NationStates Jolt Archive

Some genuinely interesting stuff in the Chancellor's red box this year.

A wee summary of some notable figures, courtesy of Auntie Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011882.stm):


• Income tax for those earning more than £150,000 to rise to 50% from April 2010

• Economy forecast to shrink 3.5% in 2009

• Public borrowing to increase to £175bn this year

• An extra £9bn in efficiency savings is planned

• Public spending growth to be cut from 1.1% next year to 0.7% from 2011-2012

• Alcohol taxes to go up 2% from midnight - putting the price of the average pint up 1p

• Tax on tobacco to go up by 2% from 6pm - equivalent to an extra 7p on a pack of 20 cigarettes

• Fuel duty to rise by 2p per litre from September, then by 1p a litre above indexation each April for the next four years


Cuts in public spending and a tax hike for big earners... interesting times indeed.

but didn't Crash Gordon already save the world?

Alcohol taxes to go up 2% from midnight - putting the price of the average pint up 1p

this is a travesty I will not stand for this outrages tax!

Tax on tobacco to go up by 2% from 6pm - equivalent to an extra 7p on a pack of 20 cigarettes

also bad because Cigs cost loads these days

Some genuinely interesting stuff in the Chancellor's red box this year.

A wee summary of some notable figures, courtesy of Auntie Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011882.stm):


• Income tax for those earning more than £150,000 to rise to 50% from April 2010

• Economy forecast to shrink 3.5% in 2009

• Public borrowing to increase to £175bn this year

• An extra £9bn in efficiency savings is planned

• Public spending growth to be cut from 1.1% next year to 0.7% from 2011-2012

• Alcohol taxes to go up 2% from midnight - putting the price of the average pint up 1p

• Tax on tobacco to go up by 2% from 6pm - equivalent to an extra 7p on a pack of 20 cigarettes

• Fuel duty to rise by 2p per litre from September, then by 1p a litre above indexation each April for the next four years


Cuts in public spending and a tax hike for big earners... interesting times indeed.

That looks half decent to me.:D

Umm apart from the cut in public spending. I don't know, and god knows I'm no ecomimist but it seems sensibl in time of recetion and unemployment that the goverment increaseing public spending has to create better moral, and more employment? Perhaps there are some of our residents that could explain that one?

I'd have had a lot more respect if Darling had calmly stood up, then delivered the following speech

"Good afternoon. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! NO JOBS! NO MONEY! FUCK! EVEN I'M GOING TO BE UNEMPLOYED SOON! WHY, GOD, WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN ON MY WATCH? WE'RE A TOTAL FUCKING SHAMBLES! WE'RE GOING TO BE BEATEN BY THAT STUPID CHINLESS WONDER AND HIS BUNCH OF INCOMPETENT AND IMBECILIC POLICY-FREE TOFF CHUMS! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!...This concludes the 2009 budget. Thank you."

• Income tax for those earning more than £150,000 to rise to 50% from April 2010


*deep intake of breath*







SOCIALISM!!!1!!1!

Umm apart from the cut in public spending.

well you see they are going to privatize more of either Royal Mail or the NHS hence the projected increase in public borrowing

well you see they are going to privatize more of either Royal Mail or the NHS hence the projected increase in public borrowing

Boooo hissss!

SOCIALISM!!!1!!1!
And from New Labour, of all people.

I've heard reports this will affect about 1% of the UK's population.


Umm apart from the cut in public spending.
It's a cut in growth of public spending, to play the party line, but it still amounts to the same thing.

Of note is the public borrowing increase to £175bn; projected borrowing last year was around £40bn I believe, so this is a massive jump.

Hehe...... sorry, I just can't take a guy seriously with those eyebrows.

Anyway, seems like expected things to help the economy, I'm not sure what other things they could introduce. The opposition parties seem to pooh-pooh it but don't suggest anything themselves. Perhaps they dislike the huge amount of borrowing, but this seemed inevitable.

The opposition parties seem to pooh-pooh it but don't suggest anything themselves.
Indeed.

The only tangible measure of difference from the Tories that I could discern was a statement that they would make even more 'efficiency cuts', i.e., cut public spending even further.

Meh, don't care.

So we spent 6 years of economic growth with government spending outpacing tax revenues and now that we have entered recession, the one time we can't afford to raise taxes and cut spending - Labour propose to raise taxes and cut spending.

So we spent 6 years of economic growth with government spending outpacing tax revenues and now that we have entered recession, the one time we can't afford to raise taxes and cut spending - Labour propose to raise taxes and cut spending.
Or, alternatively, Labour and the Tories have spent the last decade or so arguing over how to spend the revenue from a deregulated financial sector, and now that the deregulation has bitten us in the ass, Labour and the Tories are going to spend the next decade arguing over how to save money and enforce 'proper' regulation.

All the while pointing to the other side of the Commons and shouting, 'it's their fault!'.

All the while pointing to the other side of the Commons and shouting, 'it's their fault!'.

And that in a nutshell is why politics makes many(myself included) seethe with impotent furry.

...seethe with impotent furry.
Never piss off an impotent furry.

Indeed.

The only tangible measure of difference from the Tories that I could discern was a statement that they would make even more 'efficiency cuts', i.e., cut public spending even further.

