Momentum's viral video attacking HPI

[PopGun]

3 minutes ago, adarmo said:

What's the Labour sheeps' mantra..... ah yes.... GLOBAL financial crash. I think they eventually apologies though.

You need to look at what was done to the deficit over the term. If one inherits a position where debt was low but the deficit had suddenly rocketed then it's sort of tricky to pull back into the black. 

Borrowing is not the metric, deficit reduction is the metric. How much did Labour increase the deficit by over their 13 year term? How much have the Tories reduced it by over their seven year term?

I'll make it really easy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8636701.stm

 

Stop talking long winded sanctimonious b0ll0cks dodging the issue. Blindsiding the massive Tory borrowing against a paltry deficit reduction, of which their own targets are never even achieved isn't going to wash here.

Borrowing the odd trillion isn't trying to be prudent. Neither is deliberately being ignorant of debt versus deficit. Magic money tree anyone?

[adarmo]

3 hours ago, Wayward said:

Okay the policy you refer to was unhelpful but other threads on this site have listed out all the price props introduced since around 2013/14...a shocking list of increasingly imaginative and cynical measures.  I really don't remember this cynicism between 1997 and 2010...perhaps my memory lets me down.  OsCam lied - referred to rebalancing and other nonsense only to embark on a devastating drive to inflate the cost of housing at all costs....

Even if they did they were perpetuating the position that Labour had created. 

It's especially damaging because economically the position is as damaging to unwind as it s politically. If prices had not gone mental crazy from 1997 to 2010 would we have had the GFC? Would we have had all those props to house prices (really support to hapless purchasers sick of renting, and the banks that ultimately we're on the hook for anyway). 

The cynicism was alive and well. Even on my economics course between 2004 and 2007 virtually everyone including the lecturers was predicting the end of it all and slating heavily the government for building the whole growth delusion on the sands of debt. 

[adarmo]

1 minute ago, PopGun said:

Stop talking long winded sanctimonious b0ll0cks dodging the issue. Blindsiding the massive Tory borrowing against a paltry deficit reduction, of which their own targets are never even achieved isn't going to wash here.

Borrowing the odd trillion isn't trying to be prudent. Neither is deliberately being ignorant of debt versus deficit. Magic money tree anyone?

You have literally just proven my point. Mentioned debt, and borrowing in the same breath. 

Tell me how much the Tories have reduced the inherited deficit by and by how much Labour increased theirs by. 

We're waiting. 

[PopGun]

Just now, adarmo said:

You have literally just proven my point. Mentioned debt, and borrowing in the same breath. 

Tell me how much the Tories have reduced the inherited deficit by and by how much Labour increased theirs by. 

We're waiting. 

You're focusing on the deficit and not the borrowing? Why is that? Tell us how much the Tories have borrowed in one term against labour in three first.

the magic money tree exists, it's called debt interest.

 

[adarmo]

Just now, PopGun said:

You're focusing on the deficit and not the borrowing? Why is that? Tell us how much the Tories have borrowed in one term against labour in three first.

the magic money tree exists, it's called debt interest.

 

It is literally this easy. Borrowing is the deficit. Borrowed is the debt. I am concentrating on the deficit, which is the borrowing and not the borrowed which is the debt. 

I hope this makes things more understandable? If so let me know and we can continue. 

[Habitationi Bulla]

43 minutes ago, adarmo said:

You have literally just proven my point. Mentioned debt, and borrowing in the same breath. 

Tell me how much the Tories have reduced the inherited deficit by and by how much Labour increased theirs by. 

We're waiting. 

Come on be honest how many BTLs you got?

[billybong]

The government under the tories being able to borrow at record low interest rates must have helped enormously with the deficit.  That's no great achievement - if Labour had been in power they could have achieved the same and still racked up the debt like the tories.

The tories are quite happy to see it blamed on "austerity" as they are so responsible you know - despite record levels of borrowing.

[NuBrit]

On 7/27/2017 at 8:59 PM, adarmo said:

Not sure I agree. They've banned tenancy fees, seem to have let house price increase tail off and are trying to reduce the debt that the young will inherit. In contrast to Labour, who introduced and then trebled tuition fees, allowed rampant house price growth on the back of opening the doors to Eastern Europe and the floods of skilled and unskilled labour. The unskilled labour bit is important because it works out now easier and cheaper to hire someone with experience rather than training someone in the UK. Then the country nearly went to the IMF in 2009 as the fallout of the GFC hit which was in a large part down to the crap regulation brought about by.... Labour. Then in the latest round of political BS they promise free university education to everyone. What they don't do is say how they'll find the £10bn/year that'll cost. After they lose the election they state it was only ever an ambition........

Also..... Dianne Abbot 

Tories are not perfect, nobody is, but blame where it's due. 

So much here that is just so wrong.

The Tories have done NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to stop runaway house price inflation. Cameron was appointed 7 years ago in the depths of a significant house price shock. He had the choice at that point to ensure that the lessons of 2007 were to never be repeated. Instead he decided upon the inflate and forget policy, and here we are in 2017, in a situation that is probably worse than 2007.

[NuBrit]

13 hours ago, adarmo said:

One is an expense, the other an asset. HTB is only an expense if the government need to impair the value of it's share in the houses it's part funded. 

Yes, because property prices can never go down.

HTB was socialism at its very worse - redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

Edited July 29, 2017 by NuBrit

[NuBrit]

3 hours ago, adarmo said:

If prices had not gone mental crazy from 1997 to 2010 would we have had the GFC?

It's actually quite amusing that you've time-boxed high property prices entirely into Labour's spell in government. 

[BorrowToLeech]

3 hours ago, adarmo said:

If prices had not gone mental crazy from 1997 to 2010 would we have had the GFC?

Yes. 

The housing bubble in the US was more significant in that sense. 

A better question is, if the City of London has been regulated properly, would we have had the financial crisis?

The city was a much bigger player than is generally acknowledged, and exacerbated the race to the bottom by allowing regulatory arbitrage between London and New York.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not. 

However, the mainstream consensus opinion amongst economists and politicians, Labour and Tory, republican and democrat, was that regulation was bad and that the explosive growth of banking was good. 

To give one example, which seems amazing now: when the BOE was made independent, this was welcomed because governments were thought to be less likely to raise interest rates when required. In other words, an independent BOE would keep rates higher than the government would.

That went well. 

Quick quiz, who said the following and when?

Quote

The lessons from the City are clear. Low tax. Low regulation. Meritocracy. Openness. Innovation. These are the keys to success.

Quote

'...20 years ago, arguments raged about the most basic principles of how to run the economy [and]...there was a vast gulf between left and right as to how this could best be achieved.

'That debate is now settled. Over the past 15 years, governments across the world have put into practice the principles of monetary discipline and free enterprise. The result? A vast increase in global wealth. The world economy more stable than for a generation.

Quote

A risk based approach helps move us a million miles away from the old assumption - the assumption since the first legislation of Victorian times - that business, unregulated, will invariably act irresponsibly. The better view is that businesses want to act responsibly. Reputation with customers and investors is more important to behaviour than regulation, and transparency - backed up by the light touch - can be more effective than the heavy hand.

Quote

I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult. This is exactly the wrong direction in which Europe should be heading and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London. 

Major companies can pack up and move anywhere in the world if faced with damaging regulations. We have already seen it happen in the United States, with the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were hastily introduced after the Enron scandal and which have led to international companies delisting and moving elsewhere. 

London has benefited enormously from America's short-sightedness and it would be foolish of us to make the same mistake. 

Quote

But at what cost? That approach, as the Americans have found with Sarbanes-Oxley, would have been wrong for Britain. 

I believe we are right to avoid prescriptive, heavy-handed regulation in Britain. Indeed, I believe that while it is Bank of England independence that is regularly cited as the Government's most significant financial reform, the establishment of the FSA has been as important for Britain.

Edited July 29, 2017 by DrBuyToLeech

[Darby Ram]

1 hour ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

A better question is, if the City of London has been regulated properly, would we have had the financial crisis?

The city was a much bigger player than is generally acknowledged, and exacerbated the race to the bottom by allowing regulatory arbitrage between London and New York.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not. 

However, the mainstream consensus opinion amongst economists and politicians, Labour and Tory, republican and democrat, was that regulation was bad and that the explosive growth of banking was good. 

I would add, as a corollary, to that: everyone thought that private debt was fine.

My opinion now is that the real dividing question is not 'who was to blame?' - because the answer is everyone - but 'who still thinks that spiralling private debt levels are good?'

The Tories definitely still think that increased levels of private debt are desirable. In fact, they are baked into the OBR projections for the economy. The 'realist' side of the Labour Party presumably also still think that elevated levels of private debt are desirable, since they thought this during the Blair/Brown era and have said nothing to suggest they've changed their minds. That leaves the Corbynites, who are against residential housing as an investment class and, de facto, against elevated private debt levels. (The Lib Dems have no discernible policies beyond being...nice(?) so I've left them out.)

So, if you want to avoid living in a society of debt peons, Corbyn is your best shot. His other policies are unimportant in comparison to that. And if Momentum want to make unsubtle videos pointing it out, good luck to them - the politics of housing should get nastier because, to be honest, the reality of housing has been nasty for many people, for many years.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by Darby Ram

[adarmo]

4 hours ago, Habitationi Bulla said:

Come on be honest how many BTLs you got?

Zero. You?

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, NuBrit said:

So much here that is just so wrong.

The Tories have done NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to stop runaway house price inflation. Cameron was appointed 7 years ago in the depths of a significant house price shock. He had the choice at that point to ensure that the lessons of 2007 were to never be repeated. Instead he decided upon the inflate and forget policy, and here we are in 2017, in a situation that is probably worse than 2007.

 So what have i said that's wrong?

The Tories didn't allow prices to correct, and they might have been able to do so and blame it all on Labour.... never understood why they did this but just look at any house price chart from 1990 to today. 

I literally can't believe people have such sort term memories. 

