|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 18:50:18 GMT
No matter how many explanations anyone tries to find, boom and bust is the result of poor government right across the world; they are the oners charged with running a country and its economy and they're a conniving bunch of assholes, whetever the party. The trouble with the 'it's a worldwide boom and bust' argument is that different countries were effected differently due to the decisions taking by their respective governments.. Some countries saw banks go bust and need bailing out due to lax domestic regulation and others didnt see a single financial institution collapse due to the years of prudent regulation. So even in a worldwide economic turmoil it is decisions taken domestically that affect how badly a country is impacted. Or you could go with the argument to save Crash Gordon that governments are all helpless bystanders...  Back in your tory dream world ^ The only Western countries to be less affected by the meltdown were Canada, Australia and Iceland. Iceland let their Banks fail. Australia were more involved in the Asian markets. The meltdown was also followed by a world wide slowdown. So much for you attempt to undermine the levels of damage done. Using the term "Crash Gordon" exposes your typical right-wing immaturity along with your typical right-wing desperation to give life to a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 18:51:58 GMT
No matter how many explanations anyone tries to find, boom and bust is the result of poor government right across the world; they are the oners charged with running a country and its economy and they're a conniving bunch of assholes, whetever the party. The trouble with the 'it's a worldwide boom and bust' argument is that different countries were effected differently due to the decisions taking by their respective governments.. Some countries saw banks go bust and need bailing out due to lax domestic regulation and others didnt see a single financial institution collapse due to the years of prudent regulation. So even in a worldwide economic turmoil it is decisions taken domestically that affect how badly a country is impacted. Or you could go with the argument to save Crash Gordon that governments are all helpless bystanders... Care to name names? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 18:56:57 GMT
I'm pretty sure that had the Conservatives had control of interest rates in 2010 we would have seen them hiked up to 15+% to 'help the economy' This would have refilled the bank vaults at the cost of small business and the public. If you raise interest rates, this is quite likely to reduce paper value of assets held by the rich. Have you noticed during major monetary contractions, banks occasionally go bankrupt? How do they manage that trick while 'filling their vaults'? You have an almost upside down conspiracy theory. Zero interest rates, of course, screws another group. Mags can allude to her mysterious version of the 'business cycle' but unless she tells us what it is Look up 'the business cycle' - it really is no secret I know the business cycle, I'm in business ffs. It seems you don't as you think interest rates and inflation are unrelated to it. Business cycle; High unemployment, cheap production, growth, low unemployment, increased production costs, inflation, lower sales, contraction, recession. Rinse repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 19:04:46 GMT
Some countries saw banks go bust and need bailing out due to lax domestic regulation and others didnt see a single financial institution collapse due to the years of prudent regulation. So even in a worldwide economic turmoil it is decisions taken domestically that affect how badly a country is impacted. Or you could go with the argument to save Crash Gordon that governments are all helpless bystanders... Indeed . Individual government can't really stop the cycle itself, but that doesn't mean they are entirely powerless. Brown was repeatedly warned about the vulnerability of the UK economy, but he seemed immune to reason - "we have entered a new paradigm in which the old rules no longer apply." I remember this lunacy very clearly. The claim the Brown could have reduced public debt instead of building up the NHS. Maybe, though the numbers say it would have made little difference. Could he have saved his pennies and not bailed out the banks? Most economists say he handled the crash about as well as was possible. Better than the Tories increasing borrowing to reduce taxes on the rich, now that really is negligent |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2022 19:15:46 GMT
