The EU debate - Part III

This is indeed true, it is what it is. I was talking idealism, we can't undo the way the system has evolved.

 

Bit like the facsists. Eliminate all foreigners unless you're porking one.

 

That about sums Tubby's whole manifesto!

 

He recently came across a dilemma when one of his inbred mates ALSO found himself a foreign gal. Suddenly a flaw in The Sensible Party policy. What if the foreign lass is someone else's Mrs????

But they quickly resolved the problem with a wife swap. The policy had been tested and come through with flying colours.

 

I accept that. I posted the video partly because I found it interesting, and irrespective of his views, I was impressed with the way he handled some really confused individuals who detracted from the others that made some good points, and helped him expand his own views.

Another reason was because I thought he touched on a few elements of why I voted leave, those being that intervention from the state wasn't necessarily a positive, and in our case it (arguably) included forms of intervention from two states.

I accept that the City and Government are interlinked, but I thought it would be interesting to see some other views and opinions on if the government involvement was actually a bad thing altogether, was okay but had gone too far, or that it wasn't bad at all.

Over and above that, I'd be interested in views on the current system that our economy operates under, which in my view is ultimately a debt producer.

 

I think that is the nub of the argument.

Do you believe it is sustainable on it's own, or will it keep needing patching up and supporting?

 

So it's the "get ****ed or **** off" policy.

 

But on the point of debt. Why is it the bedrock of all western economics that a good economy is built on people borrowing? It seems to me that governments believe that prosperity = debt + spending.

 

The City is not responsible for Gvt debt. The marketing of it, the investment in it, yes. But the amount and liquidity of Gvt debt is purely a matter for the Gvt.

The City has helped various Gvt's in selling UK debt abroad and in creating debt in other currencies. But this is always done at the instigation of the Gvt. Back in 80's I was involved in trading the biggest UK foreign currency global public borrowing ever, at that time.. A 4bln ECU issuance in the name of the United Kingdom.

The City helps mostly corporates, banks, and foreign Gvt's to raise capital. The UK Gvt alone is responsible for its own debt levels

 

Yep, I accept that, it's why I'm asking about the financial system that the government operates, rather than the City.

 

Put simply, if you're not raising enough from tax revenues to uphold your spending promises and obligations, you need to borrow.

Plus Gvt's will often borrow when they see advantageous conditions, such as low interest rates.

 

It's not just the borrowing though it's the interest it accrues. And I'm not just talking about governments, I'm talking about the banks' desire to lend lend lend to the public.

It seems to me that good old fashioned business through selling competitive banking products is not enough. It's far easier to just put people in debt and cream off the interest for, in effect, doing **** all. It seems to me an easy cop out.

I'm not completely against lending but when the sole purpose of lending is to offer nothing in return other than money, and then to build our whole economy on that, is dare I say lazy, corrupt and a morally flawed ethos.

 

I think that NSIS called it about right. It's about regulation, limiting the level of risk by the institutions and ensuring liquidity.

Govt should only ever be needed to assist in the banking sector when national or global issues behind their control cause a collapse that threatens the completel collapse of the pyramid.

2008 was an example of when that is needed, but also on why worldwide regulation is required. The Sherman's knowingly selling debt bonds that weren't worth 2 balloons and a canary was outrageous, however where's the due diligence from the buyer? It's all become to easy to make money, but equally easy to blow it. Day traders are little more than educated casino punters, their cash adds nothing to the overall system, as they don't own any stock at the beginning and the end of trading.

 

It's true right across modern society. Wealth allows you to leverage more borrowings, never has the expression - we're all skint at different levels, been so apt. Which is driven by the complete disappearance of the principle of delayed gratification. Save until you can afford to have what you want, is largely a forgotten ideal. Now it's can I afford to borrow what I need to have what I want now. It drives the entire consumer economy these days.

But it's also the bedrock of business. As you expand and grow you need more liquidity to trade, and more cash for stock and to fund expansion,and this comes from borrowings or credit lines. The system can't operate without it.

 

How much of the earlier crashes do you feel was a consequence of those controlling the markets knowing they had national governments by the balls, and that they'd benefit from bail outs to larger banks, and enable them to buy out the smaller ones. This would give them more of a hold over governments, which wouldn't tame the use of currency that was over represented.

If the governments made it clear that there are no more bail outs, and stick to it, the financial sectors would have to stand or fall on their own merits. It's why I tend to agree with the guy on the video, it's not so much more regulation, but less support and more responsibility on them that's needed.

 

That works at a household level, where if we need to cut back, we don't consider the implications on those we buy from, but governments have a responsibility to both. I guess the balance is ensuring that the borrowing is no greater than what's needed to keep the economy stimulated. If we end up borrowing more, to prop up institutions that add to the boom and bust cycles, we're fire fighting on something that is liable to burn out anyway.

 

I would agree with this providing there is a strictly controlled nationalised bank that is there to provide support and liquidity to the masses.
Effectively saying you can take chances with your money or you can play it safe. Letting private banks fail if necessary whilst protecting society from the worst effects of such a failure.

It's probably a bit to idealistic.

 

The credit crunch kinda also shows the system cant work with it either. Once you take the lending away, without the liquidity from credit lines the whole system crashes and countless small businesses go under.

 

Anyone seen the stopthehate campaign?
Co op and Lego have announced they will no longer advertise in the Daily Mail as a result of pressure from this group

 

If true that's good news. That rag is ****ing poisonous.