Of course, all those 'leeching' the system while on welfare just need to be told to find a job, very easily done.... oh wait.

Never piss off an impotent furry.

That's one legendary misspelling.

a 50% tax rate. id riot in the streets.:mad:

a 50% tax rate. id riot in the streets.:mad:
50% income tax on those earning £150,000+. It's currently at 40% and was, prior to Thatcher's election, around 75%.

But don't worry, convert your cash to stocks, and you only have to pay 18%. Even better, move to Guernsey, and avoid paying tax altogether!

Go, go, government loopholes for the rich.

You guys should throw Tea Parties across the country, its the logical step in fixing your current Economic Crises,

We've seen in the US that number of teaparties = number of points the stock market goes up, :D

50% income tax on those earning £150,000+. It's currently at 40% and was, prior to Thatcher's election, around 75%.

But don't worry, convert your cash to stocks, and you only have to pay 18%. Even better, move to Guernsey, and avoid paying tax altogether!

Go, go, government loopholes for the rich.

Anything more then 33% is highway robbery.
I definitely support using those loop holes.
Though I don't know if paying only 18% tax is worth the risk of losing 50% on the stock market.

• Income tax for those earning more than £150,000 to rise to 50% from April 2010

Unspeakably angry about this. The irresponsibility of the poor, and their inability to act with any financial prudence or self-discipline, is at the heart of this. They ought to bear the costs of any remedial policies, not the rich.

• Economy forecast to shrink 3.5% in 2009

"No more boom and bust" indeed....

• Public borrowing to increase to £175bn this year

No. Just no. If PI is correct, and I assume it is, levels of borrowing prior to the budget amounted to our anticipated national output for the next 50 years. Why add to this?

• An extra £9bn in efficiency savings is planned

Dependent on what "efficiency savings" actually entail.

• Public spending growth to be cut from 1.1% next year to 0.7% from 2011-2012

Not early enough. Welfare should be cut to a bare minimum, with provision only for pensioners and the disabled.

• Alcohol taxes to go up 2% from midnight - putting the price of the average pint up 1p

Meh. Hardly a great burden or increase, however, as with cigarette duty, it's hardly an innovative policy.

• Tax on tobacco to go up by 2% from 6pm - equivalent to an extra 7p on a pack of 20 cigarettes

Utter bollocks. See above.

• Fuel duty to rise by 2p per litre from September, then by 1p a litre above indexation each April for the next four years[/indent]

No no no. It's already cheaper to hire foreign haulier companies to travel to the UK for an internal contract than to use British firms. Why further punish hauliers, and motorists at large.

Cuts in public spending and a tax hike for big earners... interesting times indeed.

I'd have no objections to larger contractions in public spending; privatisation and sale of the NHS, secession from the EU and the dismantling of the welfare state would all be more effective in reducing public sector expenditure.

• Economy forecast to shrink 3.5% in 2009

Wild eyed optimism.

Cuts in public spending and a tax hike for big earners... interesting times indeed.

That's actually sensible. I doubt it will fend off the inevitable gilt strike tho'.

I'd have no objections to larger contractions in public spending; privatisation and sale of the NHS, secession from the EU and the dismantling of the welfare state would all be more effective in reducing public sector expenditure.

I am so happy you have no power of the economy.

I am so happy you have no power of the economy.

Pray tell me why?

Not early enough. Welfare should be cut to a bare minimum, with provision only for pensioners and the disabled.

Oh right, so the millions that have lost their jobs through this financial mess should be forced to get jobs....that don't exist at the moment?

Pray tell me why?

Perhaps because your ideas for an improved economy match those from cloud cuckoo land? Especially selling the NHS, way to increase public mortality rates.

Oh right, so the millions that have lost their jobs through this financial mess should be forced to get jobs....that don't exist at the moment?

Since their financial irresponsibility and inability to act with any prudence or self-disicipline is the basis of this current dislocation, I'd sooner punish the poor, who deserve it, than those who don't. For that matter, those who will qualify for Darling's vindictive tax are not necessarily "rich" either; the requisite level of income is not sufficiently high to ensure that those liable are immune from financial hardship.

Incidentally, and from an apolitical stance; does this signify the start of campaigning for next years election?

Since their financial irresponsibility and inability to act with any prudence or self-disicipline is the basis of this current dislocation, I'd sooner punish the poor, who deserve it, than those who don't. For that matter, those who will qualify for Darling's vindictive tax are not necessarily "rich" either; the requisite level of income is not sufficiently high to ensure that those liable are immune from financial hardship.

Incidentally, and from an apolitical stance; does this signify the start of campaigning for next years election?

How does someone who lost their job anywhere equal to someone who spent irresponsibly?

Pray tell me why?
Answer me this: Would you want someone who wanted to remake the current Welfare state into something even larger, would you support them? It's merely a disagreement in Ideology.
Perhaps because your ideas for an improved economy match those from cloud cuckoo land? Especially selling the NHS, way to increase public mortality rates.
1. Cloud cuckoo land? That sounds like a fun place to be!:tongue:

2. Actually, as long as they don't divide into several companies, from a Free-Market fan boy as myself, I think that might actually work out semi-well.

