Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Sasha Takes On UK" channel.

The Head of the ONS resigned this week due to ill health. The ONS was moved from London to Wales under Rishi Sunak, and the result was that it lost a shedload of experienced staff. The organisation still hasnt recovered from that disruption. And the move was deliberate, and politically motivated. And real time data from the HMRC is limited to large employers who can afford to purchase the infrastructure needed to support that. So it's not exactly providing an accurate picture. Nevermind the Turf Wars between HMRC and everyone else.
28
And fool. That money comes from central government funding. And who owns the hotels exactly? The private sector. Tories looking after tories.
3
Honestly, the pitch has been queered by the controversially toxic nature of how Brexit was achieved. So in some sense, the micro-incremental nature of this move to rebuild a sustainable trading relationship with the EU is to be expected. And the reaction trade and industry bodies has been effusive. They seem to be just relieved that the process has begun. And the fact that this is in its total effect, a bilaterally agreed memo of common understanding of what might be achieved next in that process of normalisation is still a positive move in the right direction. And realistically, in the time scale the parties have had to get this far, this is quite reasonable. Labour have been in power just over 10 months, so to formulate a finished agreement regarding the areas in issue in that time would have been unreasonable. As for the power balance as suggested in these documents, it reflects the geoeconomic realities that the Leave campaign felt it could ignore, and which our experience since the referendum has unstintingly and repeatedly proved otherwise. Simply, our interests are best served by pursuing an optimal trading relationship with the EU. That's our reality. Without it, we are less likely to be able to take up other opportunities further afield in the future, as the costs of Brexit bleeds our economy of around £100 billion a year. Time to stop that as quickly as possible. The people who thought Brexit up were never going to pay the costs of it. Ordinary people were and still are paying the cost of Brexit, and enough is enough. The only way we can move on from Brexit is to repair the damage as best as we can. And a functional trading relationship with the EU is an essential part of that process. I welcome this move, and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. That way unicorns lie.
2
Bear Steepening occurs when the long term (10+) yield on Gilts climbs sharply over a short period. In other words, the money men are desperate as demand is exceeding supply to get hold of Gilts to either hedge investments or to use as collateral on loans. That usually happens when lenders perceive that the risks are increasing, and they put up the cost of borrowing as the interest rates on loans they make, and yields on Gilts traded goes up too. Trouble is already here.
1
Are you joking? Who do you think got us in this hole? Patrick Minford is still an Economist, and his report supporting Brexit - a hard Brexit BTW - has not proved credible. Economics as a orthodox discipline had no idea that 2008 was going to happen, and even a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Angus Deaton, has argued that the emphasis on mathematical models and orthodox classical economic theory has failed to track long term structural shifts adequately, and probably economic and financial historians are better qualified to do that. On that basis alone, you cannot trust an orthodox Bank of England economist to repair nearly 5 decades of ideological policy making that that eroded deeply and significantly the economic roots of this country. If you want to know exactly how complicit they are, google an article by Matthias Matthijs and Mark Blyth in the American journal 'Foreign Affairs' entitled "Don't Bet on A British Revival" published on 30th April 2024. Copy the URL into Archive.ph, and you'll find an archived copy of the article. I promise you that when you've fully digested the contents of that article, you may not want a BoE Economist anywhere near the economy. You'll better understand that the BoE works with the Treasury, not against it. And that neoliberal economic thought has damaged our economy. More books that might help are "The New Economics" and "Debunking Economics" both by Steve Keen and "Angrynomics" by Eric Lonergan & Mark Blyth. "Angrynomics" is the shortest and a good place to start because it's not only diagnosed the problem, but has suggested solutions. Steve Keen's books are a informed critique of classical economics, which has been the dominant paradigm that bought us to this position. So you'll better understand the shortcomings of the discipline. The Irony is that Thatcherism as British neoliberal thinking, did not work to create a sustainable economy even before 2008. And the late stage Thatcherist Brexiteers are just as wrong about the "Singapore on Thames" fantasy they have to "save us". Financial globalisation enthusiastically embraced by neoliberalism is in the process of being reversed. The Singapore on Thames plan relied on it. So that's a cul de sac to be avoided. When have to challenge neoliberal assumptions, and talk about wealth distribution, something that orthodox classical economics says nothing about. And we have tools, but it's persuading politicians and their donors to use the available tools to establish a sustainable economy that works for everyone and not just the the people at the top of the income distribution. Enjoy your journey. Hope this helps.
1
Shows how much you know about how poor people live. The 2-child limit on benefits applies to poor people as well, that's why children poverty is increasing. You've just fallen for Divide and Rule, right? Scapegoat the poor, right? Doesn't matter child poverty is increasing, and kids are going to school hungry, and sometime dirty, because they can't afford the electric to hear water or run the washing machine. Stereotype people who live in council houses, right? The Divide and Rule brainwashing is working. Go to Gary's Economics and look his latest short. Then you'll get the message. If it was so much fun being poor, you wouldn't have working families on minimum wage having to use Food Banks, never mind those on benefits. Just to repeat: nobody gets paid if you have more than 2 kids, even on benefits. Not even child benefit. That's why the Birth rate in this country is below the Replacement Rate. And child poverty is still climbing.
1
It won't go anywhere, as you aren't an official dealer at the Bank of England. So... Say hello to the bailiffs.
1
Well would you say that if I cut your wages by 50%? So how can councils say that when their grants were cut to give you tax cuts. Makes you mad? You should be voting for the Tories who screwed you over with a smile on their face. Where do you think your tax cuts came from?
1
And how helpful would that be really? The Job market is not your friend, and its a dynamic sitiation. No lifetime employment any longer, and so projecting into the future for 50 to 60 years what will be happening is a guess seasoned with a pile of hopium. Even for the professions. What our new workers need is honesty, and to become adaptable, because there are no guarantees any more. And closed shop situations exist in the trades as well.
1
No, as 14 years of austerity was piled on top of those costs. Central government's grants to local government were cut by 50%. Looks pretty deliberate to me.
1
Nope. It's because the funding scheme for local council has been broken for decades. Remember Margaret Thatcher lost her premiership by introducing the Poll Tax, which created a bigger mess than than what it was meant to solve. Council Tax is a lousy and unworkable solution for funding local government, and was exacerbated by austerity and cuts in central government transfers to local authorities, and additional costs for consultants who fix nothing. Oh, and the debt created when Birmingham City Council were persuaded to challenge sex discrimination claims going back years. They lost badly. Stupid.
1
GIGO. You know nothing about local authorities.
1
@kalex381 Lol. Deindustrialisation took place before 2008. This recession is the result of: a) 14 years of austerity; b) British investors preferring speculation in asset bubbles to productive investment; c) Brexit; d) overexposure of the UK Economy to services; e) stagnant real wage growth over decades leading to declining consumption of goods and services, expressed as a declining labour share of GDP over decades. In short, the rich have got richer, but the asset and income limited employees haven't. So, the UK without the speculation, is in the doldrums, and wealth transfer since 2008 is causing it to bleed out. So, the classic idea of growing the economy isn't going to work. It's like shouting at an anorexic to get them to eat. It's not going to happen. The private sector is concerned with profit. They don't really care the stuff that makes that possible, which is consumption. And if consumers can't consume because they don't have any money, the economy will not grow. The problems the UK economy has require root and branch reform, and the workers alone can't carry the burden of that. Vulture (disaster) capitalism isn't going to cut it either. And selling Britain off to the private equity vampires won't help either. Neoliberal economics is a busted flush. And we need to pivot away from it ASAP, or this country will bleed out.
1