead. Well, I think reducing pension funds' income by 20% per annum is a rather large nail in their coffin. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 22:10
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
Bromptonaut said: >> Brown was part of the problem but to suggest he was the sole cause is >> to mislead. I loathe Brown and Nu Labour, and I would love to kick the old curmudgeon, but I believe you are right. The changes Brown made to tax on pensions reduced occupational pensions by ~5%, if I recall correctly from a R4 programme. I think he introduced tax on dividends. Not insignificant, but not all that significant either. The problem I think was a reduction in returns from the stock market, people living longer, the unwillingness of companies to fully fund pensions, and importantly, requirements that there had to be sufficient funds to cover liabilities. It is I think that last point, which was a change in law, that caused occupational pensions to move from final salary to defined contribution pensions i.e. you only get out according to what you put in. Of course large numbers of public sector workers still get final salary pensions, as did my late mother, who worked for 30+ years as a nurse on a modest wage, and she received a good pension. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 22:34
GB and the IMF - Manatee
|
|
>> The changes Brown made to tax on pensions reduced >> occupational pensions by ~5%, if I recall correctly from a R4 programme. I'd love to see the original source of that information. I just don't believe it. Assuming annual investment growth of 6% pre tax, of which 4%pts is income, I make it about 14% reduction in the fund after an average 20 years. It's a bit of a fag packet calculation on my part and I'm not sure the growth/income split is right but, given the long term effect of compound interest, I'm surprised it's not higher. I can probably get the answer, or at least an educated view - as a trustee of a pension fund I see the actuary and investment advisers from time to time, and I'm sure it's a number they'll have thought about before I ask. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 21:46
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
swiss tony said: >> Oh come on! >> >> Yes labour did it seems, overspend. >> But, just look around you, the country today is falling apart, roads have massive potholes, >> the place is getting dirtier due to lack of roadsweeping etc.... >> The banking fiasco cost the UK big. VERY big. >> >> Thatcher did not see the value of manufacturing - she ran it down - she >> also sold the family silver. >> Hardly any utility is owned by a UK company. >> Think water, think gas, think electricity..... >> where does the profit from this companies, (and others) go? >> To the country in which they are based, that's where. >> >> ANY Government will have a problem trying to balance the books, where there is a >> lack of money/profit staying in the country... Road have had massive potholes due to unusually severe winters. Where I live they fix them quickly. Perhaps you should move to an area with a better council? You have made some claims, could you back them up with some evidence, or at least expand on what you said. How did Thatcher run down manufacturing? What family silver did she sell? A few points: The deficit is about £150 billion per year. Assume 1 million extra unemployed due to the credit crisis, assume a cost of £20K per person per year, making a total of £20 billion per year. Let's double that to overestimate, giving £40 billion per year. So the deficit dwarfs the cost of unemployment, assuming a probably too large cost per person. That is the true problem that faces the country i.e. MASSIVE economic mismanagement by Teflon Tony and his mates. It has always been like that with Labour, spend spend spend to buy votes, then when the house of cards collapses, create scape goats. The cause of the deficit is massive overspending on the public sector. And the fact that public sector pay is better than private sector pay, and public sector pensions are FAR better than private sector ones distorts the market. It makes it hard for the private sector to hire staff. And that stuffs our competitiveness in the world. I do not know the cost of the banking crisis, but we will get some of it back when we sell the state owned bank. But yes, it was shocking that we supported them, and they now pay themselves MASSIVE bonuses. It stinks. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 21:58
GB and the IMF - swiss tony
|
|
>> Road have had massive potholes due to unusually severe winters. Where I live they fix >> them quickly. Perhaps you should move to an area with a better council? >> >> You have made some claims, could you back them up with some evidence, or at >> least expand on what you said. How did Thatcher run down manufacturing? What family silver did she sell? >> The winter is not the complete reason for potholes, bad repairs or total lack of maintenance is... I did live in an area with a better council - but due to family issues I had to move back to a Tory run area..... You want evidence? I already stated some - selling off of the utility's to company's based in other countries, so the profit goes out the UK... for others... we used to have mines.... much of the manufacturing company's closed or were forced to leave the UK by Thatcher. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 22:15
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
swiss tony said: >> The winter is not the complete reason for potholes, bad repairs or total lack of >> maintenance is... >> I did live in an area with a better council - but due to family >> issues I had to move back to a Tory run area..... >> >> You want evidence? >> I already stated some - selling off of the utility's to company's based in other >> countries, so the profit goes out the UK... >> for others... we used to have mines.... much of the manufacturing company's closed or were >> forced to leave the UK by Thatcher. No you did not give evidence, you made statements. Utilities are not manufacturing, nor are mines. Can you explain how Thatcher destroyed manufacturing as you claimed? How did they force manufacturing companies to leave the UK and who were these companies? Mines were not mentioned in your earlier post and are unrelated to the questions I asked you. So I will leave that for the moment to avoid digressing before you expand on your earlier post. |
|
Sun 22 May 11 22:34
GB and the IMF - swiss tony
|
|
My goodness, you can be hard work (as are most Tory's....) By 1984 manufacturing output had dropped by 30% compared with 1978. I do not have a list of company's to hand, as I'm sure you guessed! You are though, mixing my points.. correct utilities are not manufacturing... I never said they are! Also, I didn't mention mines in my earlier post, that's because I expanded, instead of going over old ground. Anyway, I fear there is no point carrying on with this discussion, because Tory's can do no wrong, just as Labour can do no right. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 22:23
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
swiss tony said: >> My goodness, you can be hard work (as are most Tory's....) No, I don't blindly accept rhetoric without some form of justification. I'm sure that is not unreasonable. >> By 1984 manufacturing output had dropped by 30% compared with 1978. >> I do not have a list of company's to hand, as I'm sure you guessed! >> But you clearly said that Thatcher ran down manufacturing. Saying that manufacturing output went down under Thatcher is not the same thing. Terrorists flew planes into skyscrapers under Blair's regime. But that does not mean that Blair was responsible. So how did Thatcher run down manufacturing as you claim? The truth is that UK manufacturing was becoming less competitive due to competition from the Far East and elsewhere. That is why for example our knitwear industry went overseas. British Leyland was destroyed by bad management and bad unions. >> >> You are though, mixing my points.. correct utilities are not manufacturing... I never said they >> are! But I asked you to explain how Thatcher ran down manufacturing, as you made that statement. >> Also, I didn't mention mines in my earlier post, that's because I expanded, instead of >> going over old ground. No, you made statements without justification, and rather than provide justification you sidestepped and went onto another subject. I might suggest that you were being evasive, and for good reason. >> Anyway, I fear there is no point carrying on with this discussion, because Tory's can >> do no wrong, just as Labour can do no right. No, the sell off of the railways was a disaster, they had some horrible policies against minorities such as gays, they did not do enough to encourage female and ethnic minority politicians, I think they had some IT cock ups (as did Labour) and I'm not convinced their schools policies were any good. And Archer was a disgusting crook who destroyed the life of a decent man whose soul crime was to investigate his crooked dealings and lies. The minimum wage was a good idea (I think), Labour invented Gift Aid (a bonzer idea), they did good in Northern Ireland (albeit an initiative started by the Northern Irish and nurtured by John Major). I'm sure there were other good Labour things. Sadly Nu Labour was dominated by media management, and I fear that Cameron is like Blair a glorified used car salesman. We'll see. I liked Nu Labour at the start, and it took me far too long to see through the lies and spin. I suspect many a Labour MP can say the same. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 08:38
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
>>Can you explain how Thatcher destroyed manufacturing as you claimed? How did they force >> manufacturing companies to leave the UK and who were these companies? Fiscal policy that drove up interest rates and exchange rates. A free market policy for imports long before other countries reciprocated. A failure of governmemnt to support industry in the way the French & Germans supported theirs. Some manufacturing, particulalry textiles, was probably doomed but engineering and large scale manufacture of consumer goods (electricals etc) were not. I spent the early eighties working in London but returninig home to the West Riding on a regular basis. The railside landscape from Grantham to Leeds accumulated closed factories by the month. Local news that business x, y or z had given up. Meanwhile London boomed on financial services and the governmnets mantra was that banking, insurance etc etc were the new future. Probably a deliberate policy, certainly one that was forseen, observed and the consequences disregarded. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 May 11 at 08:39
