|
OwlFancier posted:Erm, no I'm not sure they are. its ok they're in another country
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
coincidentally what the labour party really need atm is blair to come back
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:World Bank needs a loving sort function on their tools. This is why it's never ok to use non-checked data. Do the programming Spangly
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019Beeb posted:Disability benefits: PIPs should be for 'really disabled' Glad a fuckhammer like this is involved in decisions that will affect me and who knows how many others 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019 Welp that's my income hosed, someone get me a shotgun and a list of tory and right-media donors. Hell, we might even be in an unequal enough world to seriously disrupt at least the mail with just a few Rothemere corpses. Fangz posted:What are these underlying sources of child poverty that Corbyn unlike anyone else is going to fix? I'm going to briefly return to this, after getting quite frustrated at what I realise is probably axiomatic to me. You can either correlate the deregulation of the banks and the ten year windup to them screwing the world economy *and* the sharp increase in child poverty, or you can not. The fundamental cause of the recession was something Brown had 10 years to fix, and I can't see Jeremy Corbyn or any other lefty being bank friendly. It's fairly inherent in us to hate wealth, and it's a happy coincidence that strong approaches to financial institutions result in net benefits to the economy. Deregulation is the underlying cause of recession. This is obviously a cause of child poverty that tax credits can't really touch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019 Dr. Arbitrary posted:Anyone with the name Freeman is likely a crazy who thinks that by going by that name, they become a Free Man, or some other berth certificate bullshit. Rick_Hunter posted:99% of the time someone is named Freeman it's a black guy (Like Washington and Jefferson). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:You can either correlate the deregulation of the banks and the ten year windup to them screwing the world economy *and* the sharp increase in child poverty, or you can not. The fundamental cause of the recession was something Brown had 10 years to fix, and I can't see Jeremy Corbyn or any other lefty being bank friendly. It's fairly inherent in us to hate wealth, and it's a happy coincidence that strong approaches to financial institutions result in net benefits to the economy. Deregulation is the underlying cause of recession. This is obviously a cause of child poverty that tax credits can't really touch. I frankly think that's really contrafactual. Despite all the handwringing, the experience of the great financial crisis is essentially the same in the UK as it was in most advanced economies, especially once you adjust for the relatively large presence of the banking sector. Brown and Blair could have done more, but changes would not have had a qualitative - as opposed to quantitative effect. And it could have come with a cost. What was different was the response afterwards, the failure of the coalition government to deliver better recovery. Recessions have come and gone for hundreds of years, what changes is how governments cover for the people. Corbynite greater regulation might reduce the risk of a crash and the exposure of it, but that's just a notch or so on the slider of 'more stability, less growth' economic choice. I really don't think there's much of a difference between him and the Blairites at all on this these days. Deregulation is not the underlying cause of recession - UK deregulation certainly isn't. The underlying cause of recession is *psychology*. There's no one magic fix. I'm not objecting that Corbyn is more left wing than the other guys, I'm objecting to the idea that he's somehow a different sort of animal. In a lot of ways his economic choices run significant risks of making things much worse for poor people. His brexit policy and his committment to fiscal zero, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I frankly think that's really contrafactual. You're talking nonsense again and I'd really like you to stop with the pop sci. Bank deregulation is an extremely well established cause of the financial crisis. It was banks doing things they should not have been allowed to do that was the cause of the 2008 global financial crisis. I cannot explain this to you any more coherently than this. You can argue but you're telling me gravity is because rocks want to go home, and I'm telling you it's a scientific principle that's well understood, and you're going nope, rocks want to go home. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Glad to see this holds even in the UK. It's a pretty common Anglicised German name, with all of the cultural baggage such a thing holds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
We haven't even had capitalism per se for "hundreds of years", the idea we've had recessions for that long is absurd. Fangz, what do you know about econ? I'm not being a dick I want to try and figure out where to start with something that is genuinely important to understand. Here's something basic that isn't bad on its key points. It's also important to remember the relationship between Wall Street and London is pretty strong, in terms of economic ties. Brown knocking it out wouldn't have stopped the chinese capital/american lenders problem but it would have led the UK banks to not go to poo poo, taking out masses of industry. e; if you want something more meaty I can find proper articles with thousands of references. The only thing with an appearance of being high level and public recognition is the absolute trash put out by CATO et al, which is basically "it definitely wasnt us bankrupting you and making millions, honest". Spangly A fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