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, NuBrit said:

It's actually quite amusing that you've time-boxed high property prices entirely into Labour's spell in government. 

 Not high prices, but high growth in prices. There's a subtle difference. 

Should prices be lower? Ideally yes. Who drove them so high? Labour did. 

Take a look at average house price growth under 13 years of Labour and then look at the average rate under the Tories. 

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, NuBrit said:

Yes, because property prices can never go down.

HTB was socialism at its very worse - redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

 Well prices can go down. 

I thought socialism was meant to be redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor?

I'd say the worst example of socialism we've had was when Labour bailed out the banks and socialised their losses. Taking wealth from the poor to the rich. 

[Conquistador]

Over last 25+ years, (New) Lab and Con were both balls-deep invested in HPI and short-termist pandering to the British obsession. Can't take party politics seriously on that.

[Greg Bowman]

10 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Left wing and rich -> hypocrite 

Left wing and poor -> jealous

Saves thinking I suppose

I actually agree with your sarcasm but the trouble is the left wing isn't left wing is it ?

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question,
now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside
looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again;
but already it was impossible to say which was which"

George Orwell - Animal Farm

 

[Greg Bowman]

11 hours ago, Si1 said:

Hipocracy is the broader labour picture, true. But they are only answering "why do people like Corbyn", not "are Labour hipocracy". I voted Tory and I wouldn't vote Labour simply because I don't believe in socialism. 

Nicely put I think we do need a more socialist tinge but like you believe socialism per se doesn't work and let's face it pretty well proven fact 

The Nordic countries get trotted out but the only one that is looking viable now is Norway and billions in their sovereign wealth fund helps ( very astute but they are a much smaller nation before all the Brave hearts start posting )

[Si1]

39 minutes ago, Greg Bowman said:

Nicely put I think we do need a more socialist tinge but like you believe socialism per se doesn't work and let's face it pretty well proven fact 

The Nordic countries get trotted out but the only one that is looking viable now is Norway and billions in their sovereign wealth fund helps ( very astute but they are a much smaller nation before all the Brave hearts start posting )

I do suspect socialism can work somewhat better in smaller countries where the govt is less removed from the population and accountability is more direct.

 

But having said that the Scandinavian countries have done so well over the decades due to having a long tradition of market economics with effective government. Imho. People rarely cite the successful right wing govts they've had, whilst banging on about the left wing ones.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Si1

[Greg Bowman]

34 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I do suspect socialism can work somewhat better in smaller countries where the govt is less removed from the population and accountability is more direct.

 

But having said that the Scandinavian countries have done so well over the decades due to having a long tradition of market economics with effective government. Imho. People rarely cite the successful right wing govts they've had, whilst banging on about the left wing ones.

Spot on re accountability always my argument about paying more to MP's you won't get more accountability and better quality MP's just the same twats earning twice as much 

[PopGun]

10 hours ago, adarmo said:

It is literally this easy. Borrowing is the deficit. Borrowed is the debt. I am concentrating on the deficit, which is the borrowing and not the borrowed which is the debt. 

I hope this makes things more understandable? If so let me know and we can continue. 

Comedy gold. 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deficit.asp

here let me make it simple for you so you can untwist your knickers.

 

 

[spyguy]

7 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Yes. 

The housing bubble in the US was more significant in that sense. 

A better question is, if the City of London has been regulated properly, would we have had the financial crisis?

The city was a much bigger player than is generally acknowledged, and exacerbated the race to the bottom by allowing regulatory arbitrage between London and New York.

 

The CIty of London deals with wholesale finance - trading, debt, equity.

The UK's problems in 2007 were all donw purely to plain vanilla banks lending too much on plain vanilla real estate.

Securtitisaion and the like played a very small part.

Dont make the CIty out to be at the cause of this. It has its fault but this was dumb mortgage banks lending too much to people to buy houses.

 

[PopGun]

1 minute ago, spyguy said:

The CIty of London deals with wholesale finance - trading, debt, equity.

The UK's problems in 2007 were all donw purely to plain vanilla banks lending too much on plain vanilla real estate.

Securtitisaion and the like played a very small part.

Dont make the CIty out to be at the cause of this. It has its fault but this was dumb mortgage banks lending too much to people to buy houses.

 

Really I mean really?

who mixed up the AAAs with the sub prime debt assets again? Pretty sure it wasn't the Halifax guy with penfold glasses.

it was the demand for debt assets that led to the crazy lending. High street backs where just the front end GUI, outputting the strategy written behind them.

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, PopGun said:

Really I mean really?

who mixed up the AAAs with the sub prime debt assets again? Pretty sure it wasn't the Halifax guy with penfold glasses.

it was the demand for debt assets that led to the crazy lending. High street backs where just the front end GUI, outputting the strategy written behind them.

Not in the UK.

Sub prime is a purely US term, used for classifying mortgages backed by the US Fannie MAC thigns.

No such loan classification exists in the UK. Sure, some banks used the term sub-prime but its meaningless inhe UK - just high LTV, self cert laons.