| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. 23:52 - Mar 17 with 5103 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-to-unveil-drastic-d
'Reeves defended her approach on Monday. “When we’re spending £100bn a year on servicing government debt, I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that we don’t need to get a grip on government borrowing and government debt,” '
We're all debt slaves now and the cage and chains are getting shorter again. |  |
| |  |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:02 - Mar 18 with 3107 views | J2BLUE |
That is pretty bleak. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:07 - Mar 18 with 3094 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:02 - Mar 18 by J2BLUE |
That is pretty bleak. |
So I mean we could feck the whole charade off now or give Farage and his mob a chance to fail too first but that would be wasting time while his mates rob us some more as per Trump. Time for a bit of honesty isn't it? We're being mugged in slow motion and keep voting for non alternatives. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:16 - Mar 18 with 3060 views | positivity |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:07 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
So I mean we could feck the whole charade off now or give Farage and his mob a chance to fail too first but that would be wasting time while his mates rob us some more as per Trump. Time for a bit of honesty isn't it? We're being mugged in slow motion and keep voting for non alternatives. |
so your alternative to paying debt is to do what? not paying and the poorest people suffering from an enormous crash? time for a bit of honesty from you too!
that's straight out of the trump playbook (and something he's also threatened to do). |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:32 - Mar 18 with 3015 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:16 - Mar 18 by positivity |
so your alternative to paying debt is to do what? not paying and the poorest people suffering from an enormous crash? time for a bit of honesty from you too!
that's straight out of the trump playbook (and something he's also threatened to do). |
Well it's either a default and complete reset or perhaps a partial one and not making those at the bottom pay first. What do you think, more of the same because pension funds or something? | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:58 - Mar 18 with 2967 views | J2BLUE |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:32 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Well it's either a default and complete reset or perhaps a partial one and not making those at the bottom pay first. What do you think, more of the same because pension funds or something? |
I'm not sure what the answer is. Just not paying our debts doesn't seem like a realistic option.
Actually, that's not true, I am sure what the answer is. Wealth taxes. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 06:10 - Mar 18 with 2750 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:58 - Mar 18 by J2BLUE |
I'm not sure what the answer is. Just not paying our debts doesn't seem like a realistic option.
Actually, that's not true, I am sure what the answer is. Wealth taxes. |
Even that would be scratching the surface to a degree. The cat’s out of the bag now we’ve sold off a lot of our national assets to overseas buyers. I don’t know how you stuff that particular cat back in the sack. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:14 - Mar 18 with 2535 views | positivity |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:32 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Well it's either a default and complete reset or perhaps a partial one and not making those at the bottom pay first. What do you think, more of the same because pension funds or something? |
a default would hurt the poorest most, and would only benefit the speculators.
your "solution" is more damaging than the problem it's setting out to fix | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:16 - Mar 18 with 2534 views | BrandonsBlues |
Talking about Debt
Have a guess how long it took the UK to pay off America and Canada for their loans to us from WWII
No wonder as a country we are screwed. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:26 - Mar 18 with 2480 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:07 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
So I mean we could feck the whole charade off now or give Farage and his mob a chance to fail too first but that would be wasting time while his mates rob us some more as per Trump. Time for a bit of honesty isn't it? We're being mugged in slow motion and keep voting for non alternatives. |
What makes you think our electorate isn’t as stupid as our colonial brethren in America?
If they believe Reform is the only party that can defeat Starmer in the next election then Tories will vote for them. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:30 - Mar 18 with 2453 views | unbelievablue |
Not surprised but extremely disappointed. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:58 - Mar 18 with 2385 views | Basuco |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:16 - Mar 18 by positivity |
so your alternative to paying debt is to do what? not paying and the poorest people suffering from an enormous crash? time for a bit of honesty from you too!
that's straight out of the trump playbook (and something he's also threatened to do). |
Employ more income tax inspectors to boost tax revenue would help, the last Government made massive cuts here under the banner "civil service waste" resulting in reduced income and an increased level of tax avoidance. |  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:12 - Mar 18 with 2336 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:26 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
What makes you think our electorate isn’t as stupid as our colonial brethren in America?
If they believe Reform is the only party that can defeat Starmer in the next election then Tories will vote for them. |
I think they probably will get in but, as in America, things won't get better. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:14 - Mar 18 with 2328 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:58 - Mar 18 by J2BLUE |
I'm not sure what the answer is. Just not paying our debts doesn't seem like a realistic option.
