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
Jon Snow
Posted: 09 June 2017 23:32:27(UTC)

Joined: 02/03/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,056

Thanks: 742 times
Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 446 post(s)
Prof Eman
Posted: 10 June 2017 13:54:20(UTC)

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

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Just want to clarify my comment on Trickle down.
We have the highest number of billionaires in London, of any city.
One would expect the trickle down effect to be significant.
Regrettably not. Why, because most of the wealth is off shore. Some estimates put it at around 130 trillion. If all that money was on shore, would we need austerity?
I wonder.
So is reducing corporation tax a way of helping to solve our problems?
King Lodos
Posted: 10 June 2017 23:07:31(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,100

Thanks: 395 times
Was thanked: 3021 time(s) in 1196 post(s)
Prof Eman;47805 wrote:
Just want to clarify my comment on Trickle down.
We have the highest number of billionaires in London, of any city.
One would expect the trickle down effect to be significant.


The problem with 'trickle down' is most people who talk about it don't know how to define it, let alone how to measure it..

London's full of Russian and Arab billionaires spending money like billionaires do (and if you understand the multiplier effect, for example, you'll appreciate how industries built around these people do prop up the whole economy) .. In brief: it's better to have them spending money here than in Monte Carlo.

Take for example the effect of companies like Google and Amazon relocating to Ireland to enjoy tax breaks .. So Ireland aren't getting billions in tax, but how fast has Ireland's economy been growing? Well it managed 26.3% in 2015 .. Better they're there than in Paris or Berlin .. Also realise, unless you want your offshore wealth to disappear to inflation, it's most likely in government and corporate bonds anyway – this is the money our governments rely on when they run out of tax dollars to spend – this is where the money for the bulk of Corbyn's plans would've come from .. Keynesianism doesn't work without that endless supply of debt.
1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 12/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 11 June 2017 12:43:01(UTC)

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

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
King Lodos
Without attempting to define trickle down, it is obviously not working when during austerity the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (consider the number of food banks and their meals served)
As regards spending patterns
-the billionaires do not live here permanently but spend a lot of their time abroad jetting around in their private jets. The poor are here all the time spending any money they have all in this country all the time. The propensity to spend in this country of the poor is much higher than that of the billionaires. They also impact on the velocity of circulation, as they spend all their money immediately e.g. benefits.
- the billionaires have savings and money off shore, as well as the ability to pick and chose which country to buy things, so the amount of their spending is questionable.
-many of them prefer Monte Carlo to Britain
-Also the billionaires distort the housing market, especially London and South East driving up prices, making it difficult for Britons to buy property.
As regards Companies moving abroad, Brexit is an issue. Secondly wages abroad are an issue, cheaper in many countries of the EU than here. There is more to Cos moving abroad than just tax breaks, especially considering the number of tax havens available to them.
jvl
Posted: 12 June 2017 08:05:03(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 342

Thanks: 192 times
Was thanked: 392 time(s) in 175 post(s)
You're getting far more quality replies than you deserve for such obviously one-sided thought.

I'd be willing to bet that you'd pass less than 10% of them on to your "students" and, even then, only as a sap to make it appear that you're being fair.

Radicalising the naive young disaffected...
Alan Selwood
Posted: 12 June 2017 11:28:58(UTC)

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,492

Thanks: 491 times
Was thanked: 3887 time(s) in 1455 post(s)
Prof Eman;47823 wrote:
King Lodos

.......As regards Companies moving abroad, Brexit is an issue. Secondly wages abroad are an issue, cheaper in many countries of the EU than here. There is more to Cos moving abroad than just tax breaks, especially considering the number of tax havens available to them.


Wages abroad are cheaper or dearer or the same as here, depending on which EU country you are referring to.