Brown's "Boom and Bust" was and is about self inflicted boom and bust done deliberately by both Labour and Conservative governments prior to NL changing the system. No One has control over international financial meltdowns especially when they come out of the blue with no prior warnings as in 2007/08. That is the reality, so those who blame Brown for the problem are deluding themselves. We've been here before and no one will ever convince me that international finacial meltdowns come out of the blue, es[ecially when warnings are inherent in the system that causes them. Do you honestly believe there were people in the upper echelons of finance and governmentsa who weren't aware of wehat was about to happen and that their first priority was to save their own backsides. For starters, I am nowhere near as cynical as yourself. I do believe that reality was beginning to dawn on some around 2006 / 2007 but by that time it was too late to do anything about it. ___"The subprime mortgage crisis impact timeline lists dates relevant to the creation of a United States housing bubble and the 2005 housing bubble burst and the subprime mortgage crisis which developed during 2007 and 2008."___ The start of the problem was when somewhere around 2006 the US refused to back-up US banks with their Sub-Prime problems. (They had to do it anyway in 2008) Much of the worthless debt from that market was placed into packages (later described as "sausages" because no one knew exactly what was in them) and slipped into the International Financial markets Via Wall Street. Meaning that much of the blame for the Meltdown lies with the Stock markets and the international financial markets themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2022 20:08:39 GMT
Could he have saved his pennies and not bailed out the banks? This is another discussion. At the moment, the topic under contention is Gordon Brown's words "no more boom and bust', which is clearly a reference to the business cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 21:28:54 GMT
Could he have saved his pennies and not bailed out the banks? This is another discussion. At the moment, the topic under contention is Gordon Brown's words "no more boom and bust', which is clearly a reference to the business cycle. That's been answered. Brown stopped boom and bust in the UK for a decade we saw that. It would have continued on in the UK but for a world crash that Brown had no control over. If you wish to pretend Brown promised to end global boom and busts or stop them affecting the UK. Please feel free. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2022 22:19:27 GMT
That's been answered. Brown stopped boom and bust in the UK for a decade we saw that. Zany, after our prospective King Canute declared that we had entered a new paradigm, we had a crash inline with the business cycle (boom bust). The period of the cycle is in the order of a decade. My own view the main cycle is actually closer to 14 years though this is only rough and it's just my opinion. My prediction is it will start next year or 2024. However (more of my opinion) we tried to paper over the last crash and so we will get a double correction this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2022 22:27:21 GMT
The trouble with the 'it's a worldwide boom and bust' argument is that different countries were effected differently due to the decisions taking by their respective governments.. Some countries saw banks go bust and need bailing out due to lax domestic regulation and others didnt see a single financial institution collapse due to the years of prudent regulation. So even in a worldwide economic turmoil it is decisions taken domestically that affect how badly a country is impacted. Or you could go with the argument to save Crash Gordon that governments are all helpless bystanders... Back in your tory dream world ^ The only Western countries to be less affected by the meltdown were Canada, Australia and Iceland. Iceland let their Banks fail. Australia were more involved in the Asian markets. The meltdown was also followed by a world wide slowdown. So much for you attempt to undermine the levels of damage done. Using the term "Crash Gordon" exposes your typical right-wing immaturity along with your typical right-wing desperation to give life to a lie. Well again, a lot of waffle but no explanation of why Brown couldn't have regulated better. Just face the facts - Crash Gordon was hypnotized by his own PR (just like you were it seems) and had convinced himself that he had abolished the economic cycle... ..and didn't that work out well for the rest of us..  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2022 23:15:47 GMT
That's been answered. Brown stopped boom and bust in the UK for a decade we saw that. Zany, after our prospective King Canute declared that we had entered a new paradigm, we had a crash inline with the business cycle (boom bust). The period of the cycle is in the order of a decade. My own view the main cycle is actually closer to 14 years though this is only rough and it's just my opinion. My prediction is it will start next year or 2024. However (more of my opinion) we tried to paper over the last crash and so we will get a double correction this time. Business cycles do not follow a calendar. They are started, delayed, brought forward and cancelled by a thousand human effects. Wars, plagues, earthquakes, blights, etc etc etc. There is no 14 year cycle. Equally the cycles can be lessened or made worse by political decisions. I totally disagree with your idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 7:38:55 GMT
