On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

I actually suspect this was engineered *years* ago to coincide with
the peak period of baby boomers hitting retirement and being forced
to buy an annuity at the worst point in time for 300 years.

Once the peak had passed and all those (mostly level) annuities were
in place (a bit like the late 1960's), then set the printing presses
to overdrive and wipe them out with inflation. Meanwhile, public
servants with their guaranteed and inflation-proof pensions sit
disinterested (and probably clueless) on the sidelines moaning that
their 2nd annual overseas trip is getting expensive.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down.

That will be why the 'banking' crash started in the US, then?

Any other bits of history you'd like to re-write?

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/04/16 14:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
TNP used to have a
sig along the lines of "a socialist has his heart in the right place,
his head in the clouds and his hand in someone else's pocket". How
true that is.

Still got it but it shares its place with 30 other aphorisms randomly
selected.

(The glory of Cron)


* http://tinyurl.com/jqc2xdl http://tinyurl.com/j6a84vf and
http://tinyurl.com/h28p3mg



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It would be entirely wrong to blame GB for the
banking crash of 2008, but if GB had stuck with Prudence, we would
have been in a much better position to weather the storm than we were,
and we wouldn't have had all the cutbacks and fiscal restraints of the
Lib-Con coalition and then the present government.

Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?

Because the banking crash on top of GB's spendthrift policies put us
into a very deep hole that's taking a long time to climb out of.

Right. Or what you are saying is austerity hasn't worked?

It
doesn't excuse GB's profligacy.

But it was a good excuse for Cameron to hit the poorest the hardest.
Exactly what he was elected to do.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andrew wrote:
On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the
interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

I actually suspect this was engineered *years* ago to coincide with
the peak period of baby boomers hitting retirement and being forced
to buy an annuity at the worst point in time for 300 years.

Once the peak had passed and all those (mostly level) annuities were
in place (a bit like the late 1960's), then set the printing presses
to overdrive and wipe them out with inflation. Meanwhile, public
servants with their guaranteed and inflation-proof pensions sit
disinterested (and probably clueless) on the sidelines moaning that
their 2nd annual overseas trip is getting expensive.
Vince cable told me that GB was doing a wonderful job in
spending around that time. I told him the crash was coming. History is
very useful if you take the trouble to look back at it. I've seen lots
of recessions, generally short term. They always have the same causal
pattern of overspending. The cure is stop spending. The last one,
because of political unwillingness to grasp the stop spending nettle,
has caused it to drag on for 8 years and piled up massive debts for the
next generations..

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down.

That will be why the 'banking' crash started in the US, then?

Any other bits of history you'd like to re-write?


The UK banking crash was caused by profligate lending in
Britain and British banks being stupid enough to buy US banks with
borrowed money, thus ignoring history again. Lets get the facts right.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?


Because the banking crash on top of GB's spendthrift policies put us
into a very deep hole that's taking a long time to climb out of.

Right. Or what you are saying is austerity hasn't worked?


It
doesn't excuse GB's profligacy.

But it was a good excuse for Cameron to hit the poorest the hardest.
Exactly what he was elected to do.


The problem is that we haven't had any austerity. You don't
turn an economy around by continuing to spend.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down.

That will be why the 'banking' crash started in the US, then?

Any other bits of history you'd like to re-write?


The UK banking crash was caused by profligate lending in
Britain and British banks being stupid enough to buy US banks with
borrowed money, thus ignoring history again.

Right. all basically socialist behaviour, then? ;-)


Lets get the facts right.

That rampant capitalism goes wrong on occasion? We knew that from the
various stock market crashes and slumps. Read up about the depression.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

The problem is that we haven't had any austerity.

You may not have. Plenty others have.

You don't
turn an economy around by continuing to spend.

Depends what the spending is on. You don't turn round the economy by
giving tax cuts to the better off either.