Actually, that's not true, I am sure what the answer is. Wealth taxes. |
I think that Ryorry's post on the other thread regarding Freeports probably tells us how likely that is. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:19 - Mar 18 with 2285 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:14 - Mar 18 by positivity |
a default would hurt the poorest most, and would only benefit the speculators.
your "solution" is more damaging than the problem it's setting out to fix |
Maybe in the short term but the speculators get nothing following a reset. You forgot to say what you're solution is or is it just the slow, drawn out, painful death of a functioning society? | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:22 - Mar 18 with 2263 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:19 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Maybe in the short term but the speculators get nothing following a reset. You forgot to say what you're solution is or is it just the slow, drawn out, painful death of a functioning society? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Argentina |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:26 - Mar 18 with 2238 views | CoachRob |
I'm guessing you are referring to some sort of debt jubilee to reduce the amount of private debt accrued by those on lower incomes. It would certainly help, but we are in the land of Neoclassical economics, where as Reeves states, nobody thinks government debt is fine. The problem with her argument is that one of the people she talked to about economics, Mariana Mazzucato completely disagrees with her, in fact, a entire economic school of thought disagrees with her. The post-Keynesian school rejects the entire premise as the Neoclassical nonsense is based on fallacies about money, debt and banks.
Somebody on here posted a link to an article that contained the opinions of several post-Keynesian economists and one poster on here didn't even understand the context of the article and gave the stock Neoclassical answers. People need re-educating about how money, debt and banks actually work and that will take a generation to see any progress. The Neoclassical school has also produced the most illiterate nonsense on climate change I have every read, if you support the nonsense coming out of this school then in my eyes you are supporting straight up climate change denial.
The fallacies of government doesn't have any money of its own; it needs to borrow from us or tax us for money; the idea that banks lend out deposits; the notion that government borrowing crowds out private investment; the nonsense that markets dictate what we can do, will continue to drive these conversations for years to come and the trend of rising inequality, climate and ecological breakdown, crumbling infrastructure, an increasingly vulnerable financial sector and resultant economic crashes will push people further to the right.
I'd never heard of Gary Stevenson until a few people mentioned him on here, having watched a couple of his videos he seems to fall for a few of the Neoclassical fallacies, if you married some of his ideas with the post-Keynesian perspective it could help. The Left in general seem wedded to a wealth tax, but in practical terms this would take years to happen and the spending needs to happen now, not only to address the myriad problems building up in society, but also because projects take time to realise any gains and the government needs gains for the electorate. Labour needed to massively front-load their spending, in reality we have got very little. |  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:42 - Mar 18 with 2161 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:26 - Mar 18 by CoachRob |
I'm guessing you are referring to some sort of debt jubilee to reduce the amount of private debt accrued by those on lower incomes. It would certainly help, but we are in the land of Neoclassical economics, where as Reeves states, nobody thinks government debt is fine. The problem with her argument is that one of the people she talked to about economics, Mariana Mazzucato completely disagrees with her, in fact, a entire economic school of thought disagrees with her. The post-Keynesian school rejects the entire premise as the Neoclassical nonsense is based on fallacies about money, debt and banks.
Somebody on here posted a link to an article that contained the opinions of several post-Keynesian economists and one poster on here didn't even understand the context of the article and gave the stock Neoclassical answers. People need re-educating about how money, debt and banks actually work and that will take a generation to see any progress. The Neoclassical school has also produced the most illiterate nonsense on climate change I have every read, if you support the nonsense coming out of this school then in my eyes you are supporting straight up climate change denial.
The fallacies of government doesn't have any money of its own; it needs to borrow from us or tax us for money; the idea that banks lend out deposits; the notion that government borrowing crowds out private investment; the nonsense that markets dictate what we can do, will continue to drive these conversations for years to come and the trend of rising inequality, climate and ecological breakdown, crumbling infrastructure, an increasingly vulnerable financial sector and resultant economic crashes will push people further to the right.
I'd never heard of Gary Stevenson until a few people mentioned him on here, having watched a couple of his videos he seems to fall for a few of the Neoclassical fallacies, if you married some of his ideas with the post-Keynesian perspective it could help. The Left in general seem wedded to a wealth tax, but in practical terms this would take years to happen and the spending needs to happen now, not only to address the myriad problems building up in society, but also because projects take time to realise any gains and the government needs gains for the electorate. Labour needed to massively front-load their spending, in reality we have got very little. |
We needed a plan B as Plan A, grow the economy, isn’t working.
Plan B should of course been raise taxes. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:45 - Mar 18 with 2152 views | backwaywhen |
Far too much wasted money by any serving government, the gravy train has gone from 4 carriages to possibly 100 plus as the years have ticked by , as for the House of Lords wtf is that all about . | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:55 - Mar 18 with 2128 views | nodge_blue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 00:32 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Well it's either a default and complete reset or perhaps a partial one and not making those at the bottom pay first. What do you think, more of the same because pension funds or something? |
Is that your answer Bankster?
I was going to ask you what you think should happen. Interestingly Trump has made some suggestions along the same lines. At least thats a recognition that we cant just keep borrowing.
I doubt we would be able to borrow again as no one would want to lend to us and we would face immediate austerity as we currently run a significant budget deficit.
And theres a huge chance that countries like China that lent vast amounts of the debt get very annoyed.
I am worried about the cuts to disability benefits and like the winter fuel allowance cuts, its concerning that the first things Labour seems to do is go after is vulnerable people.
There just aren't the jobs or supportive working environments for people with disabilities and when people go into those jobs they are judges on completely mentally able people rather than allowances made and then they get crushed.
So I spin this round in circles. The debt crisis in 2007 and then Covid have screwed us more than anything. [Post edited 18 Mar 10:11]
|  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 10:43 - Mar 18 with 1998 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:19 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Maybe in the short term but the speculators get nothing following a reset. You forgot to say what you're solution is or is it just the slow, drawn out, painful death of a functioning society? |
Or maybe the self-employed could start paying the same rate of tax and NI as our nurses, police, teachers on PAYE… 😇 | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 11:31 - Mar 18 with 1915 views | MattinLondon |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:19 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Maybe in the short term but the speculators get nothing following a reset. You forgot to say what you're solution is or is it just the slow, drawn out, painful death of a functioning society? |
Sorry to be thick but what do you mean by a reset? |  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:20 - Mar 18 with 1876 views | DJR |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:42 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
We needed a plan B as Plan A, grow the economy, isn’t working.
Plan B should of course been raise taxes. |
I criticised Labour before the election for relying only on growth, ruling out most tax increases and thus having no Plan B.
I envisaged it (together with a rigid fiscal rule) leading to the need to cut spending if growth (a fairly fickle beast) didn't materialise.
Interestingly, Charlie Bean, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was reported thus yesterday.
The former Bank of England deputy governor Charlie Bean has warned the chancellor against making kneejerk cuts in next week’s spring statement to try to hit fiscal targets that are five years away
"We’ve got ourselves into a frankly pretty ridiculous position where we’re doing fiscal fine-tuning to control the OBR forecast five years ahead,” Bean told an event hosted by the Resolution Foundation thinktank on Monday.
“The OBR forecast embodies all sorts of adjustments, judgments – it’s pretty flaky,” he said. “People who do the forecasts understand the uncertainty.”
He added: “I think we want to get away from this idea that we continually have to be neurotically changing taxes and spending to try and control this OBR forecast so that it’s hitting our target.” [Post edited 18 Mar 12:26]
|  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:45 - Mar 18 with 1805 views | DJR |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:55 - Mar 18 by nodge_blue |
Is that your answer Bankster?
I was going to ask you what you think should happen. Interestingly Trump has made some suggestions along the same lines. At least thats a recognition that we cant just keep borrowing.
I doubt we would be able to borrow again as no one would want to lend to us and we would face immediate austerity as we currently run a significant budget deficit.
And theres a huge chance that countries like China that lent vast amounts of the debt get very annoyed.
I am worried about the cuts to disability benefits and like the winter fuel allowance cuts, its concerning that the first things Labour seems to do is go after is vulnerable people.
There just aren't the jobs or supportive working environments for people with disabilities and when people go into those jobs they are judges on completely mentally able people rather than allowances made and then they get crushed.
So I spin this round in circles. The debt crisis in 2007 and then Covid have screwed us more than anything. [Post edited 18 Mar 10:11]
|
A few observations.
1. There was a higher percentage of those aged 16-64 in receipt of incapacity and disability benefits under Mrs Thatcher than there is now.
2. The increase in working-age people with poor health and disability after a decade of austerity followed by Covid-19 is broadly consistent with the growth in incapacity and disability benefits, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In other words, demand for these benefits is not out of line with need.
3. Overall spending on working-age adult benefits, at about 5% of UK GDP, has changed little in two decades, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The UK spends more on incapacity and disability benefits than it did before, but this is offset by reductions in spending on other working-age benefits.
4. Over the same period, benefit spending on pensioners rose from 5.3% to 6% of GDP, an increase yet to attract the same political attention.
5. Despite claims the benefits system is a “soft touch” it is not obvious its complex application forms and notoriously stressful health assessments are any easier to navigate. JRF says that while Pip applications have risen over the last five years, the proportion approved, at 51%, has fallen from 55%, suggesting the threshold is as rigorous as ever.
6. It would be easy to argue that circumstance have changed as a result of Trump and Ukraine, and thus there is justification for not sticking to Labour's tax pledges.
7. Rather than a wealth tax and assuming no change in the fiscal rules, I would suggest, for example, increasing from 2% the National Insurance contributions that those above the Upper Earnings Limit pay. This could be justified on the basis that pensions (which NI supposedly pays for) are the real growth area when it comes to welfare, but such increases wouldn't be something pensioners had to pay because they don't pay NI.
Instead, Labour have chosen to attack and blame the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom have no doubt been failed by the NHS. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:52]
| | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:51 - Mar 18 with 1759 views | blueasfook |
How anyone can defend this disgraceful targetting of the most vulnerable people in society is beyond me. If you defending this then you're basically supporting policies that even the tories wouldn't do.
These policies are Thatcheresque. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:52 - Mar 18 with 1747 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 10:43 - Mar 18 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Or maybe the self-employed could start paying the same rate of tax and NI as our nurses, police, teachers on PAYE… 😇 |
I could live with that in return for paid holidays and sick leave*. Not sure 'tax payers' would be happy paying for me to pick the winnets out my crack for 5 weeks a year though.
* and some form of unemployment benefits or redundancy cover too. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:53]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
