Is there an answer to the economic conundrum?

[LargeWrench]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#_

This shows how borrowing boomed under labour up until the coalition came into power. As you can see the deficit is now falling and is projected to be payed off by 2016/17.

The caption below the top picture in that article reads.."At the moment the price of insuring Britain's debt - through credit default swaps - implies a 9pc chance of default. But Fathom said: "If Italy were to default, the probability of a UK default would rise to 22pc"

Thats was exactly what i was getting at, i'm not denying that there is a chance the UK could default. At the moment however, as long as the government continues to cut the deficit, the likelihood of a default is very unlikely.

 

[joe-90]

But when the PIIGS go down - so will our banks and our customers.

You try selling to customers that are bankrupt.

 

[ellal]

There is an economic model that works...

Let the banks fail and bring in currency control...

Then let the people vote on who should pick up the tab...

Have an independant judiciary declare most punishing loans illegal...

Watch the bank 'assets' mysteriously re-appear...

Pay off the International Mother F*ckers early...

See credit rating start to be restored, investment return and unemployment fall...

Run a trade surplus...

Can you guess where it is yet?


The UK is however different and up the proverbial creek. Who would invest in a country with no resources, that makes nothing other people want, and isn't even able to feed and power itself?

(PS. It's reassuring that we have citizenship in the country that was a laughing stock, but one that will soon be laughing at everyone else - especially the UK!..... )

 

[Corgigrouch]

The real solution is twofold.

Part 1. Issue plc (plc so that anyone can buy into it) companies with licences to bear arms, access to military weapons markets, and carry out attacks upon foreign soil, to sieze assets; a percentage of which would be paid to the government as a 'licence fee'. These groups could also be used to eliminate communists and freedom haters within the country.

Part 2. Nuke a few oil producing countries. Seize their oil production, via private UK firms, using criminals and communists to staff them in radioactive conditoins. They obtain the oil for free and sell it to the UK market at knock down rates.

problem solved

Part 1. has legs. It worked in the time of Liz1 the result was the British Empire.

Part 2. I like too. Best to use Nutron bombs, kills people and leaves buildings standing. They are banned but I'm sure that the MOD has a few in a tin shed somewhere..... I may even have one in the back of the garden shed....

 

[Nige F]

. Who would invest in a country with no resources, that makes nothing other people want, and isn't even able to feed and power itself?

D)

Sounds like Japan just after VJ day

 

[AronSearle]

The UK is however different and up the proverbial creek.

Cough.

Who would invest in a country with no resources

So that "100 years" worth of shale gas has been pinched then, and so far we haven't lost the potential oil fields in the Falklands, and we still have plenty of coal (it's just cheaper to buy than mine).

You are right however about a lack of resources being a major setback for a nation, just look at Germany!

that makes nothing other people want

and isn't even able to feed and power itself?

I have been seeing flashing pulses behind my eyes, and an aching stomach, I put this down to my flue, obviously I am deluded as the flashing must be my light bulbs going on and off, and the stomach pain starvation.

 

[AronSearle]

But you questioned whether there was an agreement not whether it had been adhered to...there was an agreement that your 'google search' wasn't up to!

An agreement without a contract is not an agreement, I can't and you haven't provided a copy of that agreement, for all you know (and I don't either) it's worth toilet paper, and it's just something for the politicians to huff and puff about.

I also did note that only a few banks "agreed" to Project Merlin, funny you didn't mention that?

There is no contractual requirement to obtain that low interest rate, "an understanding" can be misunderstood.

You asked why the banks should lend, and I've simply given you the reason why! ====Directly or indirectly ALL banks benefitted from the bailout, and continue to do so through those BofE rates and QE...

That's not a reason for them to lend more, it is simply a fact, that you are drawing your own conclusion from.

The government decided to **** free money around, without attaching any strings to it's use.

One has to wonder how much of this money even stayed in the UK economy.

 

[Norcon]

The uk could feed itself but would have to adopt the permaculture approach.
That would require approximately 8 million people working on the lands.
Currently their is only about half a million.

Without oil that 8 million would probably be toiling "hands on" like the ole days.
Foreigners currently fill the vast gap in the labour market for agriculture as the homies don't like getting their hands dirty. So I'd expect that 8 million to be mostly foreigners.
We only employ foreigners.

 

[AronSearle]

Aron Searle, You seem to spend your time on here questioning peoples sources of information,

More often than not it's questioning peoples lack of any information, but just silly opinions that they got from the teliviz or the sun.

or arguing about what they've posted.

I love the internet

What's your answer to the current economic crisis? I'm sure both I and others on here would love to know your answer to it.
All you have done up to now is deride everyone else's answers.. Lets have yours.

For there to be an answer, you first have to define the question?

What "IS" the current economic crisis?

How is our private sector failing or different compared to 2007 (pre crash)?

Well, not significantly that different actually (1*), although exports increased slightly due to devaluation, though we lost some domestic demand

(1*) if you exclude the banking and housing sector. Artificial excess money = housing boom = artificial excess money disappears = housing crash = back to "normal". some aggregate demand

Then we have government overspending for over 10 years now as well.


So we had 2 sources of excess money, or as you can clumsily call it "fake" money, this cause "fake" growth (so instead of 2% we had 3%, 1% of that being "Fake).


I hate using household anologys, but let me put it this way.

Guy earns 100 bucks a month, and spends 110 a month on whores.

He then cut's back and only spends a 100 a month on whores.

the whores will see this as an "economic problem", but it's not really is it, it's just a correction.





So my answer to the "economic crisis" is that we don't actually have an economic crises, we just have a government that was borrowing and spending to much, and banks giving out loans to easily.

Now people want to jump back up to pre-crash levels of wealth, without acknowledging that it was built on "fake" credit. The danger of this being that many of the "solutions" are what caused the flipping problem in the first instance.



Don't get me wrong, we have economic issues, large unemployment for example, amongst a number of other issues. But these have all been a long time in the making, or already existent, they are only bought to the fore of the media in times such as these.

 

[joinerjohn]

I have been seeing flashing pulses behind my eyes, and an aching stomach, I put this down to my flue, obviously I am deluded as the flashing must be my light bulbs going on and off, and the stomach pain starvation.

Your"flue" has probably been installed incorrectly, leading to a build up of poisonous CO gas. But enough of what ails you. I did ask earlier in this thread what your solution to the economic mire we're in was, but so far you've failed to answer. I can only think this is because you don't have an answer (but your all too ready to knock anyone else's solutions)

Come on Aron, let's see what you'd propose to do about the economy.

 

[ellal]

Don't bother...

Ar**Se**** doesn't have a clue what he/she/it is talking about...

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bank_agreement_090211.pdf

 

[AronSearle]

I did ask earlier in this thread what your solution to the economic mire we're in was, but so far you've failed to answer.

Lol, I answered just before this post, if you don't like that answer, tough titty.

Don't bother...

Ar**Se**** doesn't have a clue what he/she/it is talking about...

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bank_agreement_090211.pdf[/QUOTE]

WELL DONE!

Now, why did you only just post this?

Is it because you've only just found it, AFTER you spouted your opinion about it?


And what can I say about it now I have seen it, nothing I haven't already. Firstly, it's only a handful of banks (FIVE).

Secondly as linked earlier, all those banks bar the state owned one met the targets.

So what's you point?

Oh, I'm sorry are you going to spout out rubbish again about low interest rates, and an "understanding" for banks to loan more, banks that haven't agreed to the above.

 

[ellal]

WELL DONE!

Now, why did you only just post this?

Is it because you've only just found it, AFTER you spouted your opinion about it?

I knew about it all along...

I was just waiting for you to prove yourself a complete knobhead!

Have you ever met a guy called Softus?...

 

[AronSearle]

Ellal.

You sure joe-90 isn't an alt of yours, your post ingredients are very similar.

Low on fact content, high on insults, double the RDA of selective quotes, may contain traces of an argument incoherently expressed.

 

[joe-90]

A sure sign you are losing the argument is when posters start imagining things.