Zany, after our prospective King Canute declared that we had entered a new paradigm, we had a crash inline with the business cycle (boom bust). The period of the cycle is in the order of a decade. My own view the main cycle is actually closer to 14 years though this is only rough and it's just my opinion. My prediction is it will start next year or 2024. However (more of my opinion) we tried to paper over the last crash and so we will get a double correction this time. Business cycles do not follow a calendar. They are started, delayed, brought forward and cancelled by a thousand human effects. Wars, plagues, earthquakes, blights, etc etc etc. There is no 14 year cycle. Equally the cycles can be lessened or made worse by political decisions. I totally disagree with your idea. are you now accepting that the business cycle exists? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 11, 2022 9:02:30 GMT
Business cycles do not follow a calendar. They are started, delayed, brought forward and cancelled by a thousand human effects. Wars, plagues, earthquakes, blights, etc etc etc. There is no 14 year cycle. Equally the cycles can be lessened or made worse by political decisions. I totally disagree with your idea. are you now accepting that the business cycle exists? I never said it didn't. If you don't stop this stupidity I will start to ignore you as irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 11, 2022 9:55:43 GMT
Back in your tory dream world ^ The only Western countries to be less affected by the meltdown were Canada, Australia and Iceland. Iceland let their Banks fail. Australia were more involved in the Asian markets. The meltdown was also followed by a world wide slowdown. So much for you attempt to undermine the levels of damage done. Using the term "Crash Gordon" exposes your typical right-wing immaturity along with your typical right-wing desperation to give life to a lie. Well again, a lot of waffle but no explanation of why Brown couldn't have regulated better. Just face the facts - Crash Gordon was hypnotized by his own PR (just like you were it seems) and had convinced himself that he had abolished the economic cycle... ..and didn't that work out well for the rest of us.. Why are you so busy repeatedly backing the lie about Brown's use of the term 'Boom and Bust' ? Not only has his use of the term been very clearly explained, it is also down in Black and White recorded in Hansard. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 11, 2022 10:30:53 GMT
We've been here before and no one will ever convince me that international finacial meltdowns come out of the blue, es[ecially when warnings are inherent in the system that causes them. Do you honestly believe there were people in the upper echelons of finance and governmentsa who weren't aware of wehat was about to happen and that their first priority was to save their own backsides. For starters, I am nowhere near as cynical as yourself. I do believe that reality was beginning to dawn on some around 2006 / 2007 but by that time it was too late to do anything about it.___"The subprime mortgage crisis impact timeline lists dates relevant to the creation of a United States housing bubble and the 2005 housing bubble burst and the subprime mortgage crisis which developed during 2007 and 2008."___ The start of the problem was when somewhere around 2006 the US refused to back-up US banks with their Sub-Prime problems. (They had to do it anyway in 2008) Much of the worthless debt from that market was placed into packages (later described as "sausages" because no one knew exactly what was in them) and slipped into the International Financial markets Via Wall Street. Meaning that much of the blame for the Meltdown lies with the Stock markets and the international financial markets themselves. So you finally admit what I have been telling you since this subject was raised, that it is inconcevable that no one knew what was about to happen. Always remember that governments and the commercial world are experts at hiding news that will cause them embarrassment, moreso when they act together; face up tyo the fact that both are crooked when reputations are at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 10:51:05 GMT
Well again, a lot of waffle but no explanation of why Brown couldn't have regulated better. Just face the facts - Crash Gordon was hypnotized by his own PR (just like you were it seems) and had convinced himself that he had abolished the economic cycle... ..and didn't that work out well for the rest of us.. Why are you so busy repeatedly backing the lie about Brown's use of the term 'Boom and Bust' ? Not only has his use of the term been very clearly explained, it is also down in Black and White recorded in Hansard. LOL - I dont know why you keep trying to rewrite history when Crash Gordon had already admitted he was wrong to have claimed to end Boom and Bust. Booms and busts will always occur - it is the job of the Chancellor to anticipate them and prepare for the worst - not to pretend that they will never happen. |
|
