Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Households 'excluded' From Uk Growth, Tuc Warns

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24775443

Households are being "excluded" from the benefits of the UK's economic recovery, the leader of the TUC trade unions body will say in a speech later.

Frances O'Grady will tell a conference that the economy has grown by £60bn in the last four years, while household disposable incomes have risen by £1bn.

A spokesman for the government said its economic plan was "the only sustainable way to raise living standards".

The latest official figures suggest the economic recovery is strengthening.

GDP estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate growth of 0.8% in the third quarter of the year, on top of growth of 0.7% in the previous quarter.

But Ms O'Grady will say this good news is not filtering through to household budgets.

"The historic link between economic growth and rising incomes has been broken under this government," she will say.

"Households are being excluded from the benefits of growth. Unless this changes, the recovery will be meaningless to the vast majority of people across Britain."

She will say the government is " desperately short of solutions".

Obviously she completely misses the point, this £60bn of growth over the past 4 years has been bought by hundreds of billions of deficit spending by the govt! The return has been shall we say a little bit 5h1t!

Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recession cycle is every 7 years on average. We should be in recession in a couple of years again. The economy should be peaking about now and our best performance is 100 billion borrowed per annum to produce 15 billion of growth.

This is the greatest show on earth isn't it? We are facing the most dire crisis in our post war history and the cornerstone of the government's policy is to pump the housing market a little bit more. You've got to laugh otherwise you'd cry.

Edited by Giraffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe she should take it up with the (apparent) authorities.

http://

globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/daily-show-on-nsa-spying-on-obamcare-on.html

About 7.17 minutes into the video.

Frances O'Grady will warn that government is 'desperately short of solutions'

Then that's no surprise. What's the point of voting for these people if they don't run the show.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Median Family Income chart and the timing of the income stagnation it looks like it's something to do with Thatcher or the "boomers" :lol:

It certainly got worse under regime's that deregulated finance (allowing the private sector to counterfeit money as much as the public sector) without a corresponding increase in the price of risk (Chomsky noted this decades ago...Reagan and Thatcher privatized reward, socialized risk) -FWIW I dont have a problem with deregulation, so long as it also means no taxpayer guarantees, no FSCS, no loan facilities via the central bank.

However, the divergence really started in '71 with the de facto global gold window ending. It only became noticeable by the 80s due to a snowball effect of more and more credit speculation and price increases...ironically of course one of the reasons the tories were elected in '79 was due to the humiliation of the 76 IMF bailout, so debt was certainly a problem before 79...Mrs T simply transferred it to the private sector, as it seems the private sector can amass debt far more 'quietly' than the public sector (when was the last time the MSM talked about systemic debt that isnt 'national' (ie solely public) debt?)

Now public AND private debt are both concurrently at record levels...not sure when or if that has happened before. After WW2 we were able to spend our way out because public debt was offset by 10 years of savings and sacrifice, private balance sheets were very healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something strange about John Major's years there, lol

... and Geoffrey Howe's!!

Yeah, 88 and 89 were years of massive private credit expansion, meaning the government didnt need to borrow to give the impression of growth.

Course, we all know what happened after...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://

www.itv.com/news/story/2013-11-02/trades-union-congress-warn-that-most-people-are-excluded-from-economic-recovery/

Gov't 'short of solutions' to resolve cost of living crisis

Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Frances O'Grady will tell a conference today that the Government are "desperately short of solutions" in dealing with the cost of living crisis in Britain.

The Government has belatedly woken up to our cost of living crisis. But ministers are desperately short of solutions because they're still not prepared to challenge the 'market knows best' ideology that has somehow survived the biggest global crash since the 1930s.

– Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Frances O'Grady

Sounds like she's talking up a gum tree if she thinks that there's a true market - as if market manipulation isn't endemic.

They've had nearly 40 years since the 70s to solve it and they are "desperately short of solutions" because they don't want to solve it.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Median Family Income chart and the timing of the income stagnation it looks like it's something to do with Thatcher or the "boomers" :lol:

The UK has been in decline relative to the US and Germany for more than a century, but the financialisation of the economy really started with Thatcher's monetarist experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK has been in decline relative to the US and Germany for more than a century, but the financialisation of the economy really started with Thatcher's monetarist experiments.

For sure the timing fits in - along with "boomers" for that matter. That why I remarked on it but whose idea was financialisation originally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly got worse under regime's that deregulated finance (allowing the private sector to counterfeit money as much as the public sector) without a corresponding increase in the price of risk (Chomsky noted this decades ago...Reagan and Thatcher privatized reward, socialized risk) -FWIW I dont have a problem with deregulation, so long as it also means no taxpayer guarantees, no FSCS, no loan facilities via the central bank.

However, the divergence really started in '71 with the de facto global gold window ending. It only became noticeable by the 80s due to a snowball effect of more and more credit speculation and price increases...ironically of course one of the reasons the tories were elected in '79 was due to the humiliation of the 76 IMF bailout, so debt was certainly a problem before 79...Mrs T simply transferred it to the private sector, as it seems the private sector can amass debt far more 'quietly' than the public sector (when was the last time the MSM talked about systemic debt that isnt 'national' (ie solely public) debt?)

Now public AND private debt are both concurrently at record levels...not sure when or if that has happened before. After WW2 we were able to spend our way out because public debt was offset by 10 years of savings and sacrifice, private balance sheets were very healthy.