Perhaps because your ideas for an improved economy match those from cloud cuckoo land? Especially selling the NHS, way to increase public mortality rates.

People should be financially responsible, and that does entail provision for hardship. I can't help but recall, thoughout this entire affair, the words of darling Maggie; "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day". Had the ignorant, teeming masses to whom Darling has pandered in the budget followed the above, the economy would not be in such a dire situation.

How does someone who lost their job anywhere equal to someone who spent irresponsibly?

Those who have lost their jobs should have anticipated as much and saved more, or, got a better education.

Those who have defaulted mortgages are frankly irresponsible.

People should be financially responsible, and that does entail provision for hardship. I can't help but recall, thoughout this entire affair, the words of darling Maggie; "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day". Had the ignorant, teeming masses to whom Darling has pandered in the budget followed the above, the economy would not be in such a dire situation.

Ah yes, Maggie Thatcher. The women who espoused small government and low taxes and yet had control of a government that had the highest overall taxation of any government of the 20th century whilst watching government income fall throughout her tenure. Not the best of people to listen to at the best of times really.

Ah yes, Maggie Thatcher. The women who espoused small government and low taxes and yet had control of a government that had the highest overall taxation of any government of the 20th century whilst watching government income fall throughout her tenure. Not the best of people to listen to at the best of times really.

Argue against the sentiments, don't simply rant about Thatcher. A day at university, never mind 3 years, provides a surfeit of rants about the evils of Thatcher.

Those who have lost their jobs should have anticipated as much and saved more, or, got a better education.

Those who have defaulted mortgages are frankly irresponsible.

You seem to have little idea about cause and effect. Someone's job could have been entirely secure until the week of the 'crash', and then lost it and not been able to get a similar one in their area of expertise for months; savings would not last more than a few months and no-one in that climate would have been hiring. Indeed, this might have led to mortgage defaulting.

I'm not saying this applies to all, but all these 'should have' statements are just smug and made far too much with hindsight.

Those who have lost their jobs should have anticipated as much and saved more, or, got a better education.

Those who have defaulted mortgages are frankly irresponsible.

That's retarded, when you get a mortgage from the bank, you trust it to be secure, you trust the risks to be spread and that there would be no cascading failure that would cause all these deals to default. Nobody saw that this system was fucked up, impart from a few economists and financial engineers, you can't expect ordinary citizens to simply 'see it coming'. Regardless, 'punishing the poor' will only have negative effects, it will reduce expenditure and aggregate demand as the poor have a much higher propensity to consume than the wealthy. That in turn will reduce investment, there will be much further reduction investment by the volatile environment created because of your aggressive policies and your secession from the EU. That is not something you want in a recession.

Argue against the sentiments, don't simply rant about Thatcher. A day at university, never mind 3 years, provides a surfeit of rants about the evils of Thatcher.

The point being, even your vaunted Maggie couldn't follow her own "ideals" so what chance that we mere mortals would be able to follow her ideas?

Those who have defaulted mortgages are frankly irresponsible.

Or, and here's the cracker, have just lost their jobs so can't pay the mortgage. Not everyone has the money to save large amounts of their income because they have to buy silly things, like food.

That's retarded, when you get a mortgage from the bank, you trust it to be secure, you trust the risks to be spread and that there would be no cascading failure that would cause all these deals to default. Nobody saw that this system was fucked up, impart from a few economists and financial engineers, you can't expect ordinary citizens to simply 'see it coming'. Regardless, 'punishing the poor' will only have negative effects, it will reduce expenditure and aggregate demand as the poor have a much higher propensity to consume than the wealthy. That in turn will reduce investment, there will be much further reduction investment by the volatile environment created because of your aggressive policies and your secession from the EU. That is not something you want in a recession.

People spent, persistently, beyond their means. It is irresponsible. Personally, I see no reason to punish either rich or poor, and the most glaring omission from the budget is a raise in the minimum wage. However, punishing those who have worked, consistently, and are enjoying the rewards of such work should not be taxed as succour to the poor.

Or, and here's the cracker, have just lost their jobs so can't pay the mortgage. Not everyone has the money to save large amounts of their income because they have to buy silly things, like food.

Then they shouldn't have mortgages. Quite simply, if they are unable to continue to pay in hardship, they ought neither to be given, nor to take, mortgages.

However, punishing those who have worked, consistently, and are enjoying the rewards of such work should not be taxed as succour to the poor.

If this is all you said, I wouldn't have too much of a problem.

The point being, even your vaunted Maggie couldn't follow her own "ideals" so what chance that we mere mortals would be able to follow her ideas?

You still haven't rebutted the idea that personal prudenceand responsibility is the basis of prosperity.

People should be financially responsible, and that does entail provision for hardship. I can't help but recall, thoughout this entire affair, the words of darling Maggie; "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day". Had the ignorant, teeming masses to whom Darling has pandered in the budget followed the above, the economy would not be in such a dire situation.

Considering that our esteemed businesses, politicians, and media seem to have only been wise after the event, shouting "I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!" despite saying nothing of the sort before hand, I find it difficult to understand how you would think your average person knew what was on the way.

