Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Economic crash Part 2

2
 
On 17 Nov 2014 at 10:33am Clifford wrote:
Cameron tells us that Part 2 of the 2008 world crash is just round the corner. As the Tories and their Lib Dem poodles tell us Labour was entirely responsible for the last one presumably the Coalition won't mind taking the entire blame for this one.

Check it out here »
4
1
On 17 Nov 2014 at 12:41pm Humbert wrote:
If Labour had regulated the city like they promised they would ahead of being elected in 1997 then it wouldn't have happened so Labour are still to blame. The Coalition have massively increased our debt and left us all much poorer though so they've made sure they can take responsibility too. I'm not voting for any of them because there's none of them that have earned it.
4
6
On 17 Nov 2014 at 12:59pm Lying Hound wrote:
No-one blames Labour for the financial crash Cliff- although as TB and GB took plenty big credit for the credit binge that preceded it I`m not sure it would be unfair to do so. They were, after all, responsible for the UK regulatory regime that failed completely in the City which was a major part of the implosion.
The chief blame, however, is for misjudging a prudent level of borrowing during this period which is why we have a £100 billion deficit today and rising.
Of course you may claim that the Conservatives would have spent as freely and similarly stuffed Public Sector mouths with gold but I really doubt it.
I have long been of the opinion we were looking at a decade of stagnation but on the bright side it means interest rates are likely to stay submarine for ages removing wealth from the old and giving it to struggling families ..All good
8
3
On 17 Nov 2014 at 1:14pm border Control wrote:
just a decade Lying Hound ? Low interest rates means no one is incentivised to save, we already had a "must have it now" economy and now we will have generations of pensionless pensioners, without even a property to their name. Which will only lead to more borrowing and personal debt.
2
5
On 17 Nov 2014 at 2:05pm Old Bloke wrote:
@Lying Hound - "removing wealth from the old?"
You sound a nice piece of work - are you Gordon Brown or Russell Brand?
3
 
On 17 Nov 2014 at 3:09pm Clifford wrote:
Lying Hound: you're right about the Labour govt being at fault for insufficient regulation of the financial sector - though you'll remember that the Tories were saying it was overregulated at the time. But I think you're missing my point. The crisis of capitalism is, like the system, international: national governments have only a minor impact on controlling it. Tories, Lib Dems, Labour (and Ukip if they get the chance) work for their masters 'the markets', not for us.
 
 
On 17 Nov 2014 at 6:29pm Lying Hound wrote:
Pah Clifford its simple matter of either raising insurmountable protectionist barriers across the globe or instituting a world government to plan the global economy.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about ... either recipe is a sure fire winner.
2
 
On 17 Nov 2014 at 9:05pm Here we go again. wrote:
the last economic crash and its successor this one are due to very simple reasons.Real wages have been stagnant or falling for the last 20 years for the majority of the population and a very small percentage have seen their wealth and assets increase by a phenomenal amount.Middle income and poor people over borrowed in a vain attempt to maintain their standard of living. Banks and successive govts of both stripes endorsed this credit lead "growth" as it disguised and postponed the inevitable crash.They just kicked the can further down the road and are still doing it now.The fact is that without serious redistribution of wealth through taxation and the redistributive pressures that organised labour provides the system has become sclerotic and will grind to a halt. This is what is happening now. It`s that simple.
2
1
On 17 Nov 2014 at 9:30pm Red Robbo wrote:
And they said I were sclerotic , tha` knows.
 
2
On 17 Nov 2014 at 9:32pm Historian wrote:
So @herewegoagain What you're saying is don't bother aspiring to anything, having anything, working to get anything as it will be taken from you ? Hope you don't have any kids !! And don't bother buying any lottery tickets it will only be "redistributed" !!
3
1
On 18 Nov 2014 at 2:45am Zzz.. wrote:
It was Margaret Thatchers Tory government that liberalised the financial markets and allowed the banks to speculate with our money (and no government has had the spine to tackle the socially damaging housing market).

