|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 10, 2022 8:21:07 GMT
Yes they do,the whole point of changing the economy to a services economy. Which Brown knew full well. There's quite a difference between effecting and being the effect. But certainly British banks helped the crash. When New Labour banned self certificating mortgages in the UK many of our banks moved their lending to the U.S market with its almost invisible regulations. Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 8:28:37 GMT
There's quite a difference between effecting and being the effect. But certainly British banks helped the crash. When New Labour banned self certificating mortgages in the UK many of our banks moved their lending to the U.S market with its almost invisible regulations. Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. If you have nothing to say, why not shut up? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 10, 2022 8:36:54 GMT
Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. If you have nothing to say, why not shut up? Because listening to morons without a clue needs to be put right or we just keep the same cycle. Which isn't good for the masses. They end up with zero choices. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 8:44:53 GMT
If you have nothing to say, why not shut up? Because listening to morons without a clue needs to be put right or we just keep the same cycle. Which isn't good for the masses. They end up with zero choices. Why not try staying on subject, then people could see your wisdom instead of crap like this . ↓↓↓ Sheepy Wrote: Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 10, 2022 8:48:10 GMT
Because listening to morons without a clue needs to be put right or we just keep the same cycle. Which isn't good for the masses. They end up with zero choices. Why not try staying on subject, then people could see your wisdom instead of crap like this . ↓↓↓ Sheepy Wrote: Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. Because that is exactly what you did, because you couldn't face the fact, that globally speaking Brown knew the economy was changed to a service economy to create global impacts. Which in turn the public were at the mercy of global recession and global boom and bust. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 8:55:45 GMT
Why not try staying on subject, then people could see your wisdom instead of crap like this . ↓↓↓ Sheepy Wrote: Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. Because that is exactly what you did, because you couldn't face the fact, that globally speaking Brown knew the economy was changed to a service economy to create global impacts. Which in turn the public were at the mercy of global recession and global boom and bust. So you are arguing that Brown should have prevented British banks expanding the service industry? How do you think he could have done that? Do you think the Conservative party should do it now? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 10, 2022 8:57:48 GMT
Because that is exactly what you did, because you couldn't face the fact, that globally speaking Brown knew the economy was changed to a service economy to create global impacts. Which in turn the public were at the mercy of global recession and global boom and bust. So you are arguing that Brown should have prevented British banks expanding the service industry? How do you think he could have done that? Do you think the Conservative party should do it now? I am just giving the facts of the matter skirting around the edges on behalf of the western party and trying to cover for them will just get you more of the same as it has come to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2022 11:24:13 GMT
Stop confusing history and current. We were discussing New labour 1997 and Gordon Browns claim to have ended boom and bust which you called the business cycle. 'boom and bust' is a reference to the business cycle - that is, the historic and ongoing pattern of booms and busts called the business cycle. Before 1997 interest rates varied from 5% to 18% After Blair gave control to the BofE they varied from 2 to 6%. Why are you talking about 2008 onwards. I'm only talking about interest rates at all because you are using the fact they have been artificially held low for over decade to draw all sorts of perverse and unwarranted conclusions about what the term 'boom and bust' means. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 12:33:04 GMT
It seems as though you now agree that the old pre-NL means of controlling the economy was through the use of boom and bust policies. You seem to be reading upside down - Interest rates were set artificially (politically) near zero, to bail out asset holders. In other word, the controlling really kicked in with the artificially low interest rates 'boom and bust' is the way our market economy works and the pattern has been noted since the industrial revolution. Interest rates were pretty much allowed to follow the market, inflation was aimed at 2%. Either way they were set by the bank of England not by politicians. The market economy has its own highs and lows which is entirely different to the government having and using direct control of interests rates and inflation and using them to control the economy and also using them politically in an attempt to influence voters in an oncoming election. You are confusing the two in order to turn Brown's use of boom and bust into a lie. Shame on you. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 12:52:10 GMT
Stop confusing history and current. We were discussing New labour 1997 and Gordon Browns claim to have ended boom and bust which you called the business cycle. Before 1997 interest rates varied from 5% to 18% After Blair gave control to the BofE they varied from 2 to 6%. Why are you talking about 2008 onwards. Interest rates are not set by the business cycle - they are a purely political decision. The idea that interest rates are a measure of boom and bust is quite funny. __"Bank of England Base Rate. This is the most important interest rate because it is the rate at which other commercial banks need to borrow from the Bank of England. Therefore, the base rate is an important determinant of other rates in the economy. Generally, speaking the Bank of England is free to set base rates to achieve its target of low inflation CPI 2%+/-1. At certain times markets may pressurise the Bank of England to change rates, but largely the Bank of England is free to set rates depending on how it sees fit."__ I.E. NOT used at the whim of politicians. Which is exactly what Brown intended to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2022 12:56:14 GMT
Interest rates were pretty much allowed to follow the market, inflation was aimed at 2%. Either way they were set by the bank of England not by politicians. Because the rate is not officially set by elected politicians, doesn't mean that the monopoly situation isn't being used politically. A clearly artificial situation has been maintained across much of the western world. You can see this easily by looking at the history. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 13:12:40 GMT
Now you have to squirm your way out of that. Sad but true. If you have nothing to say, why not shut up? Trying to explain the obvious to people stuck with fixed opinions is very difficult, they are the ones who create road blocks to progress and just don't understand how negative they are. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 13:24:05 GMT
Interest rates were pretty much allowed to follow the market, inflation was aimed at 2%. Either way they were set by the bank of England not by politicians. Because the rate is not officially set by elected politicians, doesn't mean that the monopoly situation isn't being used politically. A clearly artificial situation has been maintained across much of the western world. You can see this easily by looking at the history. It isn't being used politically it is being used out of the direct control of politicians, in order to improve the economy. If you can't or refuse to see the obvious difference, then that is you CHOICE. I recall talking to a CEO in the late 1980s, he stated that it was so difficult to plan for future business when there was no stability in interest rate levels. Your refusal to open your mind up to relative information is a disappointment, |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 13:27:56 GMT
Stop confusing history and current. We were discussing New labour 1997 and Gordon Browns claim to have ended boom and bust which you called the business cycle. 'boom and bust' is a reference to the business cycle - that is, the historic and ongoing pattern of booms and busts called the business cycle. Before 1997 interest rates varied from 5% to 18% After Blair gave control to the BofE they varied from 2 to 6%. Why are you talking about 2008 onwards. I'm only talking about interest rates at all because you are using the fact they have been artificially held low for over decade to draw all sorts of perverse and unwarranted conclusions about what the term 'boom and bust' means. Are you seriously trying to claim that interest rates are not used to control inflation and that inflation is nothing to do with boom and bust? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2022 13:37:22 GMT
Are you seriously trying to claim that interest rates are not used to control inflation and that inflation is nothing to do with boom and bust? That's a bit of stretched straw-man isn't it? I'm saying that we know what 'boom and bust' refers to and has referred to for decades (if not centuries). Your charts are an irrelevancy here. |
|