It is strange even after the banking bust that I still occasionally see people posting here and else where who seem to think there is some qualitative difference between public and private debt. Even now the legerdemain carried out by all UK governments from the1970s onwards in replacing one with the other and then back again is not widely recognised. Nor are people yet able to admit that private debt has a nasty habit of becoming public debt when the financial system hits the rocks. You would have thought that people would have learned something from 2008 crisis but it appears that human folly when it is tied to naked self interest has no bounds.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Government has belatedly woken up to our cost of living crisis. But ministers are desperately short of solutions because they're still not prepared to challenge the 'market knows best' ideology that has somehow survived the biggest global crash since the 1930s.

The funny thing is that the Tories are willing to ditch their ideology- 'Help to Buy' being an obvious case where they are prepared to intervene in the market- but these interventions seem to be designed to prop up the unsustainable outcomes that their ideology has created.

As George Bush said - "I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system." :lol:

Who said the yanks have no sense of irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that the Tories are willing to ditch their ideology- 'Help to Buy' being an obvious case where they are prepared to intervene in the market- but these interventions seem to be designed to prop up the unsustainable outcomes that their ideology has created.

As George Bush said - "I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system." :lol:

Who said the yanks have no sense of irony.

I'm pretty sure they would have abandoned them in the early 90s too if it wasnt for John Major and Ken Clarke being out and out EU sycophant's determined to get us into ERM/EMU and finally the Euro.

Funny thing about HtB is its so classically keynesian. Throw some money about and stimulate demand and supply will magically materialize :rolleyes:

Im not sure theyve woken up to anything though. To get GDP back into line with wages, debt levels must be halved. Which neccessitates the halving of house prices, halving of the stock market and a whole bunch of other things. So they'll just continue to inflate, wages will not rise, and we'll all get poorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Financialisation describes what happens where further earnings are based on turning existing assets into income streams rather than creating new wealth from productivity. Effectively stringing out the last gasps of a failing system.

Given UK's long decline Thatcher oversaw something that was inevitable given the parameters within which she operated.

edited clumsy sentence

Edited by DabHand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Financialisation describes what happens where further earnings are based on turning existing assets into income streams rather than creating new wealth from productivity. Effectively stringing out the last gasps of a failing system.

Given UK's long decline Thatcher oversaw something that was inevitable given the parameters within which she operated.

edited clumsy sentence

Not sure that is entrirely true - if so Germany would be in the same mire with the advent of broken down borders and trade tariffs.

Major pretty much did nothing during his term, the housing bubble collapsed leaving space for other ventures to grow (albeit with the follwing backdrop of the dot com era).

It won;t be long till we are losing jobs by the 10k's again, remanants of the manufacturing sector shedign more and the rump of the finanical sector having a chunk eaten out of it. The net step - transition of the knowledge and fianical economy jobs into autmated ones is ongoing, the funny thing is that that process is the key to unlocking this sector to far more extreme foreign competition - just liek manufacturing, once you have virtualized the skills and replaced many of them with automatiion then shifting the whole process abroad and manning the remnants with a cheaper workforce is just round the corner. I think it is at that point that we really find out what a lifestyle in London is worth, and it is not the sticker price of housing as it is at the moment, in fact the more they try and pump it up the faster the above process will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that is entrirely true - if so Germany would be in the same mire with the advent of broken down borders and trade tariffs.

Major pretty much did nothing during his term, the housing bubble collapsed leaving space for other ventures to grow (albeit with the follwing backdrop of the dot com era).

It won;t be long till we are losing jobs by the 10k's again, remanants of the manufacturing sector shedign more and the rump of the finanical sector having a chunk eaten out of it. The net step - transition of the knowledge and fianical economy jobs into autmated ones is ongoing, the funny thing is that that process is the key to unlocking this sector to far more extreme foreign competition - just liek manufacturing, once you have virtualized the skills and replaced many of them with automatiion then shifting the whole process abroad and manning the remnants with a cheaper workforce is just round the corner. I think it is at that point that we really find out what a lifestyle in London is worth, and it is not the sticker price of housing as it is at the moment, in fact the more they try and pump it up the faster the above process will occur.

Who knows, german banks are supposed to have vast liabilities and assets that may yet become impaired. It aint over yet. Sure Germany still has an industrial base, but its probably more a random consequence of a weak euro than politicians actually being responsible. Wasnt that long ago germany had higher unemployment than the UK...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly got worse under regime's that deregulated finance (allowing the private sector to counterfeit money as much as the public sector) without a corresponding increase in the price of risk (Chomsky noted this decades ago...Reagan and Thatcher privatized reward, socialized risk) -FWIW I dont have a problem with deregulation, so long as it also means no taxpayer guarantees, no FSCS, no loan facilities via the central bank.

However, the divergence really started in '71 with the de facto global gold window ending. It only became noticeable by the 80s due to a snowball effect of more and more credit speculation and price increases...ironically of course one of the reasons the tories were elected in '79 was due to the humiliation of the 76 IMF bailout, so debt was certainly a problem before 79...Mrs T simply transferred it to the private sector, as it seems the private sector can amass debt far more 'quietly' than the public sector (when was the last time the MSM talked about systemic debt that isnt 'national' (ie solely public) debt?)

Now public AND private debt are both concurrently at record levels...not sure when or if that has happened before. After WW2 we were able to spend our way out because public debt was offset by 10 years of savings and sacrifice, private balance sheets were very healthy.

Great post - and a cracking thread. Still from Nixon's point of view a pretty spectacular piece of can kicking. I doubt Osborne's phase 2 of Help to Buy will give him 40 years of wiggle room. I'm not convinced it will give him six months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.