And after the sunshine...

[DeppityDawg]

What I mean is that they have handed the responsibility for solving a lot of issues to future generations and deferred all sorts of obligations onto the future.  

- Addressing climate change - too expensive leave that to the next generation and our voters don't want to pay tax.

- Addressing social care needs for an ageing population - too expensive.  We're only here for 5 years and our voters don't want to pay more tax.  Next government's problem.

- People in a decade or two from now and beyond won't have any decent pension even though they're theoretically expected to live till they are over 100 - too expensive - not our problem.  Next government please resolve.  (this is in the context that in the UK currently, pensioners have a higher mean income than working people - time bomb or not?)

- Keeping the country pandemic stockpile up to date, replacing expired items and refreshing the stock based on current risk - too expensive - our voters don't like paying tax to pay for this....



Debts are not just in the form of official numbers but also in long term problems that you are choosing to leave to the future.



This is what you voted for.



Now of course, for example, if you believe climate change doesn't exist and it was all invented by the middle classes in order to charge too much taxes to the working classes and create fake jobs doing fake research rather than building real widgets, obviously you will think all the above is BS.



OK - setting that all aside let's discuss the domino theory - I don't recall discussing that before with you but we can start a thread on it?

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Unless we pay more taxes, we'll get spending cuts or more debt, or both. The last Labour government were the same.



The domino theory is that if one G20 nation defaults on its sovereign debt, because debt is so intertwined it will take other national economies with it. Its like if a big customer of your Employer goes bang, your job might go with it. Greece was small enough to bail out. Think "Italy". Italy was in sh*t street even before this.

[Javert]

Make your mind up ffs. Which is it? "The Conservative party pass on a lot of obligations to future generations" or the "the Conservative attitude is it's disastrous to have any debts"?



Yes, most people have household debt, but running a country is a little more difficult than running a household. We already have something approaching 100% of GDP on the credit card. It seems even the Tories can find magic money trees when its suits them.



I've tried to discuss the risks of interest rates, deflation and sovereign debt crises with you before, but that was a waste of time. I'm not an economist either, but I understand the domino theory that will undoubtedly bring the whole house of cards crashing down if anyone so much as sneezes in the future

What I mean is that they have handed the responsibility for solving a lot of issues to future generations and deferred all sorts of obligations onto the future.  

- Addressing climate change - too expensive leave that to the next generation and our voters don't want to pay tax.

- Addressing social care needs for an ageing population - too expensive.  We're only here for 5 years and our voters don't want to pay more tax.  Next government's problem.

- People in a decade or two from now and beyond won't have any decent pension even though they're theoretically expected to live till they are over 100 - too expensive - not our problem.  Next government please resolve.  (this is in the context that in the UK currently, pensioners have a higher mean income than working people - time bomb or not?)

- Keeping the country pandemic stockpile up to date, replacing expired items and refreshing the stock based on current risk - too expensive - our voters don't like paying tax to pay for this....



Debts are not just in the form of official numbers but also in long term problems that you are choosing to leave to the future.



This is what you voted for.



Now of course, for example, if you believe climate change doesn't exist and it was all invented by the middle classes in order to charge too much taxes to the working classes and create fake jobs doing fake research rather than building real widgets, obviously you will think all the above is BS.



OK - setting that all aside let's discuss the domino theory - I don't recall discussing that before with you but we can start a thread on it?

[DeppityDawg]

Yes, and I would rather pay more taxes than die.



The Conservative party is always a party that prioritised low taxes today and passed on a lot of obligations to future generations, and to be fair Labour hasn't been much better but at least a little better.  That's one main reason I don't normally vote Convervative.  



From my understanding of economics, which I admit is nothing like degree level, the Convervative attitude to the national debt is similar to the person who says that they won't borrow any money to buy a house or a car or whatever because it's disastrous to have any debts.  Many individuals in this country have debts equivalent to 3 or 4 times their annual income, and nobody thinks twice about it, whereas if the nation has even 50% of GDP as debt, we are told it's the end of the world.



And this in spite of the fact that I think after WW2 we had 2 or 3 times GDP as debt and yet we are still here today.

