Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Politics and Economics-2017 Election
jvl
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:03:05(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 258

Thanks: 138 times
Was thanked: 268 time(s) in 126 post(s)
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.

Apart from their genuine austerity, they also let banks go bust. They kept the moral hazard.

Here we lost the moral hazard, turning people against capitalism (whereas, in fact, we'd just perverted one of its necessary tenets).

Then we made them angrier and poorer by getting them to 'bail out' banks in which they had no stake. To add to that, people in charge kept awarding themselves huge pay packets (while taking no risk - that's another capitalism breaker).

Finally there was no austerity here (on the government level). The government's still borrowing £1bn a week (and because people are suffering personal austerity, they still demand more public spending).

What a mess.
2 users thanked jvl for this post.
King Lodos on 14/06/2017(UTC), Mickey on 14/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:24:53(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
Gordon Brown, of course, putting together the £500bn (wound up at £850bn) bailout package, and effectively bankrupting the country .. Absolutely, it was a completely anti-Capitalism solution.

What's really crazy is one of the lesser known causes of the subprime crisis was a lawsuit brought against Citibank in the mid-90s by Democrats (including a young Obama) to ease lending practices in order to help more people get on the property ladder.

So even that can be traced back (to some extent) to left-wing financial engineering.

1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 14/06/2017(UTC)
dyfed
Posted: 14 June 2017 08:56:02(UTC)

Joined: 01/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 272

Thanks: 383 times
Was thanked: 324 time(s) in 151 post(s)
jvl;47929 wrote:
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.


What a mess.



It certainly is a mess. Not sure about letting the banks go bust: fine in principle but unintended consequences? People loose faith in "money"? certainly some of that around now anyway - bitcoin, my husband talking about getting in some gold coins for ready currency in case of armageddon...

Just hope our "money tree" aka the stock market, keeps flowering!
Vince.
Posted: 14 June 2017 09:50:00(UTC)

Joined: 09/05/2013(UTC)
Posts: 34

Thanks: 311 times
Was thanked: 50 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Watch this for an alternative view of Teresa May's Tory Magic Money Tree :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo

Vince
Mickey
Posted: 14 June 2017 13:45:49(UTC)

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 297

Thanks: 690 times
Was thanked: 264 time(s) in 136 post(s)
jvl;47929 wrote:
King Lodos;47916 wrote:

Iceland was a great example of how we probably should've handled this.


I wish we had. Short sharp shock and now it's better.

Apart from their genuine austerity, they also let banks go bust. They kept the moral hazard.

Here we lost the moral hazard, turning people against capitalism (whereas, in fact, we'd just perverted one of its necessary tenets).

Then we made them angrier and poorer by getting them to 'bail out' banks in which they had no stake. To add to that, people in charge kept awarding themselves huge pay packets (while taking no risk - that's another capitalism breaker).

Finally there was no austerity here (on the government level). The government's still borrowing £1bn a week (and because people are suffering personal austerity, they still demand more public spending).

What a mess.

You could add to that list the pay rise for MP's, MP's pension fixed to RPI whilst they shifted everyone else to CPI, failure to cut the number of MP's as promised, failure to sort out the House of Lords etc, Huge cuts to Public Services such as the Police, Fire etc. Governments of all sorts have continued to look after themselves and create more and more political posts such as highly paid Mayors and Police & Crime Commissioners with their expensive entourages.

No wonder so many are willing to support change at whatever cost.

1 user thanked Mickey for this post.
Jon Snow on 22/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 18:30:29(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
The problem I get with Labour supporters is they can never tell me which public services we should impose cuts on.

And if we don't make cuts and run the economy at a surplus, we'd soon wind up paying more to service debt than we do on things like education – which is a situation we were in following the Post-Napoleonic depression, and which becomes a major constraint on growth.

Labour keep selling this Keynesian idea that you can always grow the economy so long as you keep spending .. But if that were true, the global economy would be a much simpler thing to manage.
Prof Eman
Posted: 14 June 2017 21:30:45(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 470

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
On the issue of bots
The Independent reports that a You Gov poll of over 5k people taken 3 days after the election gave the following results.
-The majority of readers of the Conservative backing Daily Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun voted Tory.
-Readers of the Labour backing Guardian and Mirror mainly voted Labour (73% and 68%)
The Independent which did not express a voting preference had its readers voting 66% Labour and Tory 15%
The Conservative backing Financial Times had 40% voting Tory and 39% Labour.
Bots rule OK!
1 user thanked Prof Eman for this post.
Guest on 15/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 21:47:41(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
I'm not quite sure how that's an example of bots? (or what issue of bots, for that matter)
jvl
Posted: 15 June 2017 07:50:59(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 258

Thanks: 138 times
Was thanked: 268 time(s) in 126 post(s)
I think Prof Eman is admitting that it is a bot, not a person.
Mickey
Posted: 15 June 2017 08:15:49(UTC)

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 297

Thanks: 690 times
Was thanked: 264 time(s) in 136 post(s)
Prof Eman;47949 wrote:
The Independent which did not express a voting preference had its readers voting 66% Labour and Tory 15%

Reading the Independent I would say that it is anything but independent, more a softer version of the Guardian with a clearly left leaning opinion every day.
1 user thanked Mickey for this post.
jvl on 15/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 15 June 2017 18:22:05(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
jvl;47958 wrote:
I think Prof Eman is admitting that it is a bot, not a person.


