Just out of interest,the price of gold & Gordon Brown.

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I always said it would take a generation to understand the damage she had caused.

Some of us will never forget.

 

[brunswick]

If you think UK politicians are corrupt, then you should try Greece or the USA. For an insight, read John Grisham's "The Appeal" (based on a true story) to see just how far US politicans and Big Business can go.

i am well versed with the ills evident within the global powerhouse institutions, corps, think tanks etc just see it all as a much higher chess game than labour/conservative.

 

[HovaGirl]

Was I only dreaming that when Labour won the GE in 1997 what they actually inherited was a NHS in terminal decline , the worst level of national debt for over 200 years and an 18 year ingrained culture of "rip somebody off at least once a day". Irn Bru Gordy sold the gold bullion to balance the books and kick start the economy. Without converting gold into cash , Teflon Tony would have looked a bit of a prick asking the yanks for a loan to finance the military escapades in Sierra Leone , Bosnia , Iraq and Afghanistan. Mass immigration from Eastern European countries wasn't the fault of Labour , they had to accede to EU law on the rights to work anywhere in the EU for EU citizens. Mandy should be able to afford a £8M mansion in central London now he has been elevated to the House of Lords , dont forget he was appointed EU commissioner in 2004 (expenses , expenses , expenses) , income streams from book royalties , after dinner speeches and other engagements etc etc.

The NHS has been in decline for decades, because the nation just can't afford it, as it is run at the moment. There has been little restructuring, because all parties are terrified of tampering with it for fear of unpopularity. That the NHS is in decline, isn't, in itself, symptomatic of the state of the economy. National debt has also been growing for decades and is a problem for either party. Nonetheless, Blair inherited a boom economy in 1997 and lived off the political capital for two more terms. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown was out of his depth as Chancellor. He, too, lived off the boom, and tried all sorts of tricks, such as selling the gold, to try and keep the economy looking better than it actually was. As to immigration, that could have been curbed. Bulgaria, when it joined the EU, decided to limit the time Brits could live in Bulgaria in their new, cheap houses, making them fulfill certain criteria. Being a Lord, in itself, does not make you rich. Not all Lords are rich, and even those from old families who live in huge houses, are not cash rich. That's why they turn them into theme parks, because it costs millions to maintain them for the nation.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

Such gas and electricity price rises are not at all new. Perhaps you weren't a utility bill payer in the 70s and 80s. Shareholders have to have a dividend, because they are part-owners of a company and deserve a return on their investment, but profits don't only go to shareholders. Before they do, companies, particularly the utilities, pay out a lot for investment in newer and safer technologies and for the future. Only a Communist Government would interfere in the workings of private companies so the British Government can only make certain noises to encourage companies to pull their weight.

Yes i was a utility payer back then and i cannot remember " bills" having such a high percentage hike, maybe wrong though. Surely if you are a shareholder you are only entitled to a dividend if the company you have invested in makes a profit? What i fail to grasp is the bill paying public...the majority who will find hard to find the extra money, have to foot the bill for profits of all the competing energy companies who by the inefficientcy of the regulator ( or elected goverment department ) are allowed to increase their prices (almost) en mass. Where is the competition for low prices here and what use is the "independant" watchdog.

 

[drew]

Such gas and electricity price rises are not at all new. Perhaps you weren't a utility bill payer in the 70s and 80s. Shareholders have to have a dividend, because they are part-owners of a company and deserve a return on their investment, but profits don't only go to shareholders. Before they do, companies, particularly the utilities, pay out a lot for investment in newer and safer technologies and for the future. Only a Communist Government would interfere in the workings of private companies so the British Government can only make certain noises to encourage companies to pull their weight.

So how does your idea that only a communist government would interfere with private companies sit with the mantra that GB should have regulated the banks more. Seems a bit hippocritical!!!!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, historically. The value of a currency now is linked to the state of the economy in the country and the interest rates set by the central bank, surely. Gold is like any other asset. It's value is immaterial until you decide to sell. It's no good bleating about the value now compared to when it was sold because in years to come, the value will be higher than now.