A lack of prudence there has been, on a wide scale, but this has been part of a ludicrous culture of "spend, spend, spend" which the last generation has been indoctrinated into by politicians and business. Unfortunately, the surge in these attitudes can be traced back to the era of your hero Thatcher and the abandonment of the manufacturing base for an economy entirely based around the retail and finance sectors, with their constant demand that the people speculate, spend all that they have, forget tomorrow. Something will turn up! The economy will always grow!

The seeds were sown a long time ago. Our economy has been fundamentally unbalanced for some time, and now, after New Labour in their infinite stupidity intensified the process over the last ten years, the whole sorry card pyramid has come tumbling down. The whole culture of "spend spend spend" has been blared (or should that be "blaired") out at us with megaphones for decades. The poor people who have lost their jobs are not the ones to blame, its the entire economic paradigm. But as usual, the right-wing ideologues want to go all class war on us and misinform us that the poor are at fault for a culture that the poor themselves have had no role in creating

Then they shouldn't have mortgages. Quite simply, if they are unable to continue to pay in hardship, they ought neither to be given, nor to take, mortgages.
In which case, the banks would give hardly any mortgages. This would lead to the loss of a massive revenue stream and require that more housing either be leased or rented which then creates the problem of who owns the properties originally.

You still haven't rebutted the idea that personal prudenceand responsibility is the basis of prosperity.

Personal prudence and responsibility is one thing, losing their jobs because of poor economic planning by their employers is another. If people aren't paid enough to save then they are unable to do so, you can't blame the employee for that.

Wild eyed optimism.
Vince Cable's critique of it as "fantasy" seems about right.


Unspeakably angry about this. The irresponsibility of the poor, and their inability to act with any financial prudence or self-discipline, is at the heart of this.
And the irresponsibility and inability to act with any financial prudence or self-discipline of the (largely) middle-class finance workers...?

Not early enough. Welfare should be cut to a bare minimum, with provision only for pensioners and the disabled.
Even if you're right, and poorer people are to be blamed for the financial crisis, why shouldn't there be provision for individuals and families who need government welfare to survive?

There's plenty of hard-working, educated persons who have been put out of work through no faulty of their own, and could never have afforded to put away money. Do you genuinely believe that every person who is on the dole or claiming redundancy benefits is merely lazy or short-sighted?

Incidentally, and from an apolitical stance; does this signify the start of campaigning for next years election?
Of course it does.

Hell, it defines the UK political landscape for the next decade.

Considering that our esteemed businesses, politicians, and media seem to have only been wise after the event, shouting "I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!" despite saying nothing of the sort before hand, I find it difficult to understand how you would think your average person knew what was on the way.

A lack of prudence there has been, on a wide scale, but this has been part of a ludicrous culture of "spend, spend, spend" which the last generation has been indoctrinated into by politicians and business. Unfortunately, the surge in these attitudes can be traced back to the era of your hero Thatcher and the abandonment of the manufacturing base for an economy entirely based around the retail sector, with its constant demand that the people spend all that they have, forget tomorrow.

The seeds were sown a long time ago. Our economy has been fundamentally unbalanced for some time, and now, after New Labour in their infinite stupidity intensified the process over the last ten years, the whole sorry card pyramid has come tumbling down. The whole culture of "spend spend spend" has been blared (or should that be "blaired") out at us with megaphones for decades. The poor people who have lost their jobs are not the ones to blame, its the entire economic paradigm. But as usual, the right-wing ideologues want to go all class war on us and misinform us that the poor are at fault for a culture that the poor themselves have had no role in creating

Never mind the rampant classism evoked by the left, media, politicians, commentators all, in their persecution of banking executives eh? The right have been far more restrained than their leftwing equivalents in analysis of the current situation, reserving their venom, quite rightly, for Labour. However, that the poor have, in general, spent beyond their means, and borrowed beyond their means, is undoubted, and they ought not to be protected from criticism for doing so.

In regard to Thatcher, I genuinely do not agree she espoused recklessness in personal finance. Rather, she placed too great faith in the prudence and discipline of others. To trust in the maturity and good sense of an employed adult is hardly ludicrous.

I would agree, however, that materialism is the basic cause of our current predicament. Quite what solutions can be offered to this is a different matter.

And the irresponsibility and inability to act with any financial prudence or self-discipline of the (largely) middle-class finance workers...?

By which you mean banking executives?


Even if you're right, and poorer people are to be blamed for the financial crisis, why shouldn't there be provision for individuals and families who need government welfare to survive?

Because they're a drain on the state, and should take responsibility for their imprudence.

There's plenty of hard-working, educated persons who have been put out of work through no faulty of their own, and could never have afforded to put away money. Do you genuinely believe that every person who is on the dole or claiming redundancy benefits is merely lazy or short-sighted?

Utter balls. Even a moderate household income, say £35,000 per annum, still permits for saving and prudence. However, I will concede a clarification to my point; those persistently claiming dole, for a prolonged period, should be refused. Those made redundant through no personal fault should not.

Of course it does.

Hell, it defines the UK political landscape for the next decade.

Well, yes. Borrowing to the factor of 50 times our national output does that to a country.

My point was rather whether so obviously a politicised budget, aimed at satiating Labour voters, suggests that next years general election had begun in earnest.

Never mind the rampant classism evoked by the left, media, politicians, commentators all, in their persecution of banking executives eh?

Well, if you fuck up your business hugely, leaving thousands unemployed, and then wander off with a massive pension, thats pretty unjust. Considering their role in this crisis they deserve more punishment than they are getting.

The right have been far more restrained than their leftwing equivalents in analysis of the current situation, reserving their venom, quite rightly, for Labour.

Because the Conservatives predicted this and have been pushing for a substantial change in the economic system for some time? Oh, wait, no they haven't, or they must have been saying it awfully quietly during the boom years. Wise after the event. Its a very easy thing to be.

However, that the poor have, in general, spent beyond their means, and borrowed beyond their means, is undoubted, and they ought not to be protected from criticism for doing so.

Fine, for unquestioningly buying into the lie of the hyper-materialism of the past couple of decades, they probably do deserve some criticism. Do they deserve to be left in extreme poverty because of the dramatic benefit cuts you suggest? No, they don't. The middle and upper classes played a significant role in creating this mess. Cutting welfare will stop them having to suffer through taxation, while heaping more misery on the poor, who already suffer most in recessions. Rather an unfair distribution of burden, methinks.

In regard to Thatcher, I genuinely do not agree she espoused recklessness in personal finance. Rather, she placed too great faith in the prudence and discipline of others. To trust in the maturity and good sense of an employed adult is hardly ludicrous.

After the embarassing failure of monetarism in her first term, she was desperate to jump on any economic bandwagon that came along and run with it regardless of the consequences. I doubt she gave a damn about the long term consequence.

How is it that a bunch of welfare types in the UK caused an epic global ponzi scheme to spring into existence and collapse again? I'm really not sure that is the root cause of this mess. If I was to point the finger anywhere, I'd have to say this is a middle class created problem.

How is it that a bunch of welfare types in the UK caused an epic global ponzi scheme to spring into existence and collapse again? I'm really not sure that is the root cause of this mess. If I was to point the finger anywhere, I'd have to say this is a middle class created problem.

Depends on the definition of "middle class". In Britain, only if the "lower middle class" are seperated from the higher gradations of "middle class".

By which you mean banking executives?
By which I mean all sorts of people in the financial industry who seem to have accepted and practised a large number of irresponsible and short-sighted policies, resulting in quick gain and later financial loss. Not to mention those politicians who contributed to the culture of irresponsibility.

Laying the blame solely at the feet of the imprudent working-class consumer is as foolish as laying it solely at the feet of bankers.

Because they're a drain on the state...
And they won't be a drain living on the streets, having to abandon children, causing all sorts of problems for the NHS?

Even a moderate household income, say £35,000 per annum, still permits for saving and prudence.
I'd agree; yet there's plenty (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334) of folks who earn a lot less than £35,000 p/a.

Well, yes. Borrowing to the factor of 50 times our national output does that to a country.

My point was rather whether so obviously a politicised budget, aimed at satiating Labour voters, suggests that next years general election had begun in earnest.
If I was Davie Cameron, and thank fuck I'm not, I'd maybe try and sabotage the the Tories' election this time round, just so I wouldn't have to deal with all this mess.

Better to stay in opposition and shake my head dourly.



Considering their role in this crisis they deserve more punishment than they are getting.
To an extent, I disagree.

Obviously, irresponsible financial conduct has contributed highly to this current global recession, and I have major ethical problems with the concept of banking in general, but I do feel that bankers are being somewhat scapegoated.

A lot of people who also helped engineer this fuck-up, who were happy with deregulation and the profits they were making in the 90s are now the same ones sitting shocked, as if they had never heard of 'making a quick buck' prior to the subprime mortgage nonsense.

I have major ethical problems with the concept of banking in general

Why is that?

Depends on the definition of "middle class". In Britain, only if the "lower middle class" are seperated from the higher gradations of "middle class".

Alright, I'll accept that the lower middle class probably weren't responsible either.

But clearly the blame falls mostly on the shoulders of the hoardes of deluded middle and upper middle income types who don't really understand maths.

Look, what we have seen, and what is now causing all the secondary economic pain; job loss, contraction of production, collapse in tax revenues &c., was brought about because of a massive fraudulent inflation of asset prices and then the subsequent collapse of those prices. About 45% of global wealth.

Now given that the top 20% own and control the vast bulk of those assets, you really can't put the blame on the lower income groups. This didn't happen because some chav in Hartlepool stopped paying his visa.

And if blame is not properly assigned, then this mess will never be fixed. So talking about what the poor did, or didn't do; their morals or lack thereof &c. is just a waste of time.

Of course the poor didn't pay back their loans. It has been this way for hundreds of years. It really has no bearing on anything.

By which I mean all sorts of people in the financial industry who seem to have accepted and practised a large number of irresponsible and short-sighted policies, resulting in quick gain and later financial loss. Not to mention those politicians who contributed to the culture of irresponsibility.

I suspect they were under, at the higher echelons at least, great political pressure to widen the availability of credit and housing loans. I'd be wary of crying "murder" at banking and omit the role of government.

Laying the blame solely at the feet of the imprudent working-class consumer is as foolish as laying it solely at the feet of bankers.

Quite true, however, they ought to take responsibility for their own actions, and not monosyllabically grunt of the perfidy of the "bankers" and Fred Goodwin.

And they won't be a drain living on the streets, having to abandon children, causing all sorts of problems for the NHS?

Potentially; to be blunt the entire issue of dependence on government aid could be solved with a decent increase in the minimum wage.

I'd agree; yet there's [url=http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334]plenty[url] of folks who earn a lot less than £35,000 p/a.

Not in the south-east.:tongue:

If I was Davie Cameron, and thank fuck I'm not, I'd maybe try and sabotage the the Tories' election this time round, just so I wouldn't have to deal with all this mess.

Better to stay in opposition and shake my head dourly.

I'd rather he got in, fucked up, and left with the rest of his Etonian cabal. I'd sooner have William Hague or David Davis, or, you know, a real Tory.

Alright, I'll accept that the lower middle class probably weren't responsible either.

But clearly the blame falls mostly on the shoulders of the hoardes of deluded middle and upper middle income types who don't really understand maths.

Look, what we have seen, and what is now causing all the secondary economic pain; job loss, contraction of production, collapse in tax revenues &c., was brought about because of a massive fraudulent inflation of asset prices and then the subsequent collapse of those prices. About 45% of global wealth.

Now given that the top 20% own and control the vast bulk of those assets, you really can't put the blame on the lower income groups. This didn't happen because some chav in Hartlepool stopped paying his visa.

And if blame is not properly assigned, then this mess will never be fixed. So talking about what the poor did, or didn't do; their morals or lack thereof &c. is just a waste of time.

Of course the poor didn't pay back their loans. It has been this way for hundreds of years. It really has no bearing on anything.

Ah. I was seperating them to then include them in the bete noire I make of the poor at large, not to exculpate them.

To be honest, I suspect every respective social and political group believes blame is unfairly apportioned to one group and thus seeks to over-rectify this by criticism of another.

Why is that?
I suppose I've got a bit of an old-fashioned problem with usury.



I suspect they were under, at the higher echelons at least, great political pressure to widen the availability of credit and housing loans. I'd be wary of crying "murder" at banking and omit the role of government.
Oh, I'm all for laying appropriate blame at government too.

...and not monosyllabically grunt of the perfidy of the "bankers" and Fred Goodwin.
I quite agree; see my comments directed to Dumb Ideologies.

At the risk of being hyperbolic, some of the Select Committees reminded me, at times, of showtrials.

Potentially; to be blunt the entire issue of dependence on government aid could be solved with a decent increase in the minimum wage.
I believe we have found a political cause we can both rally round.

Not in the south-east.:tongue:
Funny that...

I'd rather he got in, fucked up, and left with the rest of his Etonian cabal. I'd sooner have William Hague or David Davis, or, you know, a real Tory.
Incidentally, what's your opinion of ol' Ken Clarke?

To be honest, I suspect every respective social and political group believes blame is unfairly apportioned to one group and thus seeks to over-rectify this by criticism of another.

No. I don't think that's it. I think it's patently ridiculous to blame a global financial crisis on people who have no control over global finance.

Oh, I'm all for laying appropriate blame at government too.

Good. I'm still quite appaled more hasn't been made of Gordon's triumphal "No more boom and bust".

I quite agree; see my comments directed to Dumb Ideologies.

Fair enough.

At the risk of being hyperbolic, some of the Select Committees reminded me, at times, of showtrials.

Indeed. Did you, incidentally, see the footage of Boris Johnson walking out of one? His description of the roads as a"grit and slush and lasagne" was priceless.

I believe we have found a political cause we can both rally round.

I'll do leaflets...

Honestly though, I feel that, if we are to expect the poor to work, ther income must be at once greater than their potential income from unemployment benefit, and be sufficient to offer dignity.

Funny that...

Not a clue what you mean....;)

Incidentally, what's your opinion of ol' Ken Clarke?

I'm quite a fan of his style, if only because he smokes, drinks and generally refuses to dance to the tune of David "you can't like UKIP and be Conservative" Cameron. However, a tad too Europhile for my tastes. To be honest I've little time for the Tory party at all now; I believe 15 of the front bench are Etonians, which, combined with Cameron's preference for token MP's and ministers, and his stance on selective schools, leads me to suspect he has little time for the Grammar school wing of the party, and little sympathy for their cause.

Did you, incidentally, see the footage of Boris Johnson walking out of one? His description of the roads as a"grit and slush and lasagne" was priceless.
I shall have to track that down.

Honestly though, I feel that, if we are to expect the poor to work, ther income must be at once greater than their potential income from unemployment benefit, and be sufficient to offer dignity.
Hear, hear!

To be honest I've little time for the Tory party at all now; I believe 15 of the front bench are Etonians, which, combined with Cameron's preference for token MP's and ministers, and his stance on selective schools, leads me to suspect he has little time for the Grammar school wing of the party, and little sympathy for their cause.
The question being, does he need folks like yourself, or the 'Grammar school wing', to win the upcoming election?

I suspect not.

I shall have to track that down.


Hear, hear!


The question being, does he need folks like yourself, or the 'Grammar school wing', to win the upcoming election?

I suspect not.

Which is the depressing thing about British politics. The majority of Tory members would sooner have UKIP policies than the ambiquities Cameron passes off as policy, and yet will vote Tory for fear of a left-wing government. To be blunt, Cameron does need the "grammar school" wing of the party; however, they aren't likely to desert him en masse, irrespective of how divergent their policies are.

I'm beginning to understand how Old Labour voters have felt for the past decade. Thoroughly disaffected and frustrated with the entire game.

I suppose I've got a bit of an old-fashioned problem with usury.
Maybe you should just call it something else. You know, "time value of money" or "liquidity premium" for example. Then you can drop the pseudo-religious stuff and just deal with reality. It's a supply and demand thing, and it's the only way it's going to work. Even in Islam and even in a left libertarian world not having access to your resources for a period of time is a cost that people need to be compensated for if they're going to lend. And without lending, you exclude huge chunks of the population from entrepreneurial activity.

The only way around it is if no one owns anything, in which case you can just use anything at virtually any time. Then you wouldn't need to save and you wouldn't need to invest and so there wouldn't have to be banks or interest. But of course, there wouldn't be much in terms of capital accumulation either - if you think there are differences between privately and socially optimal economic activities in capitalism, wait until you see that world!

Utter balls. Even a moderate household income, say £35,000 per annum, still permits for saving and prudence. However, I will concede a clarification to my point; those persistently claiming dole, for a prolonged period, should be refused. Those made redundant through no personal fault should not.


Wait, wait. You are resoundly blaming the 'poor' for not saving, but saying that about £35,000 permits saving. Yes, it probably does (though with housing costs, children, essentials etc... less than you might think). The 'poor' you are so resoundly blaming are probably earning half that - suddenly the amount left over for saving is minimal - if they loose their jobs they are reliant on the dole even if they have no debt at all.

Maybe you should just call it something else. You know, "time value of money" or "liquidity premium" for example. Then you can drop the pseudo-religious stuff and just deal with reality.
What 'pseudo-religious stuff'?

All I said was that I have a distaste for usury, i.e., charging excessive interest.

What 'pseudo-religious stuff'?
Few people deny that the term has religious connotations. Its roots are obviously religious, and the negative meaning attached to it was entirely a "god doesn't like it" thing. It's one of those words that are just assumed to be bad and used with that intent, like selfishness.

All I said was that I have a distaste for usury, i.e., charging excessive interest.
Everyone does, that's nothing special. But to say that you don't like banking "in general" because you have a distaste for usury suggests that your threshold for "excessive" is extremely low. In fact, if usury is your reason for disliking banking, and keeping in mind what the term usury originally stood for (and still does in Islam, for example), then your threshold for excessiveness should be zero.

Few people deny that the term has religious connotations. Its roots are obviously religious, and the negative meaning attached to it was entirely a "god doesn't like it" thing. It's one of those words that are just assumed to be bad and used with that intent, like selfishness.


Everyone does, that's nothing special. But to say that you don't like banking "in general" because you have a distaste for usury suggests that your threshold for "excessive" is extremely low. In fact, if usury is your reason for disliking banking, and keeping in mind what the term usury originally stood for (and still does in Islam, for example), then your threshold for excessiveness should be zero.

Huh? That is strange, I have never heard of the word meaning anything even remotly religious?

Huh? That is strange, I have never heard of the word meaning anything even remotly religious?
Well, look up the word on wikipedia. Or just put it in google (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=usury&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=usur). Of course it has a secular meaning, but it also carries a lot of religious connotations. Even people who aren't religious can still use or be affected by such a priori associations with a word.

Huh? That is strange, I have never heard of the word meaning anything even remotly religious?

Usury 'tis a sin. The pope said so. Which is why all the bankers in medieval italy were jews - they didn't have to listen to the pope. But it's also how medieval italy was able to jump so far ahead of the rest of europe. They actually had bankers. Who are sort of necessary - bless their little black hearts - if you want anything more than feudalism.

Few people deny that the term has religious connotations. Its roots are obviously religious, and the negative meaning attached to it was entirely a "god doesn't like it" thing. It's one of those words that are just assumed to be bad and used with that intent, like selfishness.
It has as much philosophical connotations as it does religious; objections to it aren't 'entirely' religious.

Aristotle has an early irreligious account condemning the practice:

Now money-making, as we say, being twofold, it may be applied to two purposes, the service of the house or retail trade; of which the first is necessary and commendable, the other justly censurable; for it has not its origin in nature, but by it men gain from each other; for usury is most reasonably detested, as it is increasing our fortune by money itself, and not employing it for the purpose it was originally intended, namely exchange.

And this is the explanation of the name (tokos), which means the breeding of money. For as offspring resemble their parents, so usury is money bred of money. Whence of all forms of money-making it is most against nature.

Politics 1258b

Everyone does, that's nothing special. But to say that you don't like banking "in general" because you have a distaste for usury suggests that your threshold for "excessive" is extremely low. In fact, if usury is your reason for disliking banking, and keeping in mind what the term usury originally stood for (and still does in Islam, for example), then your threshold for excessiveness should be zero.
Perhaps. I think Aristotle's account, above, expounds much of what I feel.

Well, look up the word on wikipedia. Or just put it in google (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=usury&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=usur). Of course it has a secular meaning, but it also carries a lot of religious connotations. Even people who aren't religious can still use or be affected by such a priori associations with a word.

I just entered it in dictionary.com and got this:

1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant interest.
2. an exorbitant amount or rate of interest, esp. in excess of the legal rate.
3. Obsolete. interest paid for the use of money.

Usury 'tis a sin. The pope said so. Which is why all the bankers in medieval italy were jews - they didn't have to listen to the pope. But it's also how medieval italy was able to jump so far ahead of the rest of europe. They actually had bankers. Who are sort of necessary - bless their little black hearts - if you want anything more than feudalism.

Meh! Gluttony is also a sin, but I would not call that a religous word either.

Meh! Gluttony is also a sin, but I would not call that a religous word either.But isn't the whole concept of "sin", itself, religious in origin?

But isn't the whole concept of "sin", itself, religious in origin?
Substitute the word 'sin' for the word 'vice' and you've a secular concept.

Perhaps. I think Aristotle's account, above, expounds much of what I feel.
In which makes my original post regarding your objections makes as much sense as ever. Interest is nothing but the compensation for not having access to your money for a period of time. If you think that's wrong, I'd like to hear a better way of doing it.

In which makes my original post regarding your objections makes as much sense as ever. Interest is nothing but the compensation for not having access to your money for a period of time. If you think that's wrong, I'd like to hear a better way of doing it.
What do you mean by 'it'?

What do you mean by 'it'?
I mean a mechanism that allows people to smoothe consumption over time while encouraging at least some investment in future productive capacity and keeping freerider problems in that regard to a minimum.

Unspeakably angry about this. The irresponsibility of the poor, and their inability to act with any financial prudence or self-discipline, is at the heart of this. They ought to bear the costs of any remedial policies, not the rich.I would have thought this was satire were it not for its origins.

I mean a mechanism that allows people to smoothe consumption over time while encouraging at least some investment in future productive capacity and keeping freerider problems in that regard to a minimum.
Are you talking purely in terms of the capitalist economic system?

If you are, then I don't know if there is a 'better' system; though there are interest-free banks (http://jak.se/). However, seeing as my ethical worries about charging (excessive) interest on money borrowed are wrapped up in ethical worries about the entire capitalist project, I don't feel I need to posit a 'better' system.

What I would say is that though I recognise that there may be instances where folks should be 'compensated' for not being able to use the resources they are loaning out, two things occur. Firstly, I don't think there's a good (moral?) reason for this 'compensation' in every interest of loaning; I am, after all, loaning you my resource with full knowledge of it being loaned. It seems rather petty to complain that the resource is not in my possession when I chose for it not to be in my possession.

Secondly, I don't think what banks do is directly analogous to your definition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14731088#post14731088) of interest as "nothing but the compensation for not having access to your money for a period of time", for the money that banks charge interest on is not theirs. It is their customers'.

Now, there may be reasons of economic development why interest should be charged, I believe you're outlining one above, and these should be considered.

Are you talking purely in terms of the capitalist economic system?

If you are, then I don't know if there is a 'better' system; though there are interest-free banks (http://jak.se/). However, seeing as my ethical worries about charging (excessive) interest on money borrowed are wrapped up in ethical worries about the entire capitalist project, I don't feel I need to posit a 'better' system.

What I would say is that though I recognise that there may be instances where folks should be 'compensated' for not being able to use the resources they are loaning out, two things occur. Firstly, I don't think there's a good (moral?) reason for this 'compensation' in every interest of loaning; I am, after all, loaning you my resource with full knowledge of it being loaned. It seems rather petty to complain that the resource is not in my possession when I chose for it not to be in my possession.

Secondly, I don't think what banks do is directly analogous to your definition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14731088#post14731088) of interest as "nothing but the compensation for not having access to your money for a period of time", for the money that banks charge interest on is not theirs. It is their customers'.

Now, there may be reasons of economic development why interest should be charged, I believe you're outlining one above, and these should be considered.

Put it this way, charging interest on loans is the reason banks exist, if banks couldn't make money, almost nobody would want to create one, and there would be a severe shortage of banks. Think of it as a necessary normal profit to convince these institutions to stay in business. You could also think of interest as a kind of risk premium.

Now, there may be reasons of economic development why interest should be charged, I believe you're outlining one above, and these should be considered.
They're the same though. It's like you say: if people don't get compensated, they won't do it. Neither individual people nor banks would have an incentive of taking this form of liquidity risk, and banks wouldn't exist. But that means that people will in fact refrain from making their money available to people who have good ideas and just need funding. Anyways, this isn't a capitalism-only thing, I've yet to see the ways saving and investment are supposed to be dealt with in a system without capitalist property rights.

And it's worth saying that even in a perfectly developed economy there is still scopes for saving and lending, because people are happier when they have some way to smoothe consumption rather than just live from hand to mouth.

EDIT: And I had a look at this JAK bank, and the way it works is just like any of these "Islamic" banks. You can only get a loan once you've saved money with the bank for a while, which means either you get excluded pretty much from the start, or you've paid interest in the form of savings you don't get access to previously. There is no such thing as free borrowing.