conservatives are

[Doggit]

are Corrupt. Destroying everything they can lay there hands on or selling it to their friends.

So, do you want to give us any examples, or is the a standard knee jerk response to a party you obviously hate Kankerot. You don't by any chance think that the Labour and Lib dems are as useless and corrupt as the Tories.

 

[SirGalahad]

So what about Tony Blair and his PFI deals then?

Just as corrupt. But what have the tories done in the 7 years since in cancelling them. When Cameron has signed the biggest PFI deal ever in Hinkley Point C which could balloon to £85bn.

 

[SirGalahad]

So, do you want to give us any examples, or is the a standard knee jerk response to a party you obviously hate Kankerot. You don't by any chance think that the Labour and Lib dems are as useless and corrupt as the Tories.

Start at one point. Look at how public assets in schools and lands are just transferred over to private academies. This is one example. If you are willing to research into it there are way more.

The idea that its acceptable because the other are just as corrupt is simply being in denial.

 

[SirGalahad]

The problem with those who buy the argument that we do not have money to spend we are broke do not know how governments and economies work - they simply think it is an aggregation of their own personal finances.

 

[Doggit]

Not in denial at all, just aware that any party that gets into power, does so because of the deals they offer to their doners; and they're all the same. Transferring schools over to academies, doesn't put the title in the academies hands, just the ability of the academy to set it's own curriculum, and pay rates. Just as outsourcing NHS jobs to private companies, doesn't mean that the NHS is being privatised.

 

[Doggit]

It would seem that those that think there is an endless supply of money also don't understand economics, and think there is an endless supply that never needs to be paid back.

 

[SirGalahad]

It would seem that those that think there is an endless supply of money also don't understand economics, and think there is an endless supply that never needs to be paid back.

So can you explain to me how money supply actually works.

 

[JohnD]

It would seem that those that think there is an endless supply of money also don't understand economics, and think there is an endless supply that never needs to be paid back.

That must be why the banks collapsed, though their own stupidity and reckless greed, and the taxpayer didn't bail them out.

No - wait....


"The Government spent nearly £137bn to save the largest highest banks at the height of the financial crisis – including the Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock and Lloyds Banking Group."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-eu-referendum-uk-shares-prices-a7436196.html

"Actual money is the smallest part: £123.93bn was provided in the form of loans or share purchases, which required a transfer of cash from the Government to the banks. Another £332.40 billion is in the form of guarantees, where the Government will only provide cash if things go badly wrong. According to the report:

Some £109.70bn is recognised in the Treasury's Statement of Financial Position, amounting to 89% of the Treasury's net assets"
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/nov/12/bank-bailouts-uk-credit-crunch

"At one point, the direct government subsidy to the entire UK banking industry reached more than £1tn, according to the National Audit Office."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37909327

 

[SirGalahad]

Not in denial at all, just aware that any party that gets into power, does so because of the deals they offer to their doners; and they're all the same. Transferring schools over to academies, doesn't put the title in the academies hands, just the ability of the academy to set it's own curriculum, and pay rates. Just as outsourcing NHS jobs to private companies, doesn't mean that the NHS is being privatised.

What about academies which have the freedom to recruit unqualified teachers? So that they can cut costs = how does that help to improve education?

Outsourcing in the context of public services where provision is by a private organisation a form of privatisation. Outsourcing leads to lowering of quality - look at the horrible problems with IT outsourcing.

 

[SirGalahad]

It would seem that those that think there is an endless supply of money also don't understand economics, and think there is an endless supply that never needs to be paid back.

So again can you explain to me how money supply actually works.

 

[Doggit]

The Money supply is that which gets printed by the government/Bank of England. As more gets printed, (and as with quantative easing) then the value of the money in circulation goes down. Now the government could carry on printing money, but that would then cause inflation, hence also reducing it's value. The government can also issue bonds that they have to pay interest on, and can borrow from overseas lenders. We're currently paying £40bn in interest, and when the bank base rate increases, so will the interest payments as well

Bonds will often come with an interest rate, and a maturity date, but quantative easing caused a lot of bonds and securities to drop in value, which then caused other problems as well. It was one of the worst ideas they came up with because the banks took on the so called bonds that the government issued, and didn't bother to pass o the funds to business's as they were supposed to do.

That must be why the banks collapsed, though their own stupidity and reckless greed, and the taxpayer didn't bail them out.

The banks crashed because they'd bought worthless mortgages from the Americans who'd sold mortgages to the poor that they knew would never get paid back. The mortgage bundles then got geared up to a higher ratio, and when the American housing market collapsed, the mortgages became worthless, and then caused a knock on effect on the loans that had been taken out using the mortgages as security.

What about academies which have the freedom to recruit unqualified teachers? So that they can cut costs = how does that help to improve education?