Make your mind up ffs. Which is it? "The Conservative party pass on a lot of obligations to future generations" or the "the Conservative attitude is it's disastrous to have any debts"?



Yes, most people have household debt, but running a country is a little more difficult than running a household. We already have something approaching 100% of GDP on the credit card. It seems even the Tories can find magic money trees when its suits them.



I've tried to discuss the risks of interest rates, deflation and sovereign debt crises with you before, but that was a waste of time. I'm not an economist either, but I understand the domino theory that will undoubtedly bring the whole house of cards crashing down if anyone so much as sneezes in the future

[B0ycey]

And this in spite of the fact that I think after WW2 we had 2 or 3 times GDP as debt and yet we are still here today.

The government can have as much debt as it wants as it can never go bankrupt. The only impact from debt monetization is inflation which is why using MMT practices, governments who are suffering from deflation will borrow more even if they don't have to. Japan for example has 200% GDP. But governments need to bring in tax to equal their debt repayments because otherwise confidence in sterling will be lost causing currency devaluation. Some countries prefer a surplus so they have room to spend big in the future without costs going up for the consumer. There is no direct consequence to the country in borrowing for our response for Covid19 but it will indirectly cause inflation. Also taxes is only one way to pay back glits and bonds. Reducing interest rates is another. You could even have a negative and make the bonds pay you. But as most of this borrowing is governments paying itself, this perhaps will have little impact today and we will see the end of the triple lock and other social reforms to pay for this. You don't seriously think the Tories are going to make their donors pay for this?

[Javert]

This is a mistake, because we all know who ultimately funds government, and that is Mr taxpayer. The money we enjoy today in the form of bond purchases (whoever buys them) will become liable to be repaid by someone, and that will be the next generation in the form of much higher taxes. Jam today.

Yes, and I would rather pay more taxes than die.



The Conservative party is always a party that prioritised low taxes today and passed on a lot of obligations to future generations, and to be fair Labour hasn't been much better but at least a little better.  That's one main reason I don't normally vote Convervative.  



From my understanding of economics, which I admit is nothing like degree level, the Convervative attitude to the national debt is similar to the person who says that they won't borrow any money to buy a house or a car or whatever because it's disastrous to have any debts.  Many individuals in this country have debts equivalent to 3 or 4 times their annual income, and nobody thinks twice about it, whereas if the nation has even 50% of GDP as debt, we are told it's the end of the world.



And this in spite of the fact that I think after WW2 we had 2 or 3 times GDP as debt and yet we are still here today.

[DeppityDawg]

I think you probably know that I just picked Prince Harry randomly so going off on a tirade about him specifically is not the point i was trying to make.



The point is more that hypocrites who do some good, are better than really nasty rich people who deliberately don't do anything to help or even actively try to harm people who have less than them.



My response about jobs was because in previous posts you were talking as if the entire country is going to stop and everyone will be out of a job.  Obviously it's a disaster if 25% of people are unemployed.  My belief is that it won't last forever, and my belief is that the furlough scheme should be extended as long as necessary to help those people, even if it means putting the countries debt up to WW2 levels.  After WW2, our debt was about 2 or 3 orders of magnitude higher than it is now, under much higher interest rates, and we are still here.  



Also, there is no law against raising taxes on people still working and richer people to pay for some of that - I'm sure the Tories want to make a law against that, but I am happy to pay more taxes to contribute as needed.  That sets me aside by the way from many of the real rich people that you guys seem to worship like Rees Mogg and so on who seem to think that the absolute richest people should pay no tax or the least tax.



If those people are out of work and start to starve, it will be due to right wing austerity policies taking priority over feeding the people of your own country, in an environment where interest rates are almost zero, and in any case, as you pointed out previously, a large portion of government debt is effectively borrowed from ourselves and just dilutes our long term wealth anyway - the only thing that really counts in the end is long term productivity of real items.



I didn't vote for those policies so my conscience is clear on that point.  I have consistently voted for parties that wanted to charge me personally a lot more taxes in order to help people who are less fortunate than me, in every election for about 20 years as far as I can remember.