--
*Procrastinate now

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:55:00 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the
interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

In the early years of the Blair administration, Gordon Brown was
reasonably responsible with his finances (remember Prudence?). But in
later years, his socialist ideology eventually surfaced and he started
borrowing and spending, as they do. I well remember comments by
economists in the early 2000's about the 'black hole' in GB's budgets
and the economy*. It would be entirely wrong to blame GB for the
banking crash of 2008,

But very reasonable to blame him for making the British banks
much more vulnerable and having to bail the worst of them out.

None of the Canadian nor Australian retail
banks imploded or had to be bailed out by govt.

but if GB had stuck with Prudence, we would have been in
a much better position to weather the storm than we were,

And if he hadn't deregulated the banks, they
wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by govt.

and we wouldn't have had all the cutbacks and fiscal restraints
of the Lib-Con coalition and then the present government.

True.

Ever since I've been politically aware, for about the last 50 years,
I've been impressed, (or should that be depressed), by Labour's
incompetence when it comes to financial matters. TNP used to
have a sig along the lines of "a socialist has his heart in the right
place, his head in the clouds and his hand in someone else's
pocket". How true that is.

It's more complicated than that. Socialism worked very well
for Norway with the govt doing the oil and gas and power
generation and that worked out a hell of a lot better for
them than the approach Britain took with those.

* http://tinyurl.com/jqc2xdl
http://tinyurl.com/j6a84vf and
http://tinyurl.com/h28p3mg

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?

Because the banking crash on top of GB's spendthrift policies put us
into a very deep hole that's taking a long time to climb out of.

Right.

Fraid so.

Or what you are saying is austerity hasn't worked?

Worked a hell of a lot better than continued
profligate spending would have.

It doesn't excuse GB's profligacy.

But it was a good excuse for Cameron to hit the poorest the hardest.

Another bare faced lie.

Exactly what he was elected to do.

Another bare faced lie.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andrew wrote:
On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the
interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

I actually suspect this was engineered *years* ago to coincide with
the peak period of baby boomers hitting retirement and being forced
to buy an annuity at the worst point in time for 300 years.

Once the peak had passed and all those (mostly level) annuities were
in place (a bit like the late 1960's), then set the printing presses
to overdrive and wipe them out with inflation. Meanwhile, public
servants with their guaranteed and inflation-proof pensions sit
disinterested (and probably clueless) on the sidelines moaning that
their 2nd annual overseas trip is getting expensive.
Vince cable told me that GB was doing a wonderful job in spending
around that time. I told him the crash was coming. History is very useful
if you take the trouble to look back at it. I've seen lots of recessions,
generally short term. They always have the same causal pattern of
overspending.

That wasn't true of the 2008 crash.

The cure is stop spending. The last one,
because of political unwillingness to grasp the stop spending nettle, has
caused it to drag on for 8 years and piled up massive debts for the next
generations..

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?


Because the banking crash on top of GB's spendthrift policies put us
into a very deep hole that's taking a long time to climb out of.

Right. Or what you are saying is austerity hasn't worked?


It
doesn't excuse GB's profligacy.

But it was a good excuse for Cameron to hit the poorest the hardest.
Exactly what he was elected to do.


The problem is that we haven't had any austerity. You don't turn
an economy around by continuing to spend.

That is in fact what turned the British economy around
when it had been decimated in the great depression.
Spending on WW2.

Same in the US and Germany, although both of those
had massively increased govt spending well before the
war had started. Britain was too stupid too do that then.

On Thursday, 21 April 2016 04:56:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:55:00 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the
interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

In the early years of the Blair administration, Gordon Brown was
reasonably responsible with his finances (remember Prudence?). But in
later years, his socialist ideology eventually surfaced and he started
borrowing and spending, as they do. I well remember comments by
economists in the early 2000's about the 'black hole' in GB's budgets
and the economy*. It would be entirely wrong to blame GB for the
banking crash of 2008,

But very reasonable to blame him for making the British banks
much more vulnerable and having to bail the worst of them out.

None of the Canadian nor Australian retail
banks imploded or had to be bailed out by govt.

but if GB had stuck with Prudence, we would have been in
a much better position to weather the storm than we were,

And if he hadn't deregulated the banks, they
wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by govt.

and we wouldn't have had all the cutbacks and fiscal restraints
of the Lib-Con coalition and then the present government.

