[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[nicko31]

This seems…an odd fight to pick…

[tweet]1578456156778872832[/tweet]

She really will need WW3 to save her at this rate

 

[The Clamp]

It’s obviously a premeditated U-Turn to suggest that they are still ‘listening’ and that they ‘get-it’.

I’m not sure that even this, most clueless of governments would risk a stunt like that. I’m guessing it’s simply another huge misstep from one woman psychiatric ward, Liz Truss.

Good, good. Another massive nail in the coffin for the Nasty Party. All those dirty Tory’s being chauffeur driven to the cenotaph while veterans have to watch at home, if they can afford the electric. If there’s one group us Brits won’t tolerate being bullied, it’s our war veterans.

Silly arse.

 

[nicko31]

Just look up Gilts. Then look up National debt, and Budget defecit and if you really want to humiliate go and ask an eminent economist.

Speaking of gilts, since Tuesday at steady rise back to 4.25% and sterling sliding again. We're not out of the woods

 

[Eric the meek]

Google Modern Monetary Theory.

If that is really the sum total of your response to my request for supporting evidence, then I'm afraid a wave of your hands in the general direction of an economic theory you favour, doesn't cut it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Google Modern Monetary Theory.

How does what has just happened fit into that theory? It didnt seem like the Government was controlling the flow of money.

 

[Bakero]

If that is really the sum total of your response to my request for supporting evidence, then I'm afraid a wave of your hands in the general direction of an economic theory you favour, doesn't cut it.

I'm not [MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION], the poster you asked for evidence.

 

[Eric the meek]

I'm not [MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION], the poster you asked for evidence.

I know you're not [MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION]. I'm addressing you.

 

[BenGarfield]

Just look up Gilts. Then look up National debt, and Budget defecit and if you really want to humiliate go and ask an eminent economist.

I know what guilts are, of couse. I dont need to look anything up.They are a type of savings account run by the government to give rich people, private pension funds etc an income. Like taxation, the government does not need them to finance its spending. They are also used as a tool for monetary policy. They could probably be abolished altogether.

If you think that the government needs our money in the form of guilts, tax etc to fund its spending - where do you think we get the money to start with if not from the government. You do know its illegal to print your own money dont you?

 

[clapham_gull]

I know you're not [MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION]. I'm addressing you.

.. and they pointed you to a concise summary of the theories. I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[Eric the meek]

.. and they pointed you to a concise summary of the theories. I'm not sure what the problem is.

The problem is, that my request for supporting evidence, remains unanswered.
[MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION] claimed that many eminent economists and others would agree with his analysis, and indeed were waiting for an explanation why they were mistaken. I asked for a list of those eminent economists, and unsurprisingly, I'm still waiting.

To reiterate, a general wave of the hands at some economic theory, of which there are many (translated, that means 'go and find it yourself') really doesn't cut it.

Have you heard of evidence-based analysis? If you make a claim like 'many eminent economists would agree with my analysis', and then fail to provide the name of one single eminent economist who may or may not agree with your analysis, what conclusions should the audience make?

 

[Baldseagull]

I know what guilts are, of couse. I dont need to look anything up.They are a type of savings account run by the government to give rich people, private pension funds etc an income. Like taxation, the government does not need them to finance its spending. They are also used as a tool for monetary policy. They could probably be abolished altogether.

If you think that the government needs our money in the form of guilts, tax etc to fund its spending - where do you think we get the money to start with if not from the government. You do know its illegal to print your own money dont you?

Yes, it needs our money. The Pound is a token, the BoE issues them, if they just printed as many as the Government wanted in order for it to spend what it wanted to spend, they would become worth less and eventually worthless. Look up hyperinflation.

 

[beorhthelm]

Modern Monetary Theory is a fringe theory by a group of left wing economist who like the idea of infinite money without problems. its not accepted normal monetary theory as it fails to address how anything in real economies work, like inflation or debt markets. it pretends this model applies to sovereign currencies, like the Dollar, Sterling, but not the Euro. or any other currency throughout history, including pre gold standard Dollar and Sterling. its economist flat earth theory, an idea that attempts to explain the world differently, everyone knows is utter bollocks except a few that slavishly hold on.

 

[clapham_gull]

The problem is, that my request for supporting evidence, remains unanswered.

[MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION] claimed that many eminent economists and others would agree with his analysis, and indeed were waiting for an explanation why they were mistaken. I asked for a list of those eminent economists, and unsurprisingly, I'm still waiting.

To reiterate, a general wave of the hands at some economic theory, of which there are many (translated, that means 'go and find it yourself') really doesn't cut it.

Have you heard of evidence-based analysis? If you make a claim like 'many eminent economists would agree with my analysis', and then fail to provide the name of one single eminent economist who may or may not agree with your analysis, what conclusions should the audience make?

I think you are best placed unpicking the theories rather than picking fights with people who merely pointed you to them.

In a parallel universe it was actually helpful to your argument.

 

[beorhthelm]

I know what guilts are, of couse. I dont need to look anything up.They are a type of savings account run by the government to give rich people, private pension funds etc an income. Like taxation, the government does not need them to finance its spending. They are also used as a tool for monetary policy. They could probably be abolished altogether.

If you think that the government needs our money in the form of guilts, tax etc to fund its spending - where do you think we get the money to start with if not from the government. You do know its illegal to print your own money dont you?

if the government is in no need of Gilts, why is everyone so concerned when their prices fall and yields rise? why do governments pay anything at all to borrow, and why does US have to pay less than Italy or Brazil?

 

[Mancgull]

Gilts are a way for the UK Government to raise capital to spend to finance the needs of the Nation. Every country has them in some form or other, although they are often referred to as Bonds. Companies also issue them and they are referred to as Corporate Bonds. To say that printing money is illegal is inaccurate. A government can print new money. However, when they do it is usually inflationary. It's what most Governments did during the economic crisis of 2008, and was referred to as quantitative easing. Huge amounts of new money was pumped into the economy to prop it up.
The issue with the reductions of tax proposed in the mini budget was that it wasn't properly accounted for and thus it spooked the financial markets which led to sterling rating reducing in value. As a country we have a credit rating in much the same way as companies do and the UK's has reduced meaning that gilt yields are increasing. IE if you are lending the Governement money in the form of buying a gilt you'll want a greater level of interest due to the fact that interest rates are generally higher now but also because the risk of the U.K. Government defaulting is greater.
So, in summary, a Government can devalue their currency intentionally or unintentionally. The mini budget did the latter, and it's not seen to be a good thing, thus the push back from many.

 

[Eric the meek]

I think you are best placed unpicking the theories rather than picking fights with people who merely pointed you to them,

You misunderstand my motive. I'm not picking fights at all.

Instead, I'm raising the bar...

When someone posts what I consider to be a wild claim (e.g. 'many eminent economists would agree with me'), the theory can be unpicked later.

Before that happens, it is proper, desirable and reasonable to expect the protagonist to provide a modicum of evidence to support his claim.

 

[Bakero]

The problem is, that my request for supporting evidence, remains unanswered.

[MENTION=38012]BenGarfield[/MENTION] claimed that many eminent economists and others would agree with his analysis, and indeed were waiting for an explanation why they were mistaken. I asked for a list of those eminent economists, and unsurprisingly, I'm still waiting.

To reiterate, a general wave of the hands at some economic theory, of which there are many (translated, that means 'go and find it yourself') really doesn't cut it.

Have you heard of evidence-based analysis? If you make a claim like 'many eminent economists would agree with my analysis', and then fail to provide the name of one single eminent economist who may or may not agree with your analysis, what conclusions should the audience make?

I was trying to point you in the right direction so you could understand what he was talking about (well, at least what I thought his point was based in but I may well be wrong). As I'm not advocating the theory myself, I didn't feel the need to type out an explanation. If you'd bothered to Google it, you would have found the names of those economists that support it as well as as a much longer list of those that refute it.

 

[clapham_gull]

You misunderstand my motive. I'm not picking fights at all.

Instead, I'm raising the bar...

When someone posts what I consider to be a wild claim (e.g. 'many eminent economists would agree with me'), the theory can be unpicked later.

Before that happens, it is proper, desirable and reasonable to expect the protagonist to provide a modicum of evidence to support his claim.

But you directed it towards somebody else.

I suggest you google "whataboutism".

 

[Randy McNob]

I oppose the Tory policy of growth, growth, growth and support economic contraction instead

 

[rogersix]

ok, covered £8bn. now, what about the other 52bn?

how much profit has putin made for the gas producers?