Currency is also affected by a Governments ability to borrow or repay loans, We were running with a budget deficit and high state borrowing on an economy that was based more and more on house values, which are worth what people think they are worth, if people lose confidence our economy could collaspe completely and with no real assets to cover this debt it could end in catastrophe, this is partly why such efforts have been made to stop a major drop in house prices.

You say it was a mistake. How many leading nations in the economic world are tied to the gold standard?

And how many leading nations have an economy that isn't heavily in debt? US has had to up it borrowing limit to cover its state payments to workers etc..., Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy etc all with major economic problems. And so on.

hat glowing economy you refer to was helped along the way with the sale of other family silver, railways, utilities etc and the windfall that was North Sea oil and gas. Labour had some windfalls but don't forget the Tory ones.

The question was about Gordon Brown and why did he sell the gold reserves and a rock bottom price, hence the reason i haven't mentioned any of the other things you have included.

living in the wrong century. I say again, which leading nations have all their currency backed by gold bullion?

Which leading nations haven't got a large national debt that is slowly eating away at their ability to fund future state projects (new roads, Hospitals, etc) or to pay for state funded infrasture (Healthcare, Police, etc) or to provide state jobs etc etc ??

It has been commected on many a time that leaving the Gold standard was a mistake as it meant that Governments etc could spend far beyond their means and risk future prosperity (as we are starting to see in the current worldwide economic slump)

Apart from the Gold, then what other assets did labour sell off. (see previous comment about the Tories selling off the family silver).

They did privatise some state assets however i don't have the list of what they were but you could include PFI projects where we end up paying for something several times over and still not own it after the project timetable completes - examples:
Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary cost £184 million to build, but through PFI it will cost the public more than £1 billion over 30 years (7 times what it would have cost the Government to build and it will remain in private hands)
Exclusive: We'll pay £1.2bn for PFI hospital but NEVER own it - Edinburgh Evening News

Add onto this the contracts for maintenance and repair private companies can get under PFI, where changing a light bulb can cost £333, and we have nothing short of a rip-off of the public sector for private profit.

The massive spending cuts are not wholly linked to the state of the economy and more likely linked to the incumbent governments ideology. People seem to forget that when the Tories came in, the economy was on the up but now seems to be flat lining!!!!

The high percentage of public sector workers was draining public coffers as the state has to pay for them, most work in areas that do not directly generate money for the state (schools, hospitals, Police, Fire brigade etc.. This means that taxes raised from those in the Private sctor and taxes taken back by the state from those in the public sector have to cover the whole wages of those employed by the state. If a Government is spending a large amount employing these people, they have less to spend elsewhere on things that are needed (this is before you take into account any projects that could be deemed a waste of time and money) or keep borrowing more and more (which is unsustainable)

Income from tax is limited (never the less Labour continually increased the tax burden on people - making it more expensive to employ and making us less competitive internationally) and Labour we were wanting this money to cover more in expenditure than we were getting in, fine if the state can borrow more to make up the shortfall however if you have a slow down globally then it means less income and more pressure on this public purse.

Add to this the massive budget deficit (and national debt) given time this was not going to be sustainable, someone has to pay eventually - the States have just had a similar problem when they had to increase the maximum their national debt could reach enabling them to pay their state employed civilians, if they carried on like Labour were without making cuts, then they would reach the new higher limit and then be in the same difficult position again (not to mention all the problems that go with this in terms of impact of interest rates (people less likely to lend unless they get a higher interest rate making the situation worse for the States, putting off potential outside investment and so on.

Labour admitted they were going to have to make cuts after the election had they won, so you can't say its only happening because its the Tories in power. It has to be done whoever was in power.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The difference between the hikes in utility bills of yesteryear and today is back then we didn't notice them because wages kept up with the price rises.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Irn Bru Gordy sold the gold bullion to balance the books and kick start the economy.