quote:Here's something basic that isn't bad on its key points. It's also important to remember the relationship between Wall Street and London is pretty strong, in terms of economic ties. Brown knocking it out wouldn't have stopped the chinese capital/american lenders problem but it would have led the UK banks to not go to poo poo, taking out masses of industry. The point that the economic ties are pretty strong is what means a stronger regulatory regime would still have led to damage. Keep to specifics here. Which regulations would Corbyn have implemented/he proposes to implement now that would actually have stopped the global financial crisis from hitting Britain? I also really don't appreciate you snipping my words around like that. You're distorting what I'm trying to say a lot. quote:We haven't even had capitalism per se for "hundreds of years", the idea we've had recessions for that long is absurd. Um. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873 Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The point that the economic ties are pretty strong is what means a stronger regulatory regime would still have led to damage. You don't stop the americans making GBS threads on everything, it's what they do. What you stop is the masses of bankruptcies that followed from banks withdrawing credit in an attempt to deal with toxic assets. This is the impact factor, and a stronger regulation would not cause "less growth". The opposite is true, this is the whole argument, liberalism is a lie and an academic failure. It's just not true and you can't argue it is without appearing totally misinformed. If we want to talk specifics, the mis-labelling of debt and the packaging system are things that the Labour left have been against, that the Labour centre strongly adopted. Also the higher taxes-stronger state argument isn't a minor point here either. I don't disagree that the end of deficit spending is an utterly absurd idea and I'm disappointed in Corbyn adopting it in an attempt to appear "modern". It is not something he advocated before leadership. Fangz posted:I also really don't appreciate you snipping my words around like that. You're distorting what I'm trying to say a lot. You aren't saying anything I can actually parse, though. I'm not good at this, this is me trying to be constructive. I don't know how to respond to blatant falsehoods other than saying "that's wrong". I don't think you're being disingenious, I think you're wrong. yep, every ten years since the industrial revolution. Century is not plural. e; actually I supposed you can argue it's two centuries in the UK. Fair enough. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:It's a pretty common Anglicised German name, with all of the cultural baggage such a thing holds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:You don't stop the americans making GBS threads on everything, it's what they do. What you stop is the masses of bankruptcies that followed from banks withdrawing credit in an attempt to deal with toxic assets. This is the impact factor, and a stronger regulation would not cause "less growth". The opposite is true, this is the whole argument, liberalism is a lie and an academic failure. It's just not true and you can't argue it is without appearing totally misinformed. Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? When the issue is literally financial products being mislabelled? I can't really see how without literally banning financial transactions with the US. quote:You aren't saying anything I can actually parse, though. I'm not good at this, this is me trying to be constructive. I don't know how to respond to blatant falsehoods other than saying "that's wrong". I don't think you're being disingenious, I think you're wrong. The way you are selectively quoting me makes it look like I am claiming regulations are irrelevant, when I am actually saying that regulations represent partial fixes, you can always regulate more (up to banning finance entirely), you might have a preference for more regulation than the labour centre believe in, but that's not a qualitative difference. If Labour didn't deregulate there wouldn't suddenly be no more recessions. All regulation is a cost-benefit analysis. An actual qualitative difference would be to form a non-political panel to actually do a formal analysis of how regulations have effects and what the risk exposures are, but I guess you can't put that on a manifesto. It seems a heck of a leap to jump from 'Brown misjudged the risks and should have regulated more' to 'Corbyn is the first politician in ages to care about poor people'. quote:yep, every ten years since the industrial revolution. Century is not plural. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm not objecting that Corbyn is more left wing than the other guys, I'm objecting to the idea that he's somehow a different sort of animal. In a lot of ways his economic choices run significant risks of making things much worse for poor people. His brexit policy and his committment to fiscal zero, for example. What do you mean by 'fiscal zero'? If you mean he supports a balanced budget, that's only on current expenditure. Unlike the Conservatives, borrowing to fund capital investment is a key policy plank of his.