RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

Capital controls, foreign currency limits
...
Might as well invest in some paraffin lamps and ask Baz if to get us some buckshee hex cookers for the black outs.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

FFS, it would be like going back to the dark ages of the mid-70s.

I’m not wearing flares.

Denim suit and skin-head, me.

Got a head start on the skin-head....

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

Potential use of capital controls referenced in this article. Labour have been vague about many of their policies do its hard to point to any document with any certainty (which of course is the point).

https://policyexchange.org.uk/a-policy- ... my-corbyn/

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

Potential use of capital controls referenced in this article. Labour have been vague about many of their policies do its hard to point to any document with any certainty (which of course is the point).

https://policyexchange.org.uk/a-policy- ... my-corbyn/

It's just used as a byword as part of the usual propagandising. Still no quote...

The issue of capital controls was raised at the represent Labour Party youth conference.

Here is McDonnell quoted a few years ago

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... K120150914


Do we think he has changed since then? I doubt it? He isn’t making a formal policy out of capital controls as it will bring ridicule, instead he socialises the idea through the youth wing which he can disown if necessary whilst not avoiding the idea completely. This guys views haven’t changed radically for 50 years, are we supposed to believe that getting the shadow chancellor role would suddenly lead to a Damascene conversion?

It gives him enough leeway for his supporters to state it won’t happen, particularly as labour is being vague on policy.

Sandydragon wrote:The issue of capital controls.

War is capital.

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The issue of capital controls.

War is capital.

We could agree it's capitalised

First there were nearly 60 brexit impact studies then there were not, then there were 58 but they couldn't be discussed, then they were in some way morphed into onto document but supplied heavily redacted which MPs in both leave and remain camps thought an abuse of Parliament, and today David Davies sent a junior minister to explain his failings. Which has left us with David Davies being told he's been summoned himself as he can't hope to get out of his public bollocking.

I suspect we're going to find out the government has a number of documents, and they weren't released not as they're remotely worth classifying but because they're laughably inept.

we are STILL being led by fools, charlatans, liars and incompetents not remotely interested in conducting our national affairs openly and honestly.
This is too serious to be classified as a farce.
If this level of gross inadequacy and stupidity was going on in any major organisation those responsible would be out on their ear.

fivepointer wrote:we are STILL being led by fools, charlatans, liars and incompetents not remotely interested in conducting our national affairs openly and honestly.
This is too serious to be classified as a farce.
If this level of gross inadequacy and stupidity was going on in any major organisation those responsible would be out on their ear.

They might well be out come the next election. Though whether that's any sort of comfort with Momentum as the next government I don't know

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nt-britain

Very good piece that echoes much of my thinking on this disaster.

According to plenty of reports today the U.K. has agreed to cough up circa £50billion and all of a sudden we’re ready to go with a transition agreement and a solution to the Irish border. Some would say it’s typical EU with money as a clear priority, others would say why didn’t we just offer the cash in the first place and avoid all the aggro, others would say everything in the public domain is balls and posturing. I’d agree with all three, especially the last point. Which, in relation to the reports I’ve read today, means the public position on both sides will change five times before close of play, and Juncker will change his mind with every new glass of wine - which is to say a lot.

Is it sorted yet? Is it done? I just found 10 euros in my drawer and I’m worried it’s too late.

Mikey Brown wrote:Is it sorted yet? Is it done? I just found 10 euros in my drawer and I’m worried it’s too late.

You're in luck. Corbyn won't be able to put capital controls in place until next March at the earliest, so you'll still be able to leave the country with 10 yoyos in your wallet until then.

Mellsblue wrote:According to plenty of reports today the U.K. has agreed to cough up circa £50billion and all of a sudden we’re ready to go with a transition agreement and a solution to the Irish border. Some would say it’s typical EU with money as a clear priority, others would say why didn’t we just offer the cash in the first place and avoid all the aggro, others would say everything in the public domain is balls and posturing. I’d agree with all three, especially the last point. Which, in relation to the reports I’ve read today, means the public position on both sides will change five times before close of play, and Juncker will change his mind with every new glass of wine - which is to say a lot.

It was always going to be thus. Both sides starting points were unreasonable and they have made a compromise. No huge surprise. Both sides playin*to the media and noisy elements.

The really interesting bit will be the trade agreement. If the first half was annoying, that has potential to reach a whole new level of shyte.

UK might devolve enough powers to the NIA that it can decide independently to retain EU court oversight and this retain a soft border with Ireland. Doesn't seem on the face of it he DUP would much like that.

Good news for Phillip Hammond today, the DUP are insisting they be treated the same as the rest of the UK which I presume means they were making a point about the Barnett formula and will thus be returning the bribe they took to enter into a confidence and support motion. Not often one thinks of integrity in the same sentence as the DUP but fair play on this one

Further erosion of the "taking back control" narrative.
https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-stay ... e-11151049

So, it seems that someone in the Brexit team has woken up to the reality of the UK having no international air traffic as a result of a lack of an internationally recognised regulatory body following Brexit. The result is that the CAA remains as the EASA branch office, we contribute (no doubt) to the running of the EASA, remain under ECJ jurisdiction for aviation matters, but no longer have a seat at the decision making table.

Good job fuckwits.

David Davis warns if the wanker at work Damian Green is fired he'll resign. Some things are clearly a matter of principle, and for Davis prioritising friends who download porn on a work computer at work takes precedent over Brexit