Just a correction. I don't worship Rees Mogg or any other Tory. I've also advocated that we should all [particularly certain corporations that seem to constantly get away without paying enough or even any tax] pay more tax. So please, don't lay that on me. I come from a disadvantaged background, Javert, so I know a little about being "less fortunate", thanks very much. The one and only time I've ever voted Tory was at the last election, because of the shocking way the parties opposed to Brexit behaved - and I say that as someone who voted remain.



The problems generally arise with what Governments then choose to spend that tax revenue on. "Long term" debt, indeed most government borrowing to fund budget shortfalls, is basically done through bonds or gilts. QE is essentially the BoE buying the Governments own debt, because investors have less appetite now for the risk of purchasing ever more indebted governments bond programmes. There seems to be some kind of illusion that this money never has to be repaid. This is a mistake, because we all know who ultimately funds government, and that is Mr taxpayer. The money we enjoy today in the form of bond purchases (whoever buys them) will become liable to be repaid by someone, and that will be the next generation in the form of much higher taxes. Jam today.

[B0ycey]

That's not my point - my point is that something is better than nothing if you are the person on the receiving end, at least rationally.

To be honest, I was just clarifying someone elses point. You seemed to argue that charity is better than the cure whereas your opponent says the charity is the result to maximise their privilege so were arguing from different points of view. Although this is called Philantrocapitalism, where the problem which causes the original class and privilege is maintained by charity and as such the original problem that caused the divide to begin with persists and needs to be maintained by more charity. It doesn't address the cause. And if anything just extends the class divide further.

[Javert]

Oh for pity sake, Javert, they TRADE on it. Why do you think Harry and Megs wanted to make "Harry & Megs PLC" ffs? Why do you think the Social Media generation think "likes" is the equivalent of being right on and cool? Its complete bullshot. Perhaps they do do it out of consciousness, and, the side effect is that it makes them look "kind" and "caring". = more money = more celebrity. Its not the same as someone whose chosen to spend a life working with Sans Frontieres or volunteering to work on the ground in places like South Africa or India - people who may not have had their privilege or opportunity but do these things out of a sense of duty and compassion, not because IT MAKES THEM LOOK GOOD.



Of course there will still be restuarants open - that isn't the fecking point. The point is that many wont be able to afford to go to them anymore, no matter what they charge. The restaurant's orders for food fall, so their suppliers are getting less orders and less revenue, so they lay people off, or stop ordering from their suppliers, and the whole vicious circle repeats itself.



"oh its ok, more than half the people will still have jobs"? Are you for real? Do you even understand what a recession is? Do you know who suffers the most in recessions? I'll give you a clue. They didn't have much money to go to fecking restaurants in the first place?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/16/low-paid-workers-bear-brunt-of-coronavirus-recession-study-shows">https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tudy-shows">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/16/low-paid-workers-bear-brunt-of-coronavirus-recession-study-shows

I think you probably know that I just picked Prince Harry randomly so going off on a tirade about him specifically is not the point i was trying to make.



The point is more that hypocrites who do some good, are better than really nasty rich people who deliberately don't do anything to help or even actively try to harm people who have less than them.



My response about jobs was because in previous posts you were talking as if the entire country is going to stop and everyone will be out of a job.  Obviously it's a disaster if 25% of people are unemployed.  My belief is that it won't last forever, and my belief is that the furlough scheme should be extended as long as necessary to help those people, even if it means putting the countries debt up to WW2 levels.  After WW2, our debt was about 2 or 3 orders of magnitude higher than it is now, under much higher interest rates, and we are still here.  



Also, there is no law against raising taxes on people still working and richer people to pay for some of that - I'm sure the Tories want to make a law against that, but I am happy to pay more taxes to contribute as needed.  That sets me aside by the way from many of the real rich people that you guys seem to worship like Rees Mogg and so on who seem to think that the absolute richest people should pay no tax or the least tax.



If those people are out of work and start to starve, it will be due to right wing austerity policies taking priority over feeding the people of your own country, in an environment where interest rates are almost zero, and in any case, as you pointed out previously, a large portion of government debt is effectively borrowed from ourselves and just dilutes our long term wealth anyway - the only thing that really counts in the end is long term productivity of real items.