True.

Ever since I've been politically aware, for about the last 50 years,
I've been impressed, (or should that be depressed), by Labour's
incompetence when it comes to financial matters. TNP used to
have a sig along the lines of "a socialist has his heart in the right
place, his head in the clouds and his hand in someone else's
pocket". How true that is.

It's more complicated than that. Socialism worked very well
for Norway with the govt doing the oil and gas and power
generation and that worked out a hell of a lot better for
them than the approach Britain took with those.

Norway is not a socialist country ****-fer-brains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg
Socialist always fails.

On 20/04/16 21:35, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down.
That will be why the 'banking' crash started in the US, then?

Any other bits of history you'd like to re-write?

The UK banking crash was caused by profligate lending in
Britain and British banks being stupid enough to buy US banks with
borrowed money, thus ignoring history again. Lets get the facts right.

No it wasnt.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 04:56:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:55:00 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/04/2016 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Do you really need examples of what big business will do in the
interests
of making money? Like the banking crash we're still paying for?

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down. Like every previous
Labour government, it was based on the mythical ponzi 'growth'
strategy to make it appear to be affordable (and if not, well what
the hell, we can always have a dose of 27% annual inflation for
a few years, like we had in 1975, to quietly 'dump' the debt).

Vince Cable challenged GBs spending plans in the commons in 2004 and
gob****e vomitted derision all over him - Vince was 100% right.

In the early years of the Blair administration, Gordon Brown was
reasonably responsible with his finances (remember Prudence?). But in
later years, his socialist ideology eventually surfaced and he started
borrowing and spending, as they do. I well remember comments by
economists in the early 2000's about the 'black hole' in GB's budgets
and the economy*. It would be entirely wrong to blame GB for the
banking crash of 2008,

But very reasonable to blame him for making the British banks
much more vulnerable and having to bail the worst of them out.

None of the Canadian nor Australian retail
banks imploded or had to be bailed out by govt.

but if GB had stuck with Prudence, we would have been in
a much better position to weather the storm than we were,

And if he hadn't deregulated the banks, they
wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by govt.

and we wouldn't have had all the cutbacks and fiscal restraints
of the Lib-Con coalition and then the present government.

True.

Ever since I've been politically aware, for about the last 50 years,
I've been impressed, (or should that be depressed), by Labour's
incompetence when it comes to financial matters. TNP used to
have a sig along the lines of "a socialist has his heart in the right
place, his head in the clouds and his hand in someone else's
pocket". How true that is.

It's more complicated than that. Socialism worked very well
for Norway with the govt doing the oil and gas and power
generation and that worked out a hell of a lot better for
them than the approach Britain took with those.

Norway is not a socialist country

Corse it is when it has the oil and gas and power generation done by the
govt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Irrelevant to the fact that Norway has the oil and
gas and power generation done by the govt.

Socialist always fails.

How odd that it hasn't with the the oil and gas
and power generation hasn't in Norway.

Or with the BBC and NHS and the universitys in Britain either.

On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 21:41:08 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Perhaps then you'd explain how, after many years of those fiscal
restraints, the country's finances are in no better a state than at the
start of it?


Because the banking crash on top of GB's spendthrift policies put us
into a very deep hole that's taking a long time to climb out of.

Right. Or what you are saying is austerity hasn't worked?


It
doesn't excuse GB's profligacy.

But it was a good excuse for Cameron to hit the poorest the hardest.
Exactly what he was elected to do.


The problem is that we haven't had any austerity.

Some have.

You don't
turn an economy around by continuing to spend.

We did after WW2

On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 21:38:10 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The banking crash was only 10% of the problem, and no actual money was
spent, just guarantees. The bulk of the problem was the Labours
mad cap year-on-year spending increases at a time when it should
have been possible to pay previous debt down.

That will be why the 'banking' crash started in the US, then?

Any other bits of history you'd like to re-write?


Gordon Broon failed to properly regulate the banks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-branches.html