Who was the brains behind Webber’s appointment

[Bill 1,788]

The country's finances were fine until the 2008 global collapse

As to the gold sale that merely points to where you are coming from, and a gross lack of understanding of that matter, as

"Other central banks were also selling gold. According to BullionVault, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands had already sold 1,590 tonnes between them since 1990. In 1997 alone, Argentina and Australia sold a combined 290 tonnes.

And in April 1999, Switzerland voted in a referendum to sever the Franc's gold backing, effectively approving a plan to sell 1,300 tonnes from its 2,590-tonne hoard."

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

? Glad to see that you are as wrong on this as everything else you talk about! 🤦‍♂️

1. He was Education secretary. 

2. It was not the Chancellor who left the jokey message, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

3. He was not the only one - it is quite a usual joke. In 1964, Reginald Maudling left a note to James Callaghan saying "Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old ****." The only unusual thing was that David Cameron was the first person to stoop so low as to make political capital from it.

5. Since coming to power the National debt has more than doubled in 10 years!

6. Ed Balls is an Oxbridge graduate, a Kennedy Scholar, lead economic writer for the FT from the age of 23, is currently a senior fellow at Harvard University's Centre for Business and Govt and a visiting Professor at King's College, London. I think "expert finance man" is a reasonable working title 😃

Do you ever, ever, think about anything you write, or are you perhaps, a parody account?

[cornish sam 953]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

The country's finances were fine until the 2008 global collapse

As to the gold sale that merely points to where you are coming from, and a gross lack of understanding of that matter, as

"Other central banks were also selling gold. According to BullionVault, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands had already sold 1,590 tonnes between them since 1990. In 1997 alone, Argentina and Australia sold a combined 290 tonnes.

And in April 1999, Switzerland voted in a referendum to sever the Franc's gold backing, effectively approving a plan to sell 1,300 tonnes from its 2,590-tonne hoard."

Pray tell, where am I coming from then? I thought I knew, but, obviously I was mistaken...

Also did your mother never say "if you saw Jimmy sticking his hand in the fire would you do it as well?" So please educate me on my "gross" misunderstanding.

If the finances were so great why did we sell off our assets? Oh yes, short term gain instead of long term stability, which I think actually brings us quite neatly back onto the topic of Webber...

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Pray tell, where am I coming from then? I thought I knew, but, obviously I was mistaken...

Also did your mother never say "if you saw Jimmy sticking his hand in the fire would you do it as well?" So please educate me on my "gross" misunderstanding.

If the finances were so great why did we sell off our assets? Oh yes, short term gain instead of long term stability, which I think actually brings us quite neatly back onto the topic of Webber...

gets sillier by the minute

remind me what assets were sold in 2008

what short term gain would there have been in selling off assets, if the money simply

remains 'on the books'

[Badger 2,405]

17 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

I know I shouldn't respond....but, as you are well aware, that is not what I said or meant. The damage I am referring to is more related to his failure to put provision in place for the lean years during the fat, and in actual fact reduce our ability to cope with the lean through such I'll advised policies as selling off our gold reserves when gold prices were at the lowest they had been for about 20 years.

This simply isn't true, I'm afraid - it is very effective propaganda. the simple truth is that national debt as a proportion of GDP was at unusually low levels prior to the 2008 crash. Despite the austerity, the subsequent govt.s have never been anywhere near such low levels. It was also growing very sharply BEFORE he pandemic from levels that were already more than twice as high as pre-crash levels.

You might want to check out the facts if you don't want to make my word for it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282841/debt-as-gdp-uk/

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

He did nothing of the sort, get your facts right.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

Surprised we haven't flipped the Stadium......

[cornish sam 953]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

This simply isn't true, I'm afraid - it is very effective propaganda. the simple truth is that national debt as a proportion of GDP was at unusually low levels prior to the 2008 crash. Despite the austerity, the subsequent govt.s have never been anywhere near such low levels. It was also growing very sharply BEFORE he pandemic from levels that were already more than twice as high as pre-crash levels.

You might want to check out the facts if you don't want to make my word for it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282841/debt-as-gdp-uk/

I was aware that national debt was historically low before the crash, I was viewing it as not putting in a backstop plan for when the inevitable bust came along (inevitable in the cyclical nature of markets, not that we should have expected great prescience at the depth of the crash), but I can see an argument that in keeping the debt low they were doing just that. It just left us with seemingly (remember I am a lay person in economics as the bad dog exposed on a thread the other day about balance sheets) little recourse other than borrowing when the **** hit the spinny thing...

[cornish sam 953]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

gets sillier by the minute

remind me what assets were sold in 2008

what short term gain would there have been in selling off assets, if the money simply

remains 'on the books'

As to what assets were sold in 2008 I couldn't tell you without looking it up, I wasn't talking about that period but rather the late 90s and start of the millennium when everything was great and we sold the gold.

 

The short term gain, was as I perceived it, merely political capital. Looking a bit further into this and challenging my own views I can see that there has been some reassessment of this decision in the last few years which think that through the reinvestment of the money into guilds and bonds it would have actually been a sound economical move had interest rates not tanked, I can see that my view is perhaps incomplete, but this has not been helped due to your twisting of what I said and snidey digs without actually putting forwards any counter perspective or opinion other than "look others were doing it as well".

[Bill 1,788]

and you think a government should hoard money to use when a bust happens, or an unforeseen global collapse occurs ?

dear god !

even you talk of "keeping the debt low" which is an acknowledgement that governments permanently run debt - so where would this mythical 'backstop' come from, and what would it consist of ?

 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

 through the reinvestment of the money into guilds and bonds it would have actually been a sound economical move had interest rates not tanked,

Clearly you have not the slightest idea about this at all

A government re-invest in 'guilds' and bonds ! ! !

The reality is you started off by peddling some old 'rightie' myth about Gordon Brown - which is a fairly accurate indication of where you are coming from

[cornish sam 953]

Just now, Bill said:

Clearly you have not the slightest idea about this at all

A government re-invest in 'guilds' and bonds ! ! !

The reality is you started off by peddling some old 'rightie' myth about Gordon Brown - which is a fairly accurate indication of where you are coming from

 

Just **** off bill, I take great offense at you labelling me as a 'rightie' and your hollier than thou attitude has been getting worse and worse of late. I have tried given you the benefit of the doubt with your interactions with other posters and even explained why I wouldn't put you on ignore in another thread but you really are bringing down this board with the way you approach people and discussions.

I'm also sorry for making a spelling mistake that got autocorrected without me realising, I will make sure I never ever make a simple mistake in your presence again oh righteous one.

[Bill 1,788]

I would prefer if you were to explain how a government can invest in its own gilts and bonds

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

18 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

I was aware that national debt was historically low before the crash, I was viewing it as not putting in a backstop plan for when the inevitable bust came along (inevitable in the cyclical nature of markets, not that we should have expected great prescience at the depth of the crash), but I can see an argument that in keeping the debt low they were doing just that. It just left us with seemingly (remember I am a lay person in economics as the bad dog exposed on a thread the other day about balance sheets) little recourse other than borrowing when the **** hit the spinny thing...

As you say, debt was at very low levels before the crash - far lower, for example, than when the covid crisis hit us, 12 years after the financial crash.

With regards borrowing, it is exactly the right thing to do when an economy suffers a crash. In simple terms, you have to think of it as blood transfusion to critically wounded person. Without injections of cash/ demand you get what is called a deflationary spiral - people lose their jobs - people can't buy anything - more people lose their jobs etc

It tends to be forgotten now, but Gordon Brown led the world in helping to stop the 2008 crash into a 1930s recession. 

 

[cornish sam 953]

Just now, Bill said:

I would prefer if you were to explain how a government can invest in its own gilts and bonds

 

 

It can invest in other governments gilts and bonds, for example US treasury securities (which we did apparently use some of the money to invest in), apologies if those aren't actually gilts or bonds, as I said to Badger I am a bit of a layperson in this, which is why I appreciate people actually try to explain the counter position rather than attack the post or poster, hence I appreciate the engagment of someone like Badger or the bad dog who take the time to try and educate or at least indicate how to reassess a position rather than just saying ''you're wrong".

[Bill 1,788]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

As you say, debt was at very low levels before the crash - far lower, for example, than when the covid crisis hit us, 12 years after the financial crash.

With regards borrowing, it is exactly the right thing to do when an economy suffers a crash. In simple terms, you have to think of it as blood transfusion to critically wounded person. Without injections of cash/ demand you get what is called a deflationary spiral - people lose their jobs - people can't buy anything - more people lose their jobs etc

It tends to be forgotten now, but Gordon Brown led the world in helping to stop the 2008 crash into a 1930s recession. 

 

therein lies the point

why would someone want to intentionally misrepresent that reality ?

[cornish sam 953]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

As you say, debt was at very low levels before the crash - far lower, for example, than when the covid crisis hit us, 12 years after the financial crash.

With regards borrowing, it is exactly the right thing to do when an economy suffers a crash. In simple terms, you have to think of it as blood transfusion to critically wounded person. Without injections of cash/ demand you get what is called a deflationary spiral - people lose their jobs - people can't buy anything - more people lose their jobs etc

It tends to be forgotten now, but Gordon Brown led the world in helping to stop the 2008 crash into a 1930s recession. 

 

So essentially you are saying that it is better to borrow than to have saleable assets or a predictable return over medium term?

Thinking back now I can kind of see that, though at the time it didn't feel like there was much success in stopping the crash (and I was working for HBOS at the time, not on the financial side I'll hasten to add, so did feel the affects of it pretty acutely)...

[king canary 7,606]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

As you say, debt was at very low levels before the crash - far lower, for example, than when the covid crisis hit us, 12 years after the financial crash.

With regards borrowing, it is exactly the right thing to do when an economy suffers a crash. In simple terms, you have to think of it as blood transfusion to critically wounded person. Without injections of cash/ demand you get what is called a deflationary spiral - people lose their jobs - people can't buy anything - more people lose their jobs etc

It tends to be forgotten now, but Gordon Brown led the world in helping to stop the 2008 crash into a 1930s recession. 

 

I'm no expert but my view is the further we get away from the crisis itself the better Gordon Brown's reputation becomes. Shame he just didn't have the personality to be Prime Minister. 

[Hoolahoop14 124]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

Why would you do that? given you exact words were as below. ( and you still havent replied to that one stating who you incorrectly claim I am

And yes, I have put you on ignore, as that way I no longer have to see some weirdo constantly following me around - even in the non football threads.

Link here to help

 

 

Just give it a rest mate, that’s twice in 2 days that you’ve linked to my thread and made me read more of this pointless bickering. Literally no-one on this forum wants to read any more of it, it’s so boring. 
 

At least Bill has said he wants no more to do with it, follow his lead.

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

It can invest in other governments gilts and bonds, for example US treasury securities

I don't want to get involved in gold discussion as it is really a rather minor issue. It's main significance is as a sound bite "sold the gold" rings well in speeches.

The truth is that about half the gold was sold and as you suggest, a lot of the proceeds were use do buy other assets which earn interest ot a dividend in contrast to gold. The policy was in many respects a sensible one, but the timing wasn't great (sell under-performing assets that don't produce interest for those that do earn interest), however the timing was wrong. Gold prices soared after the "Dot-Com" crash in 2002, when the Nasdaq fell by 78%. This made people very wary of shares and turned to a safe haven - gold, which subsequently rose in price.

It undoubtedly cost money as gold prices have remained high but we should also take into account that in the meantime, we have been holding assets that have been earning interest and of course, at some time the price of gold will fall, and the govt will be better of as a result of the decision.

In the great scheme of things though, the amount of money is very small. To put in in perspective, it is approximately equivalent on 0.000000002% of the money that we have borrowed since 2010.

[cornish sam 953]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I don't want to get involved in gold discussion as it is really a rather minor issue. It's main significance is as a sound bite "sold the gold" rings well in speeches.

The truth is that about half the gold was sold and as you suggest, a lot of the proceeds were use do buy other assets which earn interest ot a dividend in contrast to gold. The policy was in many respects a sensible one, but the timing wasn't great (sell under-performing assets that don't produce interest for those that do earn interest), however the timing was wrong. Gold prices soared after the "Dot-Com" crash in 2002, when the Nasdaq fell by 78%. This made people very wary of shares and turned to a safe haven - gold, which subsequently rose in price.

It undoubtedly cost money as gold prices have remained high but we should also take into account that in the meantime, we have been holding assets that have been earning interest and of course, at some time the price of gold will fall, and the govt will be better of as a result of the decision.

In the great scheme of things though, the amount of money is very small. To put in in perspective, it is approximately equivalent on 0.000000002% of the money that we have borrowed since 2010.

Thank you badger. Ideas that got taken on through not really paying attention at the time should always be revisited from time to time and it's not something that I have really done from that time (I was too busy doing things I shouldn't have to pay proper attention then).

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm no expert but my view is the further we get away from the crisis itself the better Gordon Brown's reputation becomes. Shame he just didn't have the personality to be Prime Minister. 

Only this week there was a story that one of the banks they saved (Nat West) had just returned to profit giving the current Treasury a £190M payout.

Let's hope they don't go a faff it on a dodgy PPE contract or an overpriced Track and Trace system. 😀

[Badger 2,405]

15 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

So essentially you are saying that it is better to borrow than to have saleable assets or a predictable return over medium term?

If we had sold assets the result would have been to make the crash worse. The result of the financial crash meant that people lost their jobs and spending was reduced having a knock on effect on the rest of the economy. If the govt was then to sell assets, it would have sucked more money out of the economy as those with money would have bought these assets rather than other products, meaning even less goods were needed, more firms going bust, more unemployment, lower spending power etc. 

21 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

I was working for HBOS at the time, not on the financial side I'll hasten to add, so did feel the affects of it pretty acutely

Yes I'm sure it was very difficult working in banks, but if it had not been for the global refinancing of the banks, which Gordon Brown led the world on, it would have been far, far worse. I enclose an article from the New York Times from the time, that you might find interesting.

"Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?... (I've cut out lots of discussion but it's there if you are interested).... Luckily for the world economy, however, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown us the way through this crisis."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

23 minutes ago, Hoolahoop14 said:

Just give it a rest mate, that’s twice in 2 days that you’ve linked to my thread and made me read more of this pointless bickering. Literally no-one on this forum wants to read any more of it, it’s so boring. 
 

At least Bill has said he wants no more to do with it, follow his lead.

Id prefer to see some action from Bill - rather than his hollow words of wanting no more to do with it, and then continually quoting my posts.  Bill attempting to take the moral high ground is just laughable. 

If you notice I actually posted a link to an article regarding Zoe Wards appointment before Webber was appointed, None of this political off topic / non football garbage that has followed. But that's ok is it? 

Apologies if you dont like me posting on your thread. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Greavsy

[Badger 2,405]

25 minutes ago, king canary said:

Shame he just didn't have the personality to be Prime Minister. 

I get what you mean, but really the shame is that our politics makes it easier for someone like Cameron/ Blair/ Johnson to be a elected as Prime Minister than someone like Brown, Major or May. It rewards to flashy bullsh1tters rather than people of substance who have a track record.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

If we had sold assets the result would have been to make the crash worse. The result of the financial crash meant that people lost their jobs and spending was reduced having a knock on effect on the rest of the economy. If the govt was then to sell assets, it would have sucked more money out of the economy as those with money would have bought these assets rather than other products, meaning even less goods were needed, more firms going bust, more unemployment, lower spending power etc. 

Yes I'm sure it was very difficult working in banks, but if it had not been for the global refinancing of the banks, which Gordon Brown led the world on, it would have been far, far worse. I enclose an article from the New York Times from the time, that you might find interesting.

"Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?... (I've cut out lots of discussion but it's there if you are interested).... Luckily for the world economy, however, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown us the way through this crisis."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html

 

It's also worth saying that the political consequences of Brown's actions were always likely to be damaging and that was foreseeable at the time. He could have adopted a populist position, "Damn the banks, they've caused this and they can go to the wall" and positioned it as a UK Government siding with the man in the street against the nefarious banks that have ruined people. This would likely have landed well among the electorate in the short term and up to the 2010 election at least, but potentially have had devastating economic impacts in the medium to long term.

It's not difficult to make an argument that he sacrificed his own political career to save the global economy.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I get what you mean, but really the shame is that our politics makes it easier for someone like Cameron/ Blair/ Johnson to be a elected as Prime Minister than someone like Brown, Major or May. It rewards to flashy bullsh1tters rather than people of substance who have a track record.

That's one of the major pitfalls of our democracy. The characteristics and virtues needed to be a competent Prime Minister are completely contrary to the characteristics and virtues needed to be a successful Leader of the Opposition.

[chicken 2,624]

35 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

So essentially you are saying that it is better to borrow than to have saleable assets or a predictable return over medium term?

Thinking back now I can kind of see that, though at the time it didn't feel like there was much success in stopping the crash (and I was working for HBOS at the time, not on the financial side I'll hasten to add, so did feel the affects of it pretty acutely)...

I think that says it all. Considering my knowledge is limited, I've never worked in finance or banking etc and you worked for HBOS and have less of a clue than me... I think we can see why there was a bloody crash in 2008!!! 

Stick to things you know or get burned, your choice at this point.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

The tories did that to the incoming Labour Govt. in the 40/50s first. 

 

Oh dear, a certain lack of knowledge here. The labour government of 1945 came in after six years of a world war which required massive public borrowing. Even then it was not following a Tory government but a wartime coalition government which included several Labour cabinet members. There was never a Labour government following a Tory government in the 50s either.

[cornish sam 953]

11 minutes ago, Badger said:

If we had sold assets the result would have been to make the crash worse. The result of the financial crash meant that people lost their jobs and spending was reduced having a knock on effect on the rest of the economy. If the govt was then to sell assets, it would have sucked more money out of the economy as those with money would have bought these assets rather than other products, meaning even less goods were needed, more firms going bust, more unemployment, lower spending power etc. 

Yes I'm sure it was very difficult working in banks, but if it had not been for the global refinancing of the banks, which Gordon Brown led the world on, it would have been far, far worse. I enclose an article from the New York Times from the time, that you might find interesting.

"Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?... (I've cut out lots of discussion but it's there if you are interested).... Luckily for the world economy, however, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown us the way through this crisis."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html

 

Fair point, my thinking on this was too small, the simple though of you need money, you sell stuff doesn't necessarily work when we're talking at a national level as even though the envisaged cash would come from outside the fact everyone was in the crash and we still need.foreign investment to keep the economy moving....

As I said, I wasn't on the finance side (IT is my thing) so I was collateral damage if the forced 'merger' between HBOS and Lloyds. That article is interesting in giving a contemporary perspective from outside the UK bubble, so thank you once again.