I didn't vote for those policies so my conscience is clear on that point.  I have consistently voted for parties that wanted to charge me personally a lot more taxes in order to help people who are less fortunate than me, in every election for about 20 years as far as I can remember.

[Javert]

No, he is saying Harrys/Beckhams privilege make it hypocritical. That is, they will support a cause but their actions due to convenience within their lifestyle contradicts the cause they support. Like the environmentalist globe trotter to the millionaire who supports feeding the poor, we in the West do not know what true poverty is and that in order to have our life style, someone else has to suffer in return.

That's not my point - my point is that something is better than nothing if you are the person on the receiving end, at least rationally.



I don't deny that it's hypocritical, but fundamentally any charitable donation is hypocritical if you have more money than the people who are going to be helped by that charity.



My argument is that a hypocrite who does something to help is better than someone who does nothing, or someone who actively says "I'm rich and I'm not giving a penny to those poor scumbags" or whatever.  That last person is not a hypocrite, but on what planet are they a better person?

[DeppityDawg]

That depends on your position on economics I guess.  Let's say Prince Harry decides to give 10% of his fortune to poorer people, and because of that, 1000 poorer people have a better life, all the food they need etc etc, but they are not as rich as him.



Are you saying that's worse than him not doing anything at all because it's hypocritical?



If you look at it from a purely rational/logical viewpoint, it's much better to have someone who is rich help you out, than to starve, even if that person stayed rich.



This is what I don't get - your view seems to be based on the underlying assumption that rich people should never help poor people because that makes them hypocrites, or at least that any help they provide should be scoffed at and ridiculed, just because they didn't give up everything.



The alternative that you appear to suggest of everyone deliberately becoming as poor as the poorest person is completely against human nature and has been tried (or at least claimed to be tried) and it simply doesn't work, or at least it just results in everyone (or at least 99.9%) staying poor forever.



My argument would be that hypocrisy is inevitable in a complex reality, and the accusation of hypocrisy against those who offer charity without giving away their entire assets is counter productive because they will then think "if that's the thanks I get, stuff you then" and give nothing next time.



Also - I wasn't suggesting all restaurants could all double their prices and every restaurant will stay in business etc etc.  Many restaurants will go bust, as already happens all the time.  What I'm saying is that if every restaurant in the world that can stay open (unless you are saying every restaurant in the world will close forever?) has increased fixed costs compared to the number of customers, then increasing prices is competitively possible for all of them.  I don't agree that 100% of people will have no money to go to restaurants in future - as I pointed out before, even in the US great depression, there were still restaurants and bars open and way more than half of people still had jobs.



I'm not saying there isn't going to be massive changes and many of us will for sure lose our jobs.  For sure this will happen, but it will come back over time.

Oh for pity sake, Javert, they TRADE on it. Why do you think Harry and Megs wanted to make "Harry & Megs PLC" ffs? Why do you think the Social Media generation think "likes" is the equivalent of being right on and cool? Its complete bullshot. Perhaps they do do it out of consciousness, and, the side effect is that it makes them look "kind" and "caring". = more money = more celebrity. Its not the same as someone whose chosen to spend a life working with Sans Frontieres or volunteering to work on the ground in places like South Africa or India - people who may not have had their privilege or opportunity but do these things out of a sense of duty and compassion, not because IT MAKES THEM LOOK GOOD.



Of course there will still be restuarants open - that isn't the fecking point. The point is that many wont be able to afford to go to them anymore, no matter what they charge. The restaurant's orders for food fall, so their suppliers are getting less orders and less revenue, so they lay people off, or stop ordering from their suppliers, and the whole vicious circle repeats itself.



"oh its ok, more than half the people will still have jobs"? Are you for real? Do you even understand what a recession is? Do you know who suffers the most in recessions? I'll give you a clue. They didn't have much money to go to fecking restaurants in the first place?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/16/low-paid-workers-bear-brunt-of-coronavirus-recession-study-shows">https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tudy-shows">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/16/low-paid-workers-bear-brunt-of-coronavirus-recession-study-shows

One in three of lowest-paid have either lost their jobs or been furloughed, Resolution Foundation finds

[B0ycey]

Are you saying that's worse than him not doing anything at all because it's hypocritical?

