Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Brexiteers meet realty...l
#21
(08-05-2017, 12:47 PM)Protheroe Wrote: The problem is Ponty, that you can't debate entirely linked issues in isolation can you?

Without the debt crisis there would have been no vote to leave the EU.

The debt to GDP ratio is 90%. The honest figure of debt to tax revenue is 266%. We still haven't played out the debt crisis at all. Everything in politics is linked to that.

Deal with the debt crisis and you'll go a long way to dealing with everything else.

The vote to leave the EU was a result of decades of negativity by Farage and co, the right wing press and the anti EU Tory bastards and the absurd decision to hold a referendum to change our constitution by a 5050 vote. The constitution of this country should never be able to be changed by such a small majority.  The referendum campaign was characterised by racism and anti immigration sentiment and downright lies. Debt crisis.... pah

There is no point in arguing over the economics - you and the likes of Steve Baker are just wrong and the politics puts the Reds into Downing Street. 

Personal debt caused the crash not government debt and it may cause the next one.
Reply
#22
It's not a problem that don't agree with me. However that does not mean I'm "wrong".

Do you really think the nationalisation of private debt is in anyone's interest but the Establishment? Of course it isn't. We are all paying the price for that, and will do so for decades. It matters little whether the government is red, blue or yellow.

You ignore the elephant in the room if you like, but he's not going away. In fact he could be back sooner than you think.
Reply
#23
(08-05-2017, 06:48 PM)Protheroe Wrote: It's not a problem that don't agree with me. However that does not mean I'm "wrong".

Do you really think the nationalisation of private debt is in anyone's interest but the Establishment? Of course it isn't. We are all paying the price for that, and will do so for decades. It matters little whether the government is red, blue or yellow.

You ignore the elephant in the room if you like, but he's not going away. In fact he could be back sooner than you think.

The elephant was going away until the Tory led government of 2010. Government spending pre 2008 did not crash the economy and well you know it. Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time, let's hope it's not necessary again.  Government debt goes up and down over the decades why are yo so obsessed with it. Myths and dogma?
Reply
#24
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. You feel free to buy into the narrative that the benign State in some way 'protected' your interests. It didn't, it protected the banks and the states interests - which were aligned because it was their joint enterprise that got us into the situation in the first place.

Plenty of bankers ought to be in prison. That there are virtually none speaks volumes.
Reply
#25
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time, let's hope it's not necessary again...

Personally, I'd have let RBS and at least one other go to the wall but protected the depositors; partly from a sense of it being the right thing to do and also because that would have been the action most likely to head off any panic and hysteria. 

The shareholders would have got nothing; the senior executives would, in some cases, have got custodial sentences.
Reply
#26
There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.

Oscar Wilde
Reply
#27
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/finta...9?mode=amp


Because the British have wasted so much time and energy on ludicrous posturing and internal warfare, there is no chance of a clean, negotiated settlement coming into effect in March 2019.
Reply
#28
(08-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. You feel free to buy into the narrative that the benign State in some way 'protected' your interests. It didn't, it protected the banks and the states interests - which were aligned because it was their joint enterprise that got us into the situation in the first place.

Plenty of bankers ought to be in prison. That there are virtually none speaks volumes.

It really cannot be imagined what would've happened if action hadn't been taken by governments all around the globe to prevent them collapsing. You have absolutely no idea what would've happened if the banks have been allowed to disintegrate across the globe.  Just as you had no idea what the outcome of Brexit is. It seems you are just happy to jump into very deep dark holes and take the rest of us with you.

(08-06-2017, 05:27 PM)Ossian Wrote:
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time, let's hope it's not necessary again...

Personally, I'd have let RBS and at least one other go to the wall but protected the depositors; partly from a sense of it being the right thing to do and also because that would have been the action most likely to head off any panic and hysteria. 

The shareholders would have got nothing; the senior executives would, in some cases, have got custodial sentences.

What makes you think that shareholders didn't get battered. I had Lloyds shares that were worth a few thousand now they're worth a few hundred.
Reply
#29
(08-09-2017, 06:12 AM)Pontificator Wrote:
(08-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. You feel free to buy into the narrative that the benign State in some way 'protected' your interests. It didn't, it protected the banks and the states interests - which were aligned because it was their joint enterprise that got us into the situation in the first place.

Plenty of bankers ought to be in prison. That there are virtually none speaks volumes.

It really cannot be imagined what would've happened if action hadn't been taken by governments all around the globe to prevent them collapsing. You have absolutely no idea what would've happened if the banks have been allowed to disintegrate across the globe.  Just as you had no idea what the outcome of Brexit is. It seems you are just happy to jump into very deep dark holes and take the rest of us with you.

(08-06-2017, 05:27 PM)Ossian Wrote:
(08-06-2017, 07:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Nationalising the banks was in everyone's interest at the time, let's hope it's not necessary again...

Personally, I'd have let RBS and at least one other go to the wall but protected the depositors; partly from a sense of it being the right thing to do and also because that would have been the action most likely to head off any panic and hysteria. 

The shareholders would have got nothing; the senior executives would, in some cases, have got custodial sentences.

What makes you think that shareholders didn't get battered. I had Lloyds shares that were worth a few thousand now they're worth a few hundred.

That's the crux of the matter Pontificator, every argument Proth puts forward is based on nothing more than theory and ideology. He has no idea how his ideas would / will really play out but is financially secure enough to be blasé about the outcomes. Glib terms like "we will all have to get used to being worse off" maybe fine for those on a reasonable incomes but for those not, huge gambles like Brexit are a step into the unknown that they could really have done without after the last decade.
Reply
#30
(08-09-2017, 06:12 AM)Pontificator Wrote: What makes you think that shareholders didn't get battered. I had Lloyds shares that were worth a few thousand now they're worth a few hundred.

That is the bargain you make when you hold shares - down as well as up; cash depositors make an altogether different one.

What was particularly galling to me was that some of the taxpayer's cash injection was skimmed off to pay executive bonuses - with the apparent justification that they'd already been 'earned'. Too much of the rest went on window-dressing balance sheets; the money would have been better spent kick-starting infrastructure projects, not least social housing.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)