We are due a second crash almost purely because the government has changed nothing since the last one. The blame will lie fairly and squarely fairly with the Condems. They had their chance but all they concentrated on was reducing the size of the state.
2
2
On 18 Nov 2014 at 7:03am Lying Hound wrote:
'The fact is that without serious redistribution of wealth through taxation and the redistributive pressures that organised labour provides the system has become sclerotic and will grind to a halt. This is what is happening now. It`s that simple.'
Ah yes , that would be the golden Eden that was the 1970s in which equality was indeed somewhat better than today.
Since this time the real level of earnings for the bottom 1% has increased by 143% and for the top 1% by about 180 % ( ONS). I do not recall organised Labour creating a vibrant economy personally. I do recall 25% inflation, endless strikes, the lights going off, the three day week, unburied bodies, Slade and T Rex. None of the union reforms were ever rescinded in years of union funded Labour power.Today unions only exist in the Public Sector where the consequences are paid for by others .
Zzzzzz Is it seriously your contention that as a country we are "under borrowed "? I don`t wish to seem dismissive but that is a 'novel' idea certainly not shared by even the leftish Labour Party of little Ed. Is that the view of the Green Party ? I know it has its local supporters
1
1
On 18 Nov 2014 at 10:06am M wrote:
I've always thought that what happened in the 1970s was simply a product of the times. There are many socialist countries in this world that don't have corpses unburied or rubbish uncollected. In fact, I'm sure that in most instances those countries would have far more efficient public services than we do.
We had 30 years as a left-leaning country with very stable economic growth but we hit a crisis in the days of OPEC and at that point the intransigence of the unions of the day caused a crisis. It was a phenomenon, a bit of history and it's not a reason why we still need to be panicking about it 40 years on eg: "Gosh... we need to have zero hour contracts and bedroom tax and mass homelessness or the economy will go to pot."
Also, zzz wasn't suggesting that we're "underborrowed" - not at all. He was just saying that there's a crisis on the balance sheet. The idea that that means that we desperately need to cut public spending is just another manifestation of the Tory lie, the truth twisting - "Oops, we need to balance the books - let's clobber the poor again to fund another cut in corporate taxation". There's more than one way to skin a cat.
3
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 10:27am Clifford wrote:
M wrote: '... we hit a crisis in the days of OPEC and at that point the intransigence of the unions of the day caused a crisis.'

How deceptive your memory is. What actually happened was that after a period of wage freezes workers in trade unions rejected a further attempt to impose a pay rise lower than inflation. Whenever there is a crisis, oddly enough the people who didn't cause it are the ones forced to carry the burden - which is what is happening now.
2
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 12:38pm Merlin Milner wrote:
To me the city deregulation and the getting rid of the gold standard are two things that have lessened the government's ability to do much about the city. The global financial market is now what is the really ruling the world not any individual government. Therefore any government we get will be fiddling about at the edges. Humbert I sympathise with you not wanting vote for any of 'them' however not voting at all will ensure the status quo you dislike more likely to continue if you and the majority do not vote. Interesting that UKIP, that says that it is not part of the establishment, is lead by an ex-banker public school boy.
2
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 12:41pm Lying Hound wrote:
'----I've always thought that what happened in the 1970s was simply a product of the times. There are many socialist countries in this world that don't have corpses unburied or rubbish uncollected. In fact, I'm sure that in most instances those countries would have far more efficient public services than we do.---'
Everything is a product of its time. Take the Dockers, for example, an erstwhile behemoth of a Union. In this period containers began to replace old style dock work and Liverpool`s primary employment disappeared. 40% of all imports pass through Felixstowe in containers now. Similar although less stark tales can be told of the decline of the Primary Industries that dominated the North.As someone who has faced unemployment with a family to support I could weep at the devastation but that does not make it viable for the tax payer to subsidise well paid but unsustainable jobs endlessly . Change had to come and the Unions were a formidable obstacle.
The Non-unionised Service industry of the South East has faced a not dissimilar shake out since the advent of IT without anyone noticing, except the numerous individuals it has affected
This is not a pleasant fact but it is pretty obvious which way works best.
On lefty countries that work I think there is much to be learnt form, shall we say “Sweden” , ( perhaps East Germany less so …..)But it is not a simple tale, for example its tax system is less redistributive that ours .(This, incidentally was what Ed was on about with his pre-distribution )
'... it's not a reason why we still need to be panicking about it 40 years on eg: "Gosh... we need to have zero hour contracts and bedroom tax and mass homelessness or the economy will go to pot."