|
|
Mon 23 May 11 08:56
GB and the IMF - madf
|
|
" A failure of governmemnt to support industry" Hmm.. British Leyland anyone? And who stopped support for BL and saw it close? Those nasty Tories under Tony Blair.. I find it rich people still blaming a government of 30 years ago for the failures of the past 13 years.. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 09:03
GB and the IMF - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Madf, the Govt had little to do with the failure of BL. They sold poorly designed, shoddily manufactured cars that were unreliable, poor performing rust buckets. They had an adversarial relationship with their staff, thought short term, invested very little in design or process, and thought that the public would buy any old excrement that they pushed their way. They had the reputation that came with that approach. I remember my family's first Japanese car, then the German cars that followed. The same wasn't true of them, and customers voted with their feet. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 09:06
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I find it rich people still blaming a government of 30 years ago for the >> failures of the past 13 years.. But some of the landscape Thatcher inherited, industry that was underinvested & complacent, was a consequence of the post war boom that was at it's peak thirty years before her election. A quarter century and a bit is a relatiely short time in terms of economic change. Our economic dependence on financial services is a consequnce of events in the eighties. Part of the rationale for de-regualtion was that if it didn't happen or worse if regualtion was tightened banking would move to more 'competitive' cities in Europe or the far east. |
|
Mon 23 May 11 09:00
GB and the IMF - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Bromp, you make some good points, but protectionism isn't, and never has been, the answer. The only way to successfully make and sell consumer goods, or any other product, is to produce a high quality product at a competitive price and to invest for the long term. The French video recorder market is a lovely case in point that I was taught by a brilliant Economist at school. The French decided to protect their domestic video recorder manufacturer (I forget the co. name, was it Ferguson? Drawing a blank) from new competition from the Far East. So, they laid down import restrictions on the competition. The manufacturers called foul, and the French capitulated. "Okay", they said, "you can import your recorders, but we want to make sure that they are of sufficient quality for our citizens, so we're going to inspect them". So the French set up an inspection office. A couple of guys in a warehouse, based in the middle of the French Alps if I recall correctly. They would receive a recorder, unpack it, test the components, reassemble it, and then pass it. Between them they could inspect some tiny number of recorders per week, the rest sat on pallets waiting their turn to be inspected. The Far East manufacturers protested again. Every unit was passing, this was just an excuse to stop units reaching the market. This was manifestly true. So, after talking to the French manufacturers, the French Govt had an idea. "Okay, you can sell your video recorders freely in France. But. You can't undercut the French devices on price. You must adhere to the minimum prices that we set". The Japanese manufacturers were delighted to stick to this one. Their players, already of a better design and quality than the European units, were now being sold at a profit margin that they wouldn't have dreamt of charging previously. And of course, unlike most nations manufacturers, they didn't waste the profit. They ploughed the money back into R&D and into manufacturing improvements, meaning the next generation of systems outperformed the EU equivalent by a country mile. Price or not, the consumer even when patriotic is not stupid. Until the death of VHS there was no real competition to the Far Eastern manufacturers. Contrary to much popular opinion, cost of manufacture is often only a small part of that. Time and again, people have demonstrated that they will pay for quality. Dyson is a good UK example, selling millions of vacuum cleaners that cost far more than the competition at the time they were launched. BMW, Merc et al. are examples in cars. Sold as quality products, properly engineered, not bodged. I guess that is my point. In any sort of free market, you can't shortcut doing it properly, and you have to invest for the long term. The entire UK mindset, by and large, is to do it shoddily and think only short term. That way lies failure, and protectionism won't help one jot. Sorry for the long post. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 16:17
GB and the IMF - Alanovich
|
|
>> The French decided to protect their domestic video recorder manufacturer (I forget the co. name, >> was it Ferguson? Drawing a blank) Thomson? |
|
Tue 24 May 11 18:06
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| Thomson SA the French consumer electronics company is now re-named Technicolor, and still employs 17,000 people. Not perhaps a total failure then. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 18:23
GB and the IMF - Statistical Outlier
|
|
CGN, no, perhaps not, but do you own any of their equipment? Do you know anyone that does? Especially for anything consumer, protectionism is always a bad idea in anything but the short term. Consumers will vote with their wallets. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 19:18
GB and the IMF - CGNorwich
|
| Actually I do , a Thomson modem which was more or less the standard modem supplied by ISPs. Retired it last year in favour of a wireless router. They must have made them by the million. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 19:21
GB and the IMF - Statistical Outlier
|
| Well that's me told then! :-) |
|
Tue 24 May 11 19:34
GB and the IMF - Manatee
|
| I remember the French VCR business. They set up a customs post in Poitiers, not exactly a convenient point of entry, through which all the imported ones had to pass. It stuck in my mind because we holidayed in the area around that time. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 20:54
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
|
>> I remember the French VCR business. They set up a customs post in Poitiers, not >> exactly a convenient point of entry, through which all the imported ones had to pass. >> It stuck in my mind because we holidayed in the area around that time. They cant do that now under EU rules, and Yes I had a French Thompson TV. It was crap. Complete and utter garbage. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 20:59
GB and the IMF - Zero
|
|
>> Thomson SA the French consumer electronics company is now re-named Technicolor, and still employs 17,000 >> people. Not perhaps a total failure then. Yes it was. Thomson, the electronics company was a total failure, so they sold it all to the Chinese, who now make them under different names. Technicolor, was a bought in company. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 21:31
GB and the IMF - Bromptonaut
|
|
Have a Thomson digibox bought for the original pay channels iteration on Top up TV. OK but prone to locking up on a regular basis. At work we have a large screen Thomson CRT TV paired with a Polycom video conference camera. It works OK for that job, even after 10yrs. In a domestic environment it's utter failure to remember date, time, language and channel allocations when unplugged for a day or two would have seen it off to the tip. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 22:33
GB and the IMF - Leif
|
|
>> >>Can you explain how Thatcher destroyed manufacturing as you claimed? How did they force >> >> manufacturing companies to leave the UK and who were these companies? >> >> Fiscal policy that drove up interest rates and exchange rates. A free market policy for >> imports long before other countries reciprocated. A failure of governmemnt to support industry in the >> way the French & Germans supported theirs. Some manufacturing, particulalry textiles, was probably doomed but >> engineering and large scale manufacture of consumer goods (electricals etc) were not. If you can think back a long time, the 70's was a disaster and Britain nearly went bankrupt under Labour, although the Tories were not much better. The country suffered from the oil price shock when OPEC increased oil prices to punish the West for supporting Israel. And UK unions were engaging in strikes left right and centre, though mainly left - ;) - often as secondary picketing, and often for political reasons, egged on by leaders who had their own political agendas, and without a secret ballot of the members. Intimidation of 'scabs' was rife. Do you remember Wapping? The print unions were totally corrupt, with members sometimes collecting multiple pay checks, all but one in fictitious names. And if you don't believe me, read accounts of the era by journalists! The one thing Thatcher did was to reign in the unions, and even Nu Labour did not reverse those laws. Simple laws such as no secondary picketing, and the requirement for a secret ballot and a majority support before a strike can be called. Not so unreasonable. I would argue that the changes Thatcher put in place were often essential. Some failed, such as privatisation of the railways, a stupid idea for sure. I remember the 3 day week, going to school with no lights, and no hot meals. |
|
Tue 24 May 11 21:53
GB and the IMF - Kevin
|
|
If we ignore the question of whether Gollum was responsible for the nation's current financial situation, does anyone really believe that he would be suitable from a "character" standpoint? It has been well reported that he: - Didn't have the bottle to go against TB for the leadership or call an Election he would almost certainly have won. - Made every effort to derail TB's policies once they were in power. - Refused to even discuss budget details with his cabinet colleagues beforehand. - Employed a bunch of SpAds to smear and spread rumours against anyone he perceived to be a threat. - Has been abusive and physically threatening to subordinates. Mandelson (retch) says that TB thought that Gollum was: “Mad, bad, dangerous and beyond hope of redemption… flawed, lacking perspective and having a paranoia about him… He’s like something out of the mafiosi… He’s aggressive, brutal…there’s no one to match Gordon for someone who articulates high principles while practising the lowest skulduggery.” |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