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? Telling banks to do proper risk assessments and not over-leverage, this is not hard and you know it. Fangz posted:. An actual qualitative difference would be to form a non-political panel to actually do a formal analysis of how regulations have effects and what the risk exposures are, but I guess you can't put that on a manifesto. Something I'd argue entirely for, and that would have stopped banks over-leveraging with toxic assets. Not selling them blind to each other helps. Not buying anything from anyone who is legally allowed to only name the best asset of a package without letting you review is neither banning finance nor solely a quantative differences. If you cannot assess risk, and I am arguing (along with the left) that this is mandatory for financial institutions, that is not qualatitive. It is essentially what you are suggesting here. This isn't a shocking revelation we had post-crash. This is what the data said would happen. Some economists even nailed the right months. As I corrected, industrial revolution, so two. Comparing pre- and post-industrial finance and econ is worthless. These are not the same systems, they do not operate the same way. Fangz posted:It seems a heck of a leap to jump from 'Brown misjudged the risks and should have regulated more' to 'Corbyn is the first politician in ages to care about poor people'. He can care all he likes, did it help? I don't give a poo poo what politicians think or do as persons. The individual is not a relevant factor in a society. Besides, I didn't say care. I said address the underlying causes. Brown accelerated this, the left would have reversed this. If you're going to disingeniously claim this is a matter of numbers of regulations, then I've gone as far as I can here. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Prince John posted:What do you mean by 'fiscal zero'? Yes, but capital investment doesn't cover everything that you need. You might be able to build a hospital but not fund the doctors to put in it. If Blair/Brown operated under those rules things would have been significantly worse. It's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Telling banks to do proper risk assessments and not over-leverage, this is not hard and you know it. Define proper risk assessments. Define over-leverage. Define how government inspectors would access this data, especially for institutions spread out across continents. Define whether you mean that banks would no longer be allowed to use external ratings agencies. This is bloody hard and you know it. quote:As I corrected, industrial revolution, so two. Comparing pre- and post-industrial finance and econ is worthless. These are not the same systems, they do not operate the same way. So you still want to argue that the root cause of all of these is *deregulation*? I don't recall hearing a peep from Jeremy Corbyn on banking deregulation before the financial crisis. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
I'll do you one better https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/panics/ancient-panics/financial-panic-of-33ad/ Yep. We've been doing this poo poo since the Roman Empire at the very least, folks. Capitalism ain't new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So you still want to argue that the root cause of all of these is *deregulation*? Both the ones you quoted me were caused by unregulated capital. Are you forgetting I'm a marxist? Outside of the specific marxist answer of "Yes, this is what capital does", it'd be hard to. The ultimate cause of the 2008 GFC was bank deregulation, yes. Fangz posted:Define proper risk assessments. Define over-leverage. Bank leverage ratios increasing to levels unsupported by academic data happened under Labour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, but capital investment doesn't cover everything that you need. You might be able to build a hospital but not fund the doctors to put in it. If Blair/Brown operated under those rules things would have been significantly worse. It's dumb. The doctors are funded through increased tax receipts from an economy that's now growing following a massive economic stimulus. I'm sure it's possible to gently caress it up, but it's not a dumb position by default, especially when compared against the alternative of underfunding public services to the detriment of public health and international competitiveness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, but capital investment doesn't cover everything that you need. You might be able to build a hospital but not fund the doctors to put in it. If Blair/Brown operated under those rules things would have been significantly worse. It's dumb. Being upfront about capital investment even that far would've avoided the PFI fiasco. Also, why isn't investment in the education of people who perform essential state functions capital investment? What's so different about a doctor who works for 25 years to a building that's used for 25 years?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:What's so different about a doctor who works for 25 years to a building that's used for 25 years?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019 If that spunknugget happened to get his delicates prized off with a rusty spoon wielded by an irate, escaped silverback gorilla, it wouldn't be justice enough be a right laugh though, anyone know if london zoo has any silverbacks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Gorillas are big gentle souls, really. What you want for that's a chimpanzee, they're horrible bastards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:If that spunknugget happened to get his delicates prized off with a rusty spoon wielded by an irate, escaped silverback gorilla, it wouldn't be justice enough nah, make him work in a Job Centre for a month and see how long he lasts with that attitude