I think you make a fair point in general terms.
'Also, zzz wasn't suggesting that we're "underborrowed" - not at all. He was just saying that there's a crisis on the balance sheet. The idea that that means that we desperately need to cut public spending is just another manifestation of the Tory lie, the truth twisting - "Oops, we need to balance the books - let's clobber the poor again to fund another cut in corporate taxation". There's more than one way to skin a cat.'
Not really .There is the nonsense disseminated by Public Sector propagandists to protect their sectional interest and there is the need for cuts.
This can be handled well or badly but not painlessly. Deluding ourselves is the worst approach. When the inevitable day comes when reality has to be faced and it is so much worse due to this magic thinking , who do you suppose will suffer most ?
1
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 12:50pm Mark (aka M) wrote:
Clifford, do correct me if I'm wrong but I think we're both saying the same thing using different words. And you added a bit more detail about the public sector wage freezes that the government wanted to impose in order to pay for the cost of the fallout from oil crisis.
2
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 5:20pm Zzz.. wrote:
I wasn't saying we are 'underborrowed'. I was stating the Condems have been concentrating solely almost exclusively on downsizing the state when they should have found time for other things, namely regulating the financial sector, so we don't have another crash that sees yet another huge transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the already wealthy private financial sector, and then sows the seeds of the next (by printing money, aka quantitative easing).

BTW. The wierdest thing is the state does not run a bank.... after all most of us have no choice but to have our wages paid into one. Personally I want my wages paid into a bank run for me, not one run for some already-wealthy shareholders that in the end, only want my money.

And yes, I vote Green. The Greens tag line "For the Common Good" sums up for me what its all about. Almost the opposite of the philosophy practiced by the Tories and UKIP (and very unlike the inept and insipid modern day Labour Party which can't even manage to be a shadow of its former self).

And Mr Newman, it doesn't mean I agree with absolutely all the Greens policies.
 
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 7:38pm Told you so wrote:
Cameron is blaming everybody but himself and his stupid policies.

Check it out here »
2
 
On 18 Nov 2014 at 9:24pm feline wrote:
Zzz....if you don't want your wages paid into a bank get them paid into a mutual building society like Nationwide. They are v good.
 
 
On 19 Nov 2014 at 9:29am Merlin Milner wrote:
Interesting article.

Check it out here »
 
3
On 19 Nov 2014 at 10:21am Lying Hound wrote:
Zzzz the last person to suggest Nationalising banking was Oswald Moseley whose policy it was. Labour have floated the idea of a state bank alongside the system but if you think about it, other than being formally guaranteed by the tax payer( which is more debt ) it would serve no other useful function.
You cannot support Green Party policies without either
1 Supporting increased borrowing on a vast scale ( insanity )
2 Somehow increasing tax revenue ( god knows how, not from the rich thats for sure )
3 Living in cloud cuckoo land ( Hallo Green voters !)
Bring back the old politics I say, there is place for dumb raging populism but for me, when I look at its history it has generally been a very bad thing indeed.
Zzz I prefer to be anonymous.
4
 
On 19 Nov 2014 at 3:05pm Zzz.. wrote:
Quite a number of people have posited the idea of the state running a bank. Does the fact that Oswald Moseley was the last person you've heard recommend it automatically make it a bad idea in your book Paul?

The difference is that the bank would be run for the people who deposit their money with it, not for shareholders, so no conflict of interest there. And neither would the bank be able to speculate with its depositors money (as the banks are currently able to). The bank would be guaranteed by the state, and as such our money would be much safer (and not used for purposes you'd not want it to be).

The Greens would ensure that those who can afford to would pay their taxes, this includes wealthy individuals, rich land owners and tax-dodging corporations like Starbucks, Vodaphone, Google and Facebook. To improve the wealth of the country the Greens will also invest in education, science, research and technology. They will also increase the national minimum wage. Also Paul, The Greens do not measure wealth in terms of GDP. GDP is no more a measure of happiness and well being than it is of height and weight.

Yes, it also strikes me you'd be happier as a cap-doffing serf in the world you so enjoy looking back to. Try using your imagination to visualise a better world, and if you want to remain anonymous vary the tune.


14 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Lewes banners and crosses 58:132
Lewes banners and crosses

So you have taken the non mRNA "gene therapy" vaccine instead then TP? I hear your concerns, but you have an existing alternative... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams