Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crashmonitor

Britain's 6.5% Current Account Deficit And The Corbyn Weimar-Style End Game

Recommended Posts

So basically, now that someone is thinking about using money printing to help someone other than the bankers, it's all going to end in disaster (the implication being that all those previously printed hundreds of billions of pounds were fine of course, as they didn't see a problem with that .....).

The usual massive helping of cognitive dissonance from the mass media. Luckily for them, they have doublethink down to a fine art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are 5.5 years into the Tories being in charge of the economy, with another 4.5 years to go.

The current account deficit is at a record high.

Yet the Telegraph feels the need to link that to Jeremy Corbyn being a danger to our economic success because he might spend money building social housing, if interest rates are close to zero and there is no inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, now that someone is thinking about using money printing to help someone other than the bankers, it's all going to end in disaster (the implication being that all those previously printed hundreds of billions of pounds were fine of course, as they didn't see a problem with that .....).

The usual massive helping of cognitive dissonance from the mass media. Luckily for them, they have doublethink down to a fine art.

Tbh in theory it should end up as a disaster whoever is in charge, we produce very little and indulge ourselves with oversea's stuff and lifetime welfare benefits. But I guess something might turn up to save us from economic Armageddon, may be we are sitting on trillions worth of shale gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh in theory it should end up as a disaster whoever is in charge, we produce very little and indulge ourselves with oversea's stuff and lifetime welfare benefits. But I guess something might turn up to save us from economic Armageddon, may be we are sitting on trillions worth of shale gas.

Agreed - any money printing is a dumb idea, it doesn't fix anything except to shift wealth from one group of people (so far, the general public) to another (so far,the financial system insiders with first access to it) and will cause nasty consequences down the line.

But it's interesting to see the doublethink at work in the media. No serious questioning of QE, in fact it's lauded as having saved the economy. But woe betide anyone who might print money to actually do useful stuff - that would surely be disastrous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are 5.5 years into the Tories being in charge of the economy, with another 4.5 years to go.

The current account deficit is at a record high.

Yet the Telegraph feels the need to link that to Jeremy Corbyn being a danger to our economic success because he might spend money building social housing, if interest rates are close to zero and there is no inflation.

+1

Refuse to give the thickograph my clicks (AEP the exception to the rule) on the basis it encourages them to write nonsense.

Digital papers have in essence now become trollpapers. Any old garbage for a click.

Edited by R K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are 5.5 years into the Tories being in charge of the economy, with another 4.5 years to go.

The current account deficit is at a record high.

Yet the Telegraph feels the need to link that to Jeremy Corbyn being a danger to our economic success because he might spend money building social housing, if interest rates are close to zero and there is no inflation.

I am the most floating of voters. I do not have a position to defend either way but ...

We had a coalition for 5 years and 6 months of Conservative government.

Labour were running a deficit of 12% at the end. Thats the sort of deficit you'd expect after a war rather than just letting a loon at the money.

I am very surprised and impressed the Coalition have reduced the deficit to 5%. A reduction of 6% is pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to pay back the 375 billion, too.

But I don't see any greater danger in Corbyn than in Osborne at the minute, to be honest. Osborne hasn't made the kind of cuts I would have done, and they're privatising assets I would keep.

Neither side is willing to see the numbers go down. So hyperinflation or no hyperinflation, I still can't afford a house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the past lots have wrecked the economy but they knew what they were doing - but Corbyn would wreck it a bit more because he doesn't know what he's doing, even though he's got a panel of economists (more or less the same ones as they all have).

Throw in a few charts and it might sound convincing - except it's not.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - any money printing is a dumb idea, it doesn't fix anything except to shift wealth from one group of people (so far, the general public) to another (so far,the financial system insiders with first access to it) and will cause nasty consequences down the line.

But it's interesting to see the doublethink at work in the media. No serious questioning of QE, in fact it's lauded as having saved the economy. But woe betide anyone who might print money to actually do useful stuff - that would surely be disastrous!

Stock markets charging ahead this morning on a rumour that scumbag Draghi will double the ECB QE program (to $2.4 trillion) before the year's out.

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carney has already said there is no way that this will be paid back in full, in reality this probably should read as there is no way this will be paid back in full.

Absolutely this

I don't think even single penny of it will ever be paid back

Happy to be proven wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely this

I don't think even single penny of it will ever be paid back

Happy to be proven wrong

You mean qe?

There isn't anything to be paid back.

It was just an asset swap.

The treasury is repaying the QE debt but the proceeds are just being reinvested in new debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't probably have any inflation from Corbynomics as it would be designated into certain areas, just like QE did. Remember that one? £370bn later and no Weimar style in sight.

Might as well get our share, the 1%ers got theirs.

It's worth remembering that we live in a debt based monetary system so the idea of fiscal responsibility and a country living within it's means is laughable. All the deficit tough talk is also laughable as it's merely an indication of how well the economy is doing. If Osbourne is going to run a surplus with a coke covered iron fist, he is taxing you more than is going back into the economy, and reducing demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour were running a deficit of 12% at the end. Thats the sort of deficit you'd expect after a war rather than just letting a loon at the money.

I am very surprised and impressed the Coalition have reduced the deficit to 5%. A reduction of 6% is pretty impressive.

It sounds your spouting Torygraph economic illiteracy. (A household budget isn't the same as a government one)

It was after a war, an economic one. The banks capsized the global economy in case you'd forgotten and the deficit was a reflection of well things were doing.

People losing jobs to a global recession + fewer tax returns = bigger deficit. Quite simple really.

In addition the 'loon at the money' is sheer economic illiteracy. Although the Blair/ Brown was a cluster ****** ponzi scheme, the government doesn't control the UK money supply.

The private banks create 97% of it, and if they aren't lending like in 2008, we aren't growing. HTB comes along, banks are now lending and look... 'a recovery'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds your spouting Torygraph economic illiteracy. (A household budget isn't the same as a government one)

It was after a war, an economic one. The banks capsized the global economy in case you'd forgotten and the deficit was a reflection of well things were doing.

People losing jobs to a global recession + fewer tax returns = bigger deficit. Quite simple really.

In addition the 'loon at the money' is sheer economic illiteracy. Although the Blair/ Brown was a cluster ****** ponzi scheme, the government doesn't control the UK money supply.

The private banks create 97% of it, and if they aren't lending like in 2008, we aren't growing. HTB comes along, banks are now lending and look... 'a recovery'

Not, it was not a war. Just a fckup by a vain-glorious idiot.

No, relatively few people lost their jobs. The 12% deficit was mainly the down income from consumption / financial transactions disappearing, and having a grossly out of proportion banking sector. Remember, Brown thought tax credits were going to be funded by his 'genius light regulation' of the banking sector.

Countries are not households but a 12% is a 12% deficit. Sure, a country has more scope than a household for cyclical investment but if a country cannot run large current deficits forever. How long - no-one knows; it changes on a country by country basis.

A country can choose to debase its currency. How it handles its population when they discover their trip to Disneyland will cost 3 times more, or its foreign creditors etc is another thing.

Letting the a 'loon with money' should have read 'letting a loon near the till'.

Looking at the lending figures and housing transaction, its hard to see how HTB have helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't probably have any inflation from Corbynomics as it would be designated into certain areas, just like QE did. Remember that one? £370bn later and no Weimar style in sight.

Might as well get our share, the 1%ers got theirs.

Looking at RPI, the cost of living is up 22% since the introduction of QE six years ago. And IMO the official figures are designed to underreport inflation.

And if that's not enough for you, we've certainly had massive inflation in housing. Without QE we would surely have had a correction.

If you want financial justice we should make the 1%ers pay their share. A lot of them should have gone bust in 2008. Giving people more printed money will do nothing but inflate the assets of those 1%ers even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carney has already said there is no way that this will be paid back in full, in reality this probably should read as there is no way this will be paid back in full.

Linky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean qe?

There isn't anything to be paid back.

It was just an asset swap.

The treasury is repaying the QE debt but the proceeds are just being reinvested in new debt.

What asset did the BoE bring to the table for the swap? Did they have it before they started the program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Threadneedle Street embarked on the unprecedented £375 billion QE policy — buying up government debt with electronically created money

I don't recall the Telegraph screaming about hyperinflation risks when this little lot was being magicked into existence- perhaps because it served the interests of the people who own the Telegraph?

It seems the nightmare scenario of the 1% is the idea that the financial system be manipulated for the benefit of the little people, instead of for the benefit of themselves. They have no problem with the manipulation itself- just as long as they are the beneficiaries of that manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First line of the article linked in the OP:

Instant credibility loss, read no further.

The Barclay brothers' useful idiots were saying the exact same thing about the Brown economy in 2007.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   101 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.