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Gerald Kaufman has died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Gerald Kaufman has died. Edit: I literally did not see your post
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
His seat had a majority of 24,079, he took it with 67.1% of the vote in 2015. Corbynites have already declared it not a safe seat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? When the issue is literally financial products being mislabelled? I can't really see how without literally banning financial transactions with the US. The problem wasn't 'mislabelling' (although the ratings agencies being worthless is another issue), the problem was those bonds being repackaged into derivatives with much less regulation. Securities based on Credit Default Swaps were the big one - banks could effectively bet on the performance of an asset without needing to own it. You could basically create these synthetic CDOs out of thin air, if you could find a buyer for them, and there was plenty of appetite for it. And banks, with lower capital requirements and less oversight on these kinds of investments, were able to gamble as big as they wanted with money they didn't have. And they lost, and we had to pay up Regulation doesn't mean preventing business, it means restricting the ability to pull this kind of poo poo and forcing them to operate safely - which means less 'dynamism' and profit, which is why the regulation was lax in the first place
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Prince John posted:the alternative of underfunding public services to the detriment of public health and international competitiveness. The alternative is not committing to idiotic fiscal rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I frankly think that's really contrafactual. Despite all the handwringing, the experience of the great financial crisis is essentially the same in the UK as it was in most advanced economies, especially once you adjust for the relatively large presence of the banking sector. Brown and Blair could have done more, but changes would not have had a qualitative - as opposed to quantitative effect. And it could have come with a cost. What was different was the response afterwards, the failure of the coalition government to deliver better recovery. Recessions have come and gone for hundreds of years, what changes is how governments cover for the people. Corbynite greater regulation might reduce the risk of a crash and the exposure of it, but that's just a notch or so on the slider of 'more stability, less growth' economic choice. I really don't think there's much of a difference between him and the Blairites at all on this these days. This is the dumbest post in the entire thread and Pissflaps posts in this thread. Congratulations, you're ready for a career as a political cartoonist with being so eagerly dense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:This is the dumbest post in the entire thread and Pissflaps posts in this thread. Congratulations, you're ready for a career as a political cartoonist with being so eagerly dense. I have feelings you know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Gorillas are big gentle souls, really. What you want for that's a chimpanzee, they're horrible bastards. I figure the chimpanzee may have an affinity with tory beliefs and ideology, could be a risk ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:nah, make him work in a Job Centre for a month and see how long he lasts with that attitude He ends up as deputy branch manager with 47 confirmed prole kills in his first month, narrowly missing cruel carla from carlisle's famous record?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Ah, another byelection
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:This is the dumbest post in the entire thread and Pissflaps posts in this thread. Congratulations, you're ready for a career as a political cartoonist with being so eagerly dense. In fact it's so profoundly dumb I'll elaborate just to drive the hammer home. The reason for the financial crash were diverse, but a lot of the psychology was the banks doing a lot of very visible, dumb gambles because they weren't properly regulated. In addition to gambling on money they didn't have (answer: regulation), giving out bad loans (answer: regulation) and the general asymmetry of the economy which led to the consumer base becoming substantially more fragile (answer: taxing the rich). And I'm not even digging deeper into how you manage to score a post/avatar combo every goddamn time because I have limited time and you have endless capacity for missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Greens came second in Manchester Gorton in 2015. Manchester Gorton voted 62-38 Remain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Greens came second in Manchester Gorton in 2015. Corbyn is going to have to try really hard to lose this one but I think he can do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:In fact it's so profoundly dumb I'll elaborate just to drive the hammer home. Cool, but that doesn't contradict anything I say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Cool, but that doesn't contradict anything I say. Ah, the Donald Trump argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:10
|
|