Not part of what we were discussing, but the state schools are doing the same I'm afraid, and no, I don't agree with either doing it. But this goes back to my contention that I Gordon brown hadn't pushed so many kids to got to university, then there would have been more in the education budget to pay for all the normal amount that went. Putting the fees to £3000 made the kids tat went work harder because they were paying for their education, but the current figure of £9000 is partially because a lot of the loans won't get paid back at all. The PFI contract that Labour took out to to pay for schools and hospitals, currently stands at £121.9bn for projects that are only worth £52.9bn. But because of the contracts that were drawn up that include maintenance and cleaning etc, the tol cost of these deals will eventually hit £224Bn, and won't be paid off for 60 years. But the deals kept the capital off of labours borrowing commitments, and even Andy Burnham feels embarrassed over some of the deals they did.

Outsourcing in the context of public services where provision is by a private organisation a form of privatisation. Outsourcing leads to lowering of quality - look at the horrible problems with IT outsourcing.

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily mean lower quality of service (sometimes yes though) but isn't a form of privatisation at all. It doesn't matter who you get to provide the service, as long as it's free at point of use. The NHS is sending patients to France Germany and all sorts of counties to get the waiting lists down, and it's sometimes cheaper to send them there, partially because our NH is too beaurocratic and expensive.

The IT projects didn't really get outsourced, as the NHS have never had a computer department capable of doing such a project; nor it seems did anyone else for that matter.

 

[SirGalahad]

Hmmm

The Money supply is that which gets printed by the government/Bank of England. As more gets printed, (and as with quantative easing) then the value of the money in circulation goes down. Now the government could carry on printing money, but that would then cause inflation, hence also reducing it's value. The government can also issue bonds that they have to pay interest on, and can borrow from overseas lenders. We're currently paying £40bn in interest, and when the bank base rate increases, so will the interest payments as well

Printed money is narrow money and is a fraction of money supply - its about 1%. You fail to mention how the bulk of money goes into creation through debt and fractional reserve banking. So the idea that Government printing money is the greatest cause of inflation is flatly wrong.

Bonds will often come with an interest rate, and a maturity date, but quantative easing caused a lot of bonds and securities to drop in value, which then caused other problems as well. It was one of the worst ideas they came up with because the banks took on the so called bonds that the government issued, and didn't bother to pass o the funds to business's as they were supposed to do.

You do know the price of a bond is inverse to the interest rate. As interest rate falls the price of the bond increases.

You are mixing up the BOE open market operations - when banks buy Gov bonds as you mentioned above they deposit money into the BOE which reduces the money supply.

The banks crashed because they'd bought worthless mortgages from the Americans who'd sold mortgages to the poor that they knew would never get paid back. The mortgage bundles then got geared up to a higher ratio, and when the American housing market collapsed, the mortgages became worthless, and then caused a knock on effect on the loans that had been taken out using the mortgages as security.

The mortgages were sliced and diced up - good and bad mortgages were packaged into CDO and by paying the right fee the rating agencies gave them AAA ratings and AIG was more than happy to insure them.

The PFI contract that Labour took out to to pay for schools and hospitals, currently stands at £121.9bn for projects that are only worth £52.9bn. But because of the contracts that were drawn up that include maintenance and cleaning etc, the tol cost of these deals will eventually hit £224Bn, and won't be paid off for 60 years. But the deals kept the capital off of labours borrowing commitments, and even Andy Burnham feels embarrassed over some of the deals they did.

Why do you think I am for PFI. These are the worst bit of financial engineering in a long time. It was a scam to say it wasn't public debt. But why hasb't the current government cancelled them all? It would save billions. So why are they so quiet on this huge bill?

 

[SirGalahad]

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily mean lower quality of service (sometimes yes though) but isn't a form of privatisation at all. It doesn't matter who you get to provide the service, as long as it's free at point of use. The NHS is sending patients to France Germany and all sorts of counties to get the waiting lists down, and it's sometimes cheaper to send them there, partially because our NH is too beaurocratic and expensive.

Just stop right there with this NHS as a bureaucratic nightmare - read UN reports as the NHS as being the best value health service with management / admin as a percentage of overall spending in low single figures contrast that to the US where admin accounts for 25% of health costs.

You really do not get where savings are made or how to run huge businesses. You simply think it can be boiled down to a transaction.

ITS CALLED EXTERNALISES - it is a cost past onto someone else who cannot recover that costs from you. Here is a simple example.

Supplies for a hospital were outsourced - theatre gloves etc. So during surgery the gloves were tearing this forced delays and eventually surgeons had to double glove which slowed surgery down.

Now the dept managing supplies was happy - it had cut costs but the surgeons were not as they were spending more time in surgery. The hospital had its hands tied as it had entered into a long term supply relationship. In the end the bought extra gloves and continued to throw away the gloves from the original supplier.

I

 

[JohnD]

As I said.

stupidity and reckless greed.

 

[SirGalahad]

The IT projects didn't really get outsourced, as the NHS have never had a computer department capable of doing such a project; nor it seems did anyone else for that matter.

Are you for real? Statements like that I think you really have no idea.

http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/...-have-failed-but-is-NHS-IT-failure-a-surprise