Another factor is regulation and taxation, which has led to many French people coming here to work or set up businesses, since the regulations and tax in France are significantly more off-putting to business than they are here (this comparison applies only while Corbyn is not in charge).
Prof Eman
Posted: 13 June 2017 01:58:14(UTC)

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

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Jvi
In line with the latest social media activity-
A lot of people are waking up to the fact that trickle down is a BIG CON of the GOVErnment, and do not consider it very punny.
What I teach my students is to look at facts and data and then interpret it in a non blinkered beliefs way. That sort of activity is left to some papers and mass media outlets.
Time you woke up.
King Lodos
Posted: 13 June 2017 02:18:21(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,100

Thanks: 395 times
Was thanked: 3021 time(s) in 1196 post(s)
Prof Eman;47823 wrote:
King Lodos
Without attempting to define trickle down, it is obviously not working when during austerity the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (consider the number of food banks and their meals served)
As regards spending patterns
-the billionaires do not live here permanently but spend a lot of their time abroad jetting around in their private jets. The poor are here all the time spending any money they have all in this country all the time. The propensity to spend in this country of the poor is much higher than that of the billionaires. They also impact on the velocity of circulation, as they spend all their money immediately e.g. benefits.
- the billionaires have savings and money off shore, as well as the ability to pick and chose which country to buy things, so the amount of their spending is questionable.
-many of them prefer Monte Carlo to Britain
-Also the billionaires distort the housing market, especially London and South East driving up prices, making it difficult for Britons to buy property.
As regards Companies moving abroad, Brexit is an issue. Secondly wages abroad are an issue, cheaper in many countries of the EU than here. There is more to Cos moving abroad than just tax breaks, especially considering the number of tax havens available to them.


Well the way we're dealing with sluggish economic growth at this phase in the debt cycle is with QE.

And no one really knows if this works yet .. It was inspired by Japan, and the likes of Bernanke argued that inflating asset prices would inflate the economy .. I think the jury's out on that – but of course one effect is asset owners (generally wealthier) get wealthier .. But this isn't to be confused with austerity.

Austerity usually hits the poor the hardest – but then we can't forget the upside of 20 years of capitalism is nearly a doubling in real wages for most of the world's population (with the only group getting slightly poorer since the 80s being your stereotypical Trump and Brexit voters – Developed world working classes).

https://cdn1.benzinga.com/files/u81483/gobalization.png
2 users thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 13/06/2017(UTC), Jon Snow on 13/06/2017(UTC)
sandid3
Posted: 13 June 2017 03:27:41(UTC)

Joined: 18/02/2013(UTC)
Posts: 270

Thanks: 152 times
Was thanked: 293 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Prof Eman;46953 wrote:
A student asked me a question, and I could not think of an immediate answer. It was-
Why should I vote and if so how?

I think events have answered the original question.
jvl
Posted: 13 June 2017 08:09:53(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 342

Thanks: 192 times
Was thanked: 392 time(s) in 175 post(s)
Prof Eman;47878 wrote:
Jvi
What I teach my students is to look at facts and data and then interpret it in a non blinkered beliefs way. That sort of activity is left to some papers and mass media outlets.
Time you woke up.


Time you stopped spamming an investors' forum with disingenuous socialist claptrap, pretending that you were ever reasonably open-minded.

People are wiping the floor with your arguments and you come back for more. I'd be willing to bet that if a bright student ever interpreted the facts in the way that King Lodos has above, you'd mark that student down.

If you're really a professor teaching our young people, it's sad, but not unexpected, to find someone of that persuasion in education. Hopefully as they grow up in the real world and see consequences in action, they'll change their minds. In fact, that's what tends to happen with votes for socialist parties as people get experience and grow older and wiser. Not everyone though...
Micawber
Posted: 13 June 2017 08:27:41(UTC)

Joined: 27/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,737

Thanks: 759 times
Was thanked: 2506 time(s) in 970 post(s)
QE was in fact inspired by the BOE which led the way.

Meanwhile I see that the unelected faceless bureaucrats in Brussels have abolished mobile roaming surcharges throughout the EU. How dare they impose that on our British companies... Monstrous...
2 users thanked Micawber for this post.
dyfed on 13/06/2017(UTC), Bellabeck on 13/06/2017(UTC)
jvl
Posted: 13 June 2017 09:19:24(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 342

Thanks: 192 times
Was thanked: 392 time(s) in 175 post(s)
Prof Eman;47878 wrote:

What I teach my students is to...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/07/still-time-dear-millennials-see-truth-mr-corbyn-think/

"A recent Times Higher Education survey of university staff found that 92 per cent would vote for a Left-wing party: 54 per cent for Labour, 24 per cent for the Lib Dems, and 5 per cent each for the Greens and the SNP. The Tories were at a pathetic 7 per cent.

Social science and humanities departments have become giant, Left-wing think tanks, spewing out reams of unreadable, ideologically monotonous “research” calling for ever more government spending and intervention. With a few honourable exceptions, free-thinkers are no longer welcome, except in the hard sciences; it probably takes the average youngster a decade or so of real-life experience to begin to grow out of the academic brain-washing."
Jim S
Posted: 13 June 2017 10:02:38(UTC)

Joined: 08/12/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86

Thanks: 185 times
Was thanked: 98 time(s) in 54 post(s)
Yeah, if only our over-educated pampered students could be free-thinking Daily Express readers working in McDonalds, grateful for their minimum wage because they live in the 'real' world, without time or energy to grumble about the rat race (except to blame Europe and migrants for low wages and crime of course). All that spare time students have to discuss irrelevant nonsense like what kind of world they want to live in just means they get brainwashed by all-powerful communist academics with hypnotic powers who seduce our youth with their evil ideology. Less education and more low paid work please.
1 user thanked Jim S for this post.
Tony Peterson on 13/06/2017(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 13 June 2017 10:41:39(UTC)

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,012

Thanks: 593 times
Was thanked: 1143 time(s) in 499 post(s)
I am obliged to jvl for the reliable information that the most intelligent members of society favour socially progressive, free-thinking, and environmentally concerned political movements.

The obvious corollary is that the less intelligent members of society favour right wing parties like the Tories, UKIP BNP and suchlike.

A lifetime of observing my fellow humans confirms me in both views.

The more stupid people are, the more likely they are to believe the myths and mantras of the far right and the press barons.
Mickey
Posted: 13 June 2017 12:26:56(UTC)

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 429

Thanks: 1205 times
Was thanked: 399 time(s) in 199 post(s)
Micawber;47884 wrote:
QE was in fact inspired by the BOE which led the way.

Meanwhile I see that the unelected faceless bureaucrats in Brussels have abolished mobile roaming surcharges throughout the EU. How dare they impose that on our British companies... Monstrous...

That's interesting, I thought the QE experiment began in Japan?
jvl
Posted: 13 June 2017 13:12:19(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 342

Thanks: 192 times
Was thanked: 392 time(s) in 175 post(s)
To me, QE and the decision to bail out the bankers has been more destructive to the young (and most of the rest of us) than any government policy.

Joe Public saw capitalism lose its moral hazard. The young, the poor and the middle saw asset prices soar beyond their means while seeing those already with assets get richer. Bankers who'd been at the top before the crisis stayed in position.

That started in 2008 though, didn't it, under a Labour government, and we didn't hear much protest from any party as it continued under the coalition and conservatives. Even last year, more when it wasn't even needed. Central banks rather than governments...
King Lodos
Posted: 13 June 2017 17:46:41(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,100

Thanks: 395 times
Was thanked: 3021 time(s) in 1196 post(s)
Micawber;47884 wrote:
QE was in fact inspired by the BOE which led the way.


I've not heard that before..

Wikipedia's entry:

A policy termed 'quantitative easing' (量的金融緩和, ryōteki kin'yū kanwa) was first used by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to fight domestic deflation in the early 2000s.[18][34][35][36] The BOJ had maintained short-term interest rates at close to zero since 1999. A policy with the name 'quantitative easing' had first been proposed in 1994 by Richard Werner, then chief economist of Jardine Fleming Securities (Asia) Ltd. in Tokyo, and was defined as an expansion of credit creation for GDP transactions, to be accomplished by central bank purchases of non-performing assets from banks, central bank credit expansion and a switch of government funding from bond issuance to borrowing via loan contracts from banks, arguing that policies such as interest rate reductions or reserve expansion would not work.[37][38][39]The Bank of Japan had for many years, and as late as February 2001, claimed that "quantitative easing ... is not effective" and rejected its use for monetary policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#History
King Lodos
Posted: 13 June 2017 18:01:04(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,100

Thanks: 395 times
Was thanked: 3021 time(s) in 1196 post(s)
jvl;47901 wrote:
To me, QE and the decision to bail out the bankers has been more destructive to the young (and most of the rest of us) than any government policy.

Joe Public saw capitalism lose its moral hazard. The young, the poor and the middle saw asset prices soar beyond their means while seeing those already with assets get richer. Bankers who'd been at the top before the crisis stayed in position.

That started in 2008 though, didn't it, under a Labour government, and we didn't hear much protest from any party as it continued under the coalition and conservatives. Even last year, more when it wasn't even needed. Central banks rather than governments...


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

It's crazy, typing: Iceland Austerity into Google brings up as many leftist blogs claiming Iceland rejected austerity, as it does financial blogs showing the sheer extent of Iceland's austerity.

Iceland's recovery was largely down to austerity .. They cut spending and ran the economy at a surplus until they'd brought their debt under control .. It's simple – no financial wizardry; no secondary asset bubbles; no having your cake and eating it .. Just simple spending controls, and of course necessary reforms .. Two things we've really not done so effectively in Europe.
1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 14/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 13 June 2017 22:40:11(UTC)

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

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 26 post(s)
jvi and others
Indeed there are some who grow older and wiser. Many wise old men are highly thought of and respected.
However not all, some develop attitudes that cannot be changed, irrespective of facts and situations. In fact some of my students have suggested that in the 21st century parts of
Psychology should be modified or even re-written
They identify the following types that often cannot agree anything-
1. Newsbots-News robots, these persons follow one agenda in one type of newspaper believing that what is in them is 100% correct.
2. Massbots-Mass media robots, these follow one type of agenda in mass media, often on top of one type of newspaper.
Both cease to have a brain as they are programmed according to what the read and watch. Often this disease affects persons of older age.
Finally the third type-
3. Socbots-Social media robots. They identify with one set of culture/view and can get very nasty if their views are not upheld on social media. Can affect people of all ages, but includes some of the older variety.
The programming is, repeat the same thing again and again until it is believed in. Strong and stable was an example, but one that did not work.
All of us should take care not to become a bot.
King Lodos
Posted: 14 June 2017 00:36:25(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,100

Thanks: 395 times
Was thanked: 3021 time(s) in 1196 post(s)
Prof Eman;47922 wrote:
In fact some of my students have suggested that in the 21st century parts of
Psychology should be modified or even re-written


That doesn't surprise me one bit .. Rewriting sciences to better accommodate the prejudices of 18-year-olds seems to be what universities are kowtowing to now.

I think this is especially troubling in Economics .. Apparently students feel the Financial Crisis proved Capitalism didn't work (and I know there are professors toeing this line – if not indoctrinating it), so many students at good Universities for Economics are coming out only with knowledge of Marxism .. And quite how these people are going to find jobs in the Financial sector having studied only fan fiction.


Fairly amusing – good luck with those student loans:

5 Most Ridiculous Papers Published by Peer Reviewed Journals
1. Feminist Glaciology
2. Pumpkins are racist, sexist and a symbol of white privilege
3. On all levels except physical, I am a hippopotamus
4. Menstruation is a social construct
5. The scientific method is patriarchal and objectifies nature

http://newmediacentral.net/5-most-ridiculous-gender-studies-papers-published-by-peer-reviewed-journals/
9 Pages«Previous page6789Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets