Benefits Britain - channel 5

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="ricardo"]However very few countries have followed that lead which should give you a clue as to how sensible it was. It was also probably the least well timed financial decision of all time.I''ll give you credit for a brave defence of a foolish action, Badger. Dear old Gordo not only sold our gold at the bottom of the market but forced that market bottom by signalling his intentions well in advance. The average price of that sale was around $270 an ounce. Gold has since risen to over $1800 an an ounce and although it has  fallen recently it is still very close to $1300 an ounce. This is some five times the price that we got for it.How many centuries of compound interest do we need before we get our money back?[/quote]The literal answer is "none", but without being aware of the rates of interest that the other assets are earning you could not do a calculation. In the long run it will be profitable, but I agree you could not argue that the timing and pace of sale maximised revenue! Britain still retains a lot of Gold so will have benefitted from its rise in price on the (approx. half) proportion that i has retained.Your point also assumes that the assets that were bought to replace gold have not changed in value. Spreading risk by owning different assets classes is a very sensible policy and certainly one that I follow with my own finances. Sure as different markets goes up and down you kick yourself for profit that you might have made ("if only I hadn''t  sold my flat in London syndrome") but in the long, spreading risk is a sensible policy. In 5 years time, gold prices might be very deflated and foreign currencies and other assets very high, in which case, it will profitable then. I might argue that this short-term profit maximising behaviour is the problem and that if a longer term perspective were taken over the British economy it would be beneficial to us all.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="ricardo"]However very few countries have followed that lead which should give you a clue as to how sensible it was. It was also probably the least well timed financial decision of all time.I''ll give you credit for a brave defence of a foolish action, Badger. Dear old Gordo not only sold our gold at the bottom of the market but forced that market bottom by signalling his intentions well in advance. The average price of that sale was around $270 an ounce. Gold has since risen to over $1800 an an ounce and although it has  fallen recently it is still very close to $1300 an ounce. This is some five times the price that we got for it.How many centuries of compound interest do we need before we get our money back?[/quote]The literal answer is "none", but without being aware of the rates of interest that the other assets are earning you could not do a calculation. In the long run it will be profitable, but I agree you could not argue that the timing and pace of sale maximised revenue! Britain still retains a lot of Gold so will have benefitted from its rise in price on the (approx. half) proportion that i has retained.Your point also assumes that the assets that were bought to replace gold have not changed in value. Spreading risk by owning different assets classes is a very sensible policy and certainly one that I follow with my own finances. Sure as different markets goes up and down you kick yourself for profit that you might have made ("if only I hadn''t  sold my flat in London syndrome") but in the long, spreading risk is a sensible policy. In 5 years time, gold prices might be very deflated and foreign currencies and other assets very high, in which case, it will profitable then. I might argue that this short-term profit maximising behaviour is the problem and that if a longer term perspective were taken over the British economy it would be beneficial to us all.[/quote]You are as usual correct on many fronts Badger but the bit I''ve highlighted in red is a masterpiece of understatement and Brown should have it carved on his gravestone.[:D]

[Badger 2,405]

Yes, Ricardo, I would agree that this is probably one of the weaker points of my case! [:)]

[paul moy 235]

Gordon also destroyed private pensions with tax credit removal in 1997 after being advised no to and brought in child tax credits which have been a huge expensive mistake. Disaster after disaster with Lie bore.

[Dicky 0]

Gordon Brown sold gold at a stupidly low price, just before it rocketed and bought Euros before the Euro plummeted in value. Cost the country Billions. Sums him up. Then again, Labour know f all about macro economics - their main idea for increasing employment was to take on millions or extra civil servants.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

You are as usual correct on many fronts Badger but the bit I''ve highlighted in red is a masterpiece of understatement and Brown should have it carved on his gravestone.[:D]



[/quote]

 

Perhaps Mr. Brown thought he was Goldfinger and his policy a form of radioactive management.