Reuters:Bank of England rate rises could come faster than expected, chief economist warns

[stop_the_craziness]

18 hours ago, TonyJ said:

Yes, QE can technically be done for ever, but that is a bit like saying C18th French aristocrats could technically abuse their peasants for ever. Yes, it was technically possible, but it didn't work out like that.

The problem with QE is that most people don't know that it's going on and even when you tell them seem remarkably indifferent to it.  Therefore I think it can potentially go on forever, with the consent of the ignorant and uninterested masses.  TPTB have pulled an actual blinder in making something that affects EVERYONE seem relevant to no one.  It's the greatest con trick of all time in my opinion.

[Dreamcasting]

You only have to look at the markets. 10 years on, and everything is holding together. There are no markets anymore actually, and that is all because of QE. The system has always, and always will be rigged against you. There's actually nothing you can do about it, and things are only going to get worse. People won't protest, they'll just end up in cardboard boxes out on the street.

FWIW, I believe the world population will be reduced by at least 50% within the next 30 years. The elite would probably now like to see everyone apart from their own 0.1% wiped off the face of the planet.

[anonguest]

18 minutes ago, Dreamcasting said:

You only have to look at the markets. 10 years on, and everything is holding together. There are no markets anymore actually, and that is all because of QE. The system has always, and always will be rigged against you. There's actually nothing you can do about it, and things are only going to get worse. People won't protest, they'll just end up in cardboard boxes out on the street.

FWIW, I believe the world population will be reduced by at least 50% within the next 30 years. The elite would probably now like to see everyone apart from their own 0.1% wiped off the face of the planet.

And the means by which that will occur?

As terrible and destructive as WW2 was the total deaths barely dented world population. The same applies to all other major hsitorical wars.  The only historical even that came any where remotely near to 50% population reduction was the Black Death, and even then that still was some way offf 50%..

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by anonguest

[awkwardturtle]

I read that the "Term Funding Scheme" (Special brexit QE) will come to an end this month.

Even without an explicit rate rise, it could be a small amount of upwards pressure on interest rates? One less source of free money for the empoverished banks at least.

[Bricks n' mortar]

2 minutes ago, anonguest said:

The only historical even that came any where remotely near to 50% population reduction was the Black Death, and even then that still was some way offf 50%..

You think they haven't weaponised germs?

[anonguest]

Just now, Bricks n' mortar said:

You think they haven't weaponised germs?

So you're assuming deliberate mass murder is the name of the game - as opposed to war where the killing as many of your opponent is not the actual objective, but rather to conquer and rule over them.

Now you're getting in to the realms of sci-fi/dystopian future/conspiracy theory.  The idea that the so called 0.1% want to wipe out most of the great unwashed masses for their convenience.

[anonguest]

4 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

The elite don't even need a war. All they need to do is make having a family completely unaffordable to most people. In the west this is already happening. The population will eventually shrink. In third world countries they don't need to do anything except ensure that modern technology doesn't really make a dent and ensure the age old diseases that kill the poor continue unabated. And the people that are here are slaves. Just look at life for the average Chinese person. Their "lives" are working as slaves in a polluting factory 18+ hours per day to make peanuts. In the West we have zero hours contracts and people need benefit subsidies just to get by. It's even affecting the middle classes now.

That's not entirely correct.

Standards of living will continue to fall in the West for sure.  BUT in the East they are improving.  Yes they still work hard BUT, by and large, todays generation has better standard of living than their parents and grandparents before them. Today in Beijing it is full of cars and other motorised vehicles!  When I see old newsreel footage of Beijing with millions of people riding around on bicycles I see central London and most other UK city centres in the future.

But, for sure, even with all the improvements in standard of living the Chinese PTB are constanly aware that civil unrest is never far away - they have a long history of it.

The difference is that, here in the West, the PTB are ignorantof/indifferent to the risk of the sort of unrest that will be their downfall

[anonguest]

8 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

And better quality lives in the East will result in population reducing. Whenever a culture becomes educated and their quality of life improves they have less children, reducing the worldwide population eventually over time, so the 1% don't need war they just need time and they have plenty of that.

Yes. Poorer societies have higher birth rates. Agreed.

Here, in the West, we seem to further support it with anti-Darwinian socio-economic policies (e.g. child benefit, etc) that help support birth rates of the underclasses that the elites supposedly, according to others here, conspiratorially want to eradicate.

[anonguest]

Just now, fru-gal said:

Yes but this is also stopping now. The real big benefit was child tax credits and this has now been capped at 2 children since April 2017. It is worth about £55 per child per week. That all adds up. LHA (housing benefit for private rentals) has also been capped at 2 children. 

Good point. In which case, it can be argued, that such family producing policies are gradually being withdrawn - and are in effect a deliberate attempt to reduce indiginous population growth.

[winkie]

......having large families is not that expensive if you train them well, bunk beds, getting them used to sharing, cooking well, with decent local state education etc.....the bigger problem is paying for everything on one wage, the even bigger problem is what future job opportunities will there be for state educated children with poor contacts living in areas of lower paid work with few prospects and even less job security.....once six children could create six independent households......today is very different.

[Bricks n' mortar]

8 hours ago, anonguest said:

you're assuming deliberate mass murder is the name of the game

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.  It was Dreamcasting who put their belief that a plot was afoot to reduce population.  You put that the only thing, historically, that came close was a biological actor.  I only meant by my point that such things are within the realms of possibility these days.
I have no opinion on whether it might happen.

[A.steve]

I'm pleased at the news that the BoE may be intending to accelerate the rate of increase of interest rates... but the idea itself got me thinking.

The 'traditional' view is that government "over-spend" is responsible for causing inflation... but that the central bank has a mandate to implement monetary policy to keep this inflation under control.  If this perspective is relevant, it suggests that the Treasury, rather than the central bank, may be most significant in influencing macro-economic conditions.

This idea brought me to thinking about budgets... and note that (apparently) we're due to get "The Spring Statement" in about a fortnight.  Thinking about this, I realised that I'm rather uninformed about what is public knowledge about Treasury policies.  In the past, I've been aware of the media focusing on pennies of tax on/off various goods - but, now, I imagine that "the budget" should involve some rather more fundamental information about how the treasury intends to spend over the next year... feel that treasury spending might have a huge influence on the economic outlook - and wonder if insights into this can be gleaned from public documents that I've never bothered to read.

Have any HPC-ers "done their homework" to understand how government spending is influencing the overall economy?  For an amateur with an interest in economics, where should I start - if I wanted to get a handle on the top-down influence of Treasury policy on the economic environment?

 

 

[longgone]

10 hours ago, anonguest said:

So you're assuming deliberate mass murder is the name of the game - as opposed to war where the killing as many of your opponent is not the actual objective, but rather to conquer and rule over them.

Now you're getting in to the realms of sci-fi/dystopian future/conspiracy theory.  The idea that the so called 0.1% want to wipe out most of the great unwashed masses for their convenience.

natural disasters and the failure of antibiotics to work due to over use will be a good start to that dystopian future. one mans dystopia is another mans utopia. 

 

[Thorn]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

I'm pleased at the news that the BoE may be intending to accelerate the rate of increase of interest rates... but the idea itself got me thinking.

The 'traditional' view is that government "over-spend" is responsible for causing inflation... but that the central bank has a mandate to implement monetary policy to keep this inflation under control.  If this perspective is relevant, it suggests that the Treasury, rather than the central bank, may be most significant in influencing macro-economic conditions.

This idea brought me to thinking about budgets... and note that (apparently) we're due to get "The Spring Statement" in about a fortnight.  Thinking about this, I realised that I'm rather uninformed about what is public knowledge about Treasury policies.  In the past, I've been aware of the media focusing on pennies of tax on/off various goods - but, now, I imagine that "the budget" should involve some rather more fundamental information about how the treasury intends to spend over the next year... feel that treasury spending might have a huge influence on the economic outlook - and wonder if insights into this can be gleaned from public documents that I've never bothered to read.

Have any HPC-ers "done their homework" to understand how government spending is influencing the overall economy?  For an amateur with an interest in economics, where should I start - if I wanted to get a handle on the top-down influence of Treasury policy on the economic environment?

 

 

Hard to see past the zombifying effect of tax credits on the population.

And the BOE magic money tree laptop which creates billions and provides them to certain chosen private funds for distribution- they seem to hold and bid up asset prices- they don’t seem to distribute. 

So... Treasury Policy has created new money and given it to the already-rich to hoard.

Meanwhile everyone else gets poor and eg gets evicted on a whim by a happy property-asset-owner.

There’s my homework.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thorn

[macca13]

14 hours ago, Bricks n' mortar said:

You think they haven't weaponised germs?

If they wanted to reduce the population do you think they would have such loose imigration policies.. it’s all about replacing us with people more accustomed to lower living standards and wages.. then the return to slavery “will be completttte” (dearth Vader) 

[awkwardturtle]

They're at it again Interest rate rise of 1% would cost average UK homeowner £930 a year

Quote

This would bring an end to the historically low mortgage costs that have boosted housing affordability and limit the buying power of those needing a mortgage

Clearly interest rate rises are evil (boooo) and monopoly money is the hero our city deserves (yayyyy)

[spyguy]

https://www.ft.com/content/28aa99da-1b31-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

'The US may be on the cusp of a shift to higher sustained growth, pointing to a possible rise in the interest rate needed to maintain stable prices and full employment, a senior Federal Reserve policymaker said on Monday.'

BoE is probably full of people running around shouting Dont panic!

 

[A.steve]

23 hours ago, Thorn said:

Hard to see past the zombifying effect of tax credits on the population.

There’s my homework.

You realise that I was asking if others have 'done their homework' because I don't feel I have... I hoped someone reading this thread might have already tried to do the research that I now feel that I should be doing.

Politically, I sympathize.  Intellectually, I hoped to get a response from someone who shares my interest in establishing an understanding of specific top-down influences of national budgets on the economy.  For example, are the societal influences of tax-credit policies likely to increase or decrease in the next year?  Is there sufficient public information to gauge the likely systemic influence of trends in budgets as they relate to policy?  Which publications provide the best insights into Treasury budgeting and government originated economic influence?

[Noallegiance]

7 hours ago, spyguy said:

https://www.ft.com/content/28aa99da-1b31-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

'The US may be on the cusp of a shift to higher sustained growth, pointing to a possible rise in the interest rate needed to maintain stable prices and full employment, a senior Federal Reserve policymaker said on Monday.'

BoE is probably full of people running around shouting Dont panic!

 

The hilarity continues.

Forecasts for multiple rate hikes fail. One or two per year if you're lucky. So they make up a 'fact' that the US economy is strong. Yep. That'll do it.

[stop_the_craziness]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Well ... to be honest, tax credits have electrified the population - loads of fat 40 odd year women trying to get knocked up, off to spoons squeeezing into a mini skirt, trying to spin thoses bennies out for another 15 years .....

 

Loving the imagery here.  It took me a moment to realise "bennies" wasn't a euphemism for something sexual 

[Funn3r]

4 hours ago, stop_the_craziness said:

Loving the imagery here.  It took me a moment to realise "bennies" wasn't a euphemism for something sexual 

"Bennies" used to be a mild insult something like "Muppets".  There was a massively popular soap with a truly dozy character in it named Benny who wore a wooly hat and whinged all the time.

[Maynardgravy]

2 hours ago, Funn3r said:

"Bennies" used to be a mild insult something like "Muppets".  There was a massively popular soap with a truly dozy character in it named Benny who wore a wooly hat and whinged all the time.

Crossroads - not that I'm that old I can remember it, but just that I'm a Brummie and the whole Crossroads thing was a cult up there (wasn;t Acorn Antiques based on it?)

[TheCountOfNowhere]

7 hours ago, stop_the_craziness said:

Loving the imagery here.  It took me a moment to realise "bennies" wasn't a euphemism for something sexual 

Has anybody got any...bennies

 

 

[Errol]

8 hours ago, stop_the_craziness said:

Loving the imagery here.  It took me a moment to realise "bennies" wasn't a euphemism for something sexual 

'Bennies' is normally used in connection with certain drugs.

[mrtickle]

7 hours ago, Maynardgravy said:

Crossroads - not that I'm that old I can remember it, but just that I'm a Brummie and the whole Crossroads thing was a cult up there 

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/599597/Paul-Henry-Benny-Hawkins-Crossroads-TV-Tony-Hancock