Hard to tell with Socialists – they all seem to run off the same script.
1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
Jon Snow on 16/06/2017(UTC)
Alan Selwood
Posted: 15 June 2017 20:07:13(UTC)

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,330

Thanks: 440 times
Was thanked: 3400 time(s) in 1333 post(s)
Sadly, most newspapers run to a political agenda : If they just reported the news factually, and did not sift through it in order to pick out features of it that represent left-wing, right-wing or any other virtual labelling system, we would not need to get into heated discussions about it all.

Since they are partisan, it seems only natural for people to read what coincides with their own world view. (After all, if you have come to the conclusion that people of one political persuasion or another are in tune with your own ideas, or regularly appear to be raving lunatics, what is the point of reading the lunacy, which just pumps up your stress hormone levels, when you can read other viewpoints that match your own thinking?)

If in doubt, try reading the news on Reuters - it's less aggravating than the moralising press.

3 users thanked Alan Selwood for this post.
Guest on 15/06/2017(UTC), Micawber on 16/06/2017(UTC), Guest on 21/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 17 June 2017 21:59:36(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 470

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Jvi/King Lodos
I have some sympathy as to your comments about some studies/research.
My students are suggesting some research on the lines as follows-
-How to identify a bot
-Are bots a growing part of our population
-the influence of bots on elections
-the influence of bot creators on society
Perhaps you can suggest other studies.
King Lodos
Posted: 21 June 2017 18:43:18(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
For me a more interesting question would be why they believe in bots, and what they think these bots are doing.

It's obviously possible to create Twitter bots – you might be a bot – but the idea that bots are now influencing elections seems unsubstantiated.

Louise Mensch's Twitter rants perhaps best embody this – talk of the Russian 'bot-net' .. I remember hearing about this first from The Guardian, when a writer employed the idea of a network of fake Russian accounts posting Conservative opinions in the comments section .. Obviously possible, but I don't recall any evidence .. Seems to me more like a way to explain a certain cognitive dissonance between our echo chambers and this great unknown of 'different' opinions that seem to exist somewhere outside it.
jvl
Posted: 22 June 2017 07:53:17(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 258

Thanks: 138 times
Was thanked: 268 time(s) in 126 post(s)
I think an interesting study would be along the lines of why we even talk about the bots and social media tactics, why they're being used. I would ask something on the human level:

"What the hell happened to the British brains starting sometime around 1997 that short-term over-pumped emotions started to trump cool logical thinking?"

Princess Diana died and I couldn't believe what I saw around me. People who never knew her, people whose interest had fuelled the paparazzi chase that helped kill her, were suddenly taking over the country with their super-grief and others were supposed to go along with it. What happened? I felt like a stranger in my own country.

I think that was just a symptom of the start. The Internet, smart-phones, endless shows based around ordinary people finding fame on the most superficial level instead of doing something worthwhile. Then came social media. But it seemed to start around then. It was all feeling, little thought.

Attention spans collapsed and very short term emotional thinking took over - as we still see with the Grenfell thing. Bots and social media appeal to emotions. The trouble with a lot of economically right-wing policies is that they need to be explained and the attention span of much of the country appears to have dissolved.
4 users thanked jvl for this post.
Mickey on 22/06/2017(UTC), dyfed on 22/06/2017(UTC), bill xxxx on 22/06/2017(UTC), Jon Snow on 22/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 22 June 2017 09:02:26(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,519

Thanks: 245 times
Was thanked: 1897 time(s) in 792 post(s)
One of the great conflicts I struggle with is that while Capitalism's been by far the most effective economic system ever devised – lifting a billion Asians out of poverty; closing the global wage gap (see: Hans Rosling); etc. very quickly..

.. it could also be argued that many of the social problems you mention (from knee-jerk politics to reality TV) are also byproducts of capitalism .. We have an essentially capitalist media, news, arts and entertainment, and the only feedback loop that exists is driven by revenue.

Reading The Intellectual Lives of the British Working Classes is eyeopening – the same people who watch MTV Reality shows today were attending Shakespeare plays and reading the classics a century ago .. You could also say this drive to flood Europe with third-world refugees/Islamists is a product of Capitalism – it's being driven by the elite; Wall Street; George Soros; etc. because this economic system doesn't work with an ageing population .. You look at where we've got to with global debt and inflation, and it looks like the great run that made so many rich may be hitting an inflection point.

1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
dyfed on 22/06/2017(UTC)
9 Pages«Previous page789
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets