|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 18, 2023 11:08:38 GMT
A growth positive policy might be to reduce taxation. Someone tried that quite recently and civil service soft-couped them Yes, that was the typical Tory way, make the richer richer and wait for the trickle-down. To my knowledge it is an approach that has only ever succeeded in making the rich richer. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 11:13:30 GMT
It's you that is being daft. Irrelevant rumours can indeed cause problems if people believe sentiment may be affected by them (regardless of any mechanical reality). In this case the trick was to use influential channels to brief against the government over something that should have really made little mechanical odds. This is a well known feature of markets and is not at all controversial. You are arguing against what is known to buttress a position which is really, at the end of the day, just a matter of opinion And only you and a few non business people know this apparently. 🙄So pension companies that have been investing in government bonds for decades, if not centuries were suddenly put off by false rumours, rather than by un-costed tax cuts for the rich introduced in a non budget by a person who took office a week before and refused to use the normal due diligence. Yeah sure.
Still makes another mild to average conspiracy.
Everyone who knows anything about economics knows this - this is not arcane knowledge. The trick here was to use high-level influential channels to brief against the government and cause uncertainty about sentiment. The actual problem itself was trivial and wouldn't have mattered - but that's not what is important to an investor. Of course, the civil service was fully aware of triviality of the hole and would have been involved both in its construction and then advertising it as some kind of disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 18, 2023 11:16:24 GMT
A growth positive policy might be to reduce taxation. Someone tried that quite recently and civil service soft-couped them Yes, that was the typical Tory way, make the richer richer and wait for the trickle-down. To my knowledge it is an approach that has only ever succeeded in making the rich richer. So in all fairness the first half worked.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 18, 2023 11:19:25 GMT
And only you and a few non business people know this apparently. 🙄So pension companies that have been investing in government bonds for decades, if not centuries were suddenly put off by false rumours, rather than by un-costed tax cuts for the rich introduced in a non budget by a person who took office a week before and refused to use the normal due diligence. Yeah sure.
Still makes another mild to average conspiracy.
Everyone who knows anything about economics knows this - this is not arcane knowledge. The trick here was to use high-level influential channels to brief against the government and cause uncertainty about sentiment. The actual problem itself was trivial and wouldn't have mattered - but that's not what is important to an investor. Of course, the civil service was fully aware of triviality of the hole and would have been involved both in its construction and then advertising it as some kind of disaster. Ahh those "high-level influential channels" Made up of economists and experts. They should never listen to them, far better some nobodies who love a good conspiracy. Yes if high-level influential channels say something is wrong the market does get spooked. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 18, 2023 11:22:02 GMT
Everyone who knows anything about economics knows this - this is not arcane knowledge. The trick here was to use high-level influential channels to brief against the government and cause uncertainty about sentiment. The actual problem itself was trivial and wouldn't have mattered - but that's not what is important to an investor. Of course, the civil service was fully aware of triviality of the hole and would have been involved both in its construction and then advertising it as some kind of disaster. Yes if high-level influential channels say something is wrong the market does get spooked. Isn't that what you were just told? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 11:26:04 GMT
Everyone who knows anything about economics knows this - this is not arcane knowledge. The trick here was to use high-level influential channels to brief against the government and cause uncertainty about sentiment. The actual problem itself was trivial and wouldn't have mattered - but that's not what is important to an investor. Of course, the civil service was fully aware of triviality of the hole and would have been involved both in its construction and then advertising it as some kind of disaster. Ahh those "high-level influential channels" Made up of economists and experts. An honest economist viewing influential channels briefing hysterically about a non issue, will make the rational prediction that sentiment may well be negatively affected. The rational and the non-rational merge because it is rational to take irrationality into account. The proof is in the pudding here, in that the issue itself was tiny in any mechanical sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 18, 2023 11:30:31 GMT
This is the problem there is a shortage of trainee nurses/doctors/health care workers, I'm not sure why this is, as far as I'm concerned for young people it's a good starting salary.
The national average salary for a Trainee Nurse is £26,459 in United Kingdom. Filter by location to see Trainee Nurse salaries in your area. Salary estimates are based on 44 salaries submitted anonymously to Glassdoor by Trainee Nurse employees.
Once they start moving up bands the bigger their salaries.
Trainee nurse or newly qualified nurse? The starting salary of a BSC nurse i The average nurse salary in UK per month is 4,541 GBP which is calculated to be around 54,500 GBP per year. Further, the salaries of a working nurse can range from 28,300 GBP to 83,300 GBP per year. This average salary per year includes various benefits like housing, transport and other allowances |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 18, 2023 12:17:01 GMT
Yes if high-level influential channels say something is wrong the market does get spooked. Isn't that what you were just told? No, I was told it was a man with a sandwich board. Then he changed into a high-level influential channel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 12:17:12 GMT
The fact that the tax cuts were entirely uncosted and the OBR was deliberately not consulted spooked the markets. The Kwarteng budget was a triumph of ideology over realism, and reality hit back hard. You are very naïve. The amounts of money were trivial and the civil service itself is in the middle of the process. Of course, leaving yourself vulnerable like this bad political form, but the civil service typically has to be relied on and this is their power. So the economic disaster that demonstrably was the Truss/Kwarteng budget was all the fault of civil servants? It wasn't them who reacted badly but the money markets. You are edging close to spouting the makings of a conspiracy theory, apparently the only way you can still hold on to an ideological belief demonstrated to be disastrous when enacted. That does not mean that tax cutting is always going to be disastrous, of course not. But tax cuts and spending do need to be costed in ways that convince the markets. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 18, 2023 12:23:23 GMT
Ahh those "high-level influential channels" Made up of economists and experts. An honest economist viewing influential channels briefing hysterically about a non issue, will make the rational prediction that sentiment may well be negatively affected. The rational and the non-rational merge because it is rational to take irrationality into account. The proof is in the pudding here, in that the issue itself was tiny in any mechanical sense. Any economist who wants to be taken seriously has to be honest. Why do you think the FT or Forbes value their reputation so much. One dishonest economist is no going to rock the market, if that was possible the market would be manipulated and bankrupt by scammers a hundred times over by now. The issue was tiny? really? The UK economy coming out of a pandemic with its highest debt since WW2 after 12 years of austerity and slow growth decides to give all the rich a bonus instead of paying down its debt. All this in an un-costed unbudgeted surprise change of course. The word banana republic springs to mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 12:26:48 GMT
It doesn't make much sense Hunt helping millionaire pensioners back to work, if they are millionaires the odds are they had high flying jobs, he needs to encourage retired nurses, health care professionals, he's targeting the wrong type of retirees to return back to work. Indeed you are correct. He gave a billion pound tax give way to the wealthiest 15,000 people in the country, whilst freezing tax thresholds for the rest of us. The excuse used was to encourage doctors back to work, but how many of those 15,000 are actually doctors? Very few I would wager. It would have been far cheaper to have actually paid retired doctors directly sums that made it worth their while to return. Of course, some of the beneficiaries of this tax cut are the millionaires in the cabinet, none of whom are doctors. Self serving greedy bastards again, more interested in the interests of rich people like and including themselves, than they are in the rest of us. In terms of winning public favour, that tax cut is a gift to Labour and the sort of thing that they will inevitably go on about simply because they know it looks bad to most people. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 12:26:51 GMT
No, I was told it was a man with a sandwich board. Then he changed into a high-level influential channel. No - you aren't paying attention. It was a man with a sandwich board who was relentlessly publicised as a sentiment problem by influential channel/ channels The primary concern of the investor is aggregate sentiment - it trumps any reality. Many bank runs could be avoided if depositors kept their money in banks - but that isn't what happens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemmaYou may not agree with my diagnosis of what happened and that's fine, but you are arguing against it by arguing that well known and significant features of markets are something I just made up - which is a daft way to argue. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 12:30:45 GMT
You are very naïve. The amounts of money were trivial and the civil service itself is in the middle of the process. Of course, leaving yourself vulnerable like this bad political form, but the civil service typically has to be relied on and this is their power. So the economic disaster that demonstrably was the Truss/Kwarteng budget was all the fault of civil servants? Yes - it certainly wasn't anything to do with a couple of billion pounds lost in a sea of unrestrained covid and Ukraine splurging. You can see now there are international moves afoot to prevent governments competing by reducing taxation. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 18, 2023 12:34:41 GMT
No, I was told it was a man with a sandwich board. Then he changed into a high-level influential channel. Which you also changed into experts after admitting it was all purely guesswork. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 18, 2023 12:38:23 GMT
A growth positive policy might be to reduce taxation. Someone tried that quite recently and civil service soft-couped them Yes, that was the typical Tory way, make the richer richer and wait for the trickle-down. To my knowledge it is an approach that has only ever succeeded in making the rich richer. That is because those who want to be rich get off their arses and do.
You sit on yours and blame everyone else for being one of life's failures
|
|