No, he is saying Harrys/Beckhams privilege make it hypocritical. That is, they will support a cause but their actions due to convenience within their lifestyle contradicts the cause they support. Like the environmentalist globe trotter to the millionaire who supports feeding the poor, we in the West do not know what true poverty is and that in order to have our life style, someone else has to suffer in return.

[Javert]

Also Deppity - I hope you feel better after your rant but your comments don't even make sense - how can it be Elitist to "tend to also be champions of climate change "science", and also social conscious driven economic illiterates who think money to pay for every last idealist heart desire can be printed without consequences forever. "  Surely if you support everyone having all their desires all the time that would be the opposite of Elitist.

Right. Do you think David Beckham, Prince Harry, and countless other virtue signalling celebs and Hollywood stars would actually give up their privileges and do something meaningful to change the status quo if they had the chance? Don't these kind of people support every trendy facebook and hashtag cause you can wave a big fecking stick at? What about Hampstead liberals earning 250k per annum? Would they actually change the world if it meant giving up their privileged lives and living as ordinary people, instead of pretending that fair trade coffee and offset miles will save the planet? In fact, the whole western world? You, me, the bloke with the Porsche down the road who earns more In an hour than someone in India will this entire month?



Its complete bull**** Javert. Most Westerners have never been out of their comfort zones in their lives. They don't even know what true inequality and poverty look like. Instead, we get privileged, over educated Middle class idiots giving the time of day to the likes of Emma Thompsons, who travels the world by Jet while campaigning alongside climate extremists. Its banal.

Anyway I suspect you just fancy a fight today so it's not much point arguing.  

I'll have a fight any day if someone talks shite. You are the one who suggested that to stay in business, restaurants could charge double the price to cope with half capacity, in a world that's about the enter the deepest recession in 3 centuries and with unemployment about to go off the scale. What about Land Rovers - sales are down 90% or so. Never mind, they can now charge 200% of the pre lockdown price and everything will be fine, eh? Talk about economic illiteracy.

That depends on your position on economics I guess.  Let's say Prince Harry decides to give 10% of his fortune to poorer people, and because of that, 1000 poorer people have a better life, all the food they need etc etc, but they are not as rich as him.



Are you saying that's worse than him not doing anything at all because it's hypocritical?



If you look at it from a purely rational/logical viewpoint, it's much better to have someone who is rich help you out, than to starve, even if that person stayed rich.



This is what I don't get - your view seems to be based on the underlying assumption that rich people should never help poor people because that makes them hypocrites, or at least that any help they provide should be scoffed at and ridiculed, just because they didn't give up everything.



The alternative that you appear to suggest of everyone deliberately becoming as poor as the poorest person is completely against human nature and has been tried (or at least claimed to be tried) and it simply doesn't work, or at least it just results in everyone (or at least 99.9%) staying poor forever.



My argument would be that hypocrisy is inevitable in a complex reality, and the accusation of hypocrisy against those who offer charity without giving away their entire assets is counter productive because they will then think "if that's the thanks I get, stuff you then" and give nothing next time.



Also - I wasn't suggesting all restaurants could all double their prices and every restaurant will stay in business etc etc.  Many restaurants will go bust, as already happens all the time.  What I'm saying is that if every restaurant in the world that can stay open (unless you are saying every restaurant in the world will close forever?) has increased fixed costs compared to the number of customers, then increasing prices is competitively possible for all of them.  I don't agree that 100% of people will have no money to go to restaurants in future - as I pointed out before, even in the US great depression, there were still restaurants and bars open and way more than half of people still had jobs.



I'm not saying there isn't going to be massive changes and many of us will for sure lose our jobs.  For sure this will happen, but it will come back over time.

[DeppityDawg]

Also Deppity - I hope you feel better after your rant but your comments don't even make sense - how can it be Elitist to "tend to also be champions of climate change "science", and also social conscious driven economic illiterates who think money to pay for every last idealist heart desire can be printed without consequences forever. "  Surely if you support everyone having all their desires all the time that would be the opposite of Elitist.