This isn't true, the economy was in a health position and growing due to Tory policy and which Labour got a lot of the benefit from (they did very little at first to change any of the previous Governments policies and just let them continue as they were bringing success and growth.
The sale of gold was done some time later

the worst level of national debt for over 200 years

UK National Debt - Current, Recent, Historical Charts Tables
Official figures would seem to disagree with this.

Historically the major rises in debt are down things like WW1 & WW2, the mass investment by the Victorians in infrastrucure (underground, roads, hospitals etc) however under Labour we see a large increase in this debt but what do we have to show for it?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes i was a utility payer back then and i cannot remember " bills" having such a high percentage hike, maybe wrong though. Surely if you are a shareholder you are only entitled to a dividend if the company you have invested in makes a profit? What i fail to grasp is the bill paying public...the majority who will find hard to find the extra money, have to foot the bill for profits of all the competing energy companies who by the inefficientcy of the regulator ( or elected goverment department ) are allowed to increase their prices (almost) en mass. Where is the competition for low prices here and what use is the "independant" watchdog.

How much of the price rises are down to things like a dwindling supply, (partly due to instability in oil producing areas like Iraq and Libya) or from increased demand from China to fund their massive eceonomic boom - there are many factors and its not just down to it being in private hands.

 

[HovaGirl]

So how does your idea that only a communist government would interfere with private companies sit with the mantra that GB should have regulated the banks more. Seems a bit hippocritical!!!!

He deregulated the banks. He gave the Bank of England independence and put responsibility for monitoring the banks under the Financial Services Authority (FSA). This resulted in the banks going ape. You know the rest.

 

[HovaGirl]

The difference between the hikes in utility bills of yesteryear and today is back then we didn't notice them because wages kept up with the price rises.

Well, we did notice them, but we've forgotten about it. We always do, till next time.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Yes, we left the Gold Standard just before the Great Depression of the 1920/30s, but currencies are backed by a nation's assets, which includes gold. When a nation starts "printing" money, it means there are no assets to back it up, rendering that money increasingly worthless. Today, there is a new, local, version of the Gold Standard, which is called the Euro. Luckily, the UK kept out of that one. Prior to that was the ERM, which the UK escaped from, hence John Major was able to beef up the UK's economy in the 1990s. But the scenario today is very similar to the scenario which precipitated the Great Depression and the real worry is whether people start to distrust the banks, and withdraw their money and keep it under the mattress. To some extent, that has probably already happened in the UK, because of the very low interest rate being paid to savers. When the banks in some of the troubled countries start faltering in paying the salaries of their customers, then the problems could get very much worse, because that means the banks themselves are having difficulty in accessing money.

So how does Q/Easing work ? Most economies have been doing that in the 'West' over the last few years without serious inflation or surging dole ques ?

 

[El Presidente]

He deregulated the banks. He gave the Bank of England independence and put responsibility for monitoring the banks under the Financial Services Authority (FSA). This resulted in the banks going ape. You know the rest.

The FSA had zero control over the likes of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers et al. As for the failure of Northern Rock, that was due to the seizing up of the retail lending market, which was a global rather than UK based issue.

The bankers are a hundred times smarter than politicians, so it would have made zero difference if the Tories were in power, they were after all responsible for the mis-selling of endowment schemes, pensions, and the introduction of PFI (which Labour embraced too), all of which has cost us as taxpayers far more than the sale of gold reserves.

 

[paddy]

So how does Q/Easing work ? Most economies have been doing that in the 'West' over the last few years without serious inflation or surging dole ques ?

Hardly most economies in the West. The Americans and the British have engaged in QE and have seen inflation rise (indeed, we are 3% over our inflation target after a period of relatively modest QE). The problem in Europe has been that they can't engage in QE because they do not have a central bank with the mandate to do so.