Right. Do you think David Beckham, Prince Harry, and countless other virtue signalling celebs and Hollywood stars would actually give up their privileges and do something meaningful to change the status quo if they had the chance? Don't these kind of people support every trendy facebook and hashtag cause you can wave a big fecking stick at? What about Hampstead liberals earning 250k per annum? Would they actually change the world if it meant giving up their privileged lives and living as ordinary people, instead of pretending that fair trade coffee and offset miles will save the planet? In fact, the whole western world? You, me, the bloke with the Porsche down the road who earns more In an hour than someone in India will this entire month?



Its complete bull**** Javert. Most Westerners have never been out of their comfort zones in their lives. They don't even know what true inequality and poverty look like. Instead, we get privileged, over educated Middle class idiots giving the time of day to the likes of Emma Thompsons, who travels the world by Jet while campaigning alongside climate extremists. Its banal.

Anyway I suspect you just fancy a fight today so it's not much point arguing.  

I'll have a fight any day if someone talks shite. You are the one who suggested that to stay in business, restaurants could charge double the price to cope with half capacity, in a world that's about the enter the deepest recession in 3 centuries and with unemployment about to go off the scale. What about Land Rovers - sales are down 90% or so. Never mind, they can now charge 200% of the pre lockdown price and everything will be fine, eh? Talk about economic illiteracy.

[Javert]

which seems a rather unusual way to behave when your life style is supported by predicting half a million will lie dead in gutters from this disease unless we do what he says, while leaving him to do what he does  ...

Quote Deppitydawg - The term "liberal elitists" obviously ruffles a few feathers on here, but what could be more elitist and entitled than telling everyone else to behave in a certain way, then doing the exact opposite yourself?

Not unusual at all.  In fact I would suggest that this kind of hypocrisy is completely common in almost all humans, and I'll bet that if I followed you both around for a few days with a camera drone I'd find a few examples as well.



Obvious ones which spring to mind:

- A doctor advises their patient that smoking is bad for them and to give up, whilst themselves being a smoker.  Does that invalidate the advice?

- Winston Churchill sends soldiers to their deaths on army rations whilst drinking whisky and smoking cigars in bed.

- Police officers convicted of murder (means murder is therefore fine?).



Hypocrisy does not necessarily make the advice intrinsically wrong.



Also Deppity - I hope you feel better after your rant but your comments don't even make sense - how can it be Elitist to "tend to also be champions of climate change "science", and also social conscious driven economic illiterates who think money to pay for every last idealist heart desire can be printed without consequences forever. "  Surely if you support everyone having all their desires all the time that would be the opposite of Elitist.



Anyway I suspect you just fancy a fight today so it's not much point arguing.  

[DeppityDawg]

Well, you forgot to add



"and the person 'providing' the science decided he was above it, twice at least, first by inviting some slapper extinction rebellionist with an 'open' marriage round his place for a shag while he was himself exhibiting the classic signs of the disease, and then again after he had "recovered" but she was now exhibiting those signs"



which seems a rather unusual way to behave when your life style is supported by predicting half a million will lie dead in gutters from this disease unless we do what he says, while leaving him to do what he does  ...

The term "liberal elitists" obviously ruffles a few feathers on here, but what could be more elitist and entitled than telling everyone else to behave in a certain way, then doing the exact opposite yourself?



It's also telling how these various causes and celebs are linked. Europhile/Remainers (not me btw) tend to also be champions of climate change "science", and also social conscious driven economic illiterates who think money to pay for every last idealist heart desire can be printed without consequences forever. The West only exists now by massive public spending deficits and by the utterly crazy notion of sovereign central banks buying their nations OWN debt. All we are doing is pushing the time bomb on to the next generation.



It's pointless saying that society simply cannot continue down this path. Then again, if we want to live in a South American Chavez style economy where "public services" exist in name only, organised crime and gang warfare are endemic, and the very rich live in enclaves protected by paid for security, we are heading in the right direction.