Scottish Independence - Hard Talk over the pound

[pongo]

I think we are conflating two different issues. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that pension funds should be able to invest into the economy better.

On the issue of bank accounts potentially being dipped; I think it is ultimately preferable to international bail-outs. In an emergency. And I think it makes sense for there to be agreed procedure for how that could happen if necessary.

The ideal is closer international regulation and understanding of banking in general. Perhaps that means govts, EU, IMF etc employing (paying) the very brightest people. Those who understand the products. In the mid 2000 the EU and US were struggling to understand hedge funds, convinced they represented a huge risk, whilst seemingly failing to comprehend the potential risks of securitisation. In some cases the hedge fund people were trying to tell them that they were not the issue. Fools Gold by Gilian Tett of the FT covers this specifically.

[Chinahand]

The democratic dilemma politicians have promised people more than their taxes can afford to buy. But who is honest enough to tell them this.

 

People do not save enough nor have paid enough national insurance and tax to justify their pensions or the services they use.

 

It is very unclear how all this will be paid for on an ongoing basis. Most people seem to think the rich or the never never will produce the cash. That is very unlikely.

 

The IMF papers are trying to objectively look at the problems from an economic point of view.

 

Struggling magnificently to bring this back on topic - what the Scottish Nationalists are trying to do is to get the Bank of England to pay for Scottish banks to be provided a lender of last resort, and to compromise UK interests for Scottish ones over monetary policy.

 

Why should the UK pay this price?

 

The same question can be asked about the price of pensions etc. These are big issues and how taxes are levied is increasingly difficult in a world without capital controls.

[Lxxx]

I think we are conflating two different issues. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that pension funds should be able to invest into the economy better.

On the issue of bank accounts potentially being dipped; I think it is ultimately preferable to international bail-outs. In an emergency. And I think it makes sense for there to be agreed procedure for how that could happen if necessary.

The ideal is closer international regulation and understanding of banking in general. Perhaps that means govts, EU, IMF etc employing (paying) the very brightest people. Those who understand the products. In the mid 2000 the EU and US were struggling to understand hedge funds, convinced they represented a huge risk, whilst seemingly failing to comprehend the potential risks of securitisation. In some cases the hedge fund people were trying to tell them that they were not the issue. Fools Gold by Gilian Tett of the FT covers this specifically.

The whole point of the topic is that according to the EU document it isn't procedure and won't be. It will be a levy with no prior warning to facilitate avoidance, meaning in their warped mind it's fine and the public will eventually forget about it and roll over and carry on afterwards, the poorer by whatever % they deem acceptable to confiscate. Their words.

[Lxxx]

The democratic dilemma politicians have promised people more than their taxes can afford to buy. But who is honest enough to tell them this.

 

People do not save enough nor have paid enough national insurance and tax to justify their pensions or the services they use.

 

It is very unclear how all this will be paid for on an ongoing basis. Most people seem to think the rich or the never never will produce the cash. That is very unlikely.

 

The IMF papers are trying to objectively look at the problems from an economic point of view.

 

Struggling magnificently to bring this back on topic - what the Scottish Nationalists are trying to do is to get the Bank of England to pay for Scottish banks to be provided a lender of last resort, and to compromise UK interests for Scottish ones over monetary policy.

 

Why should the UK pay this price?

 

The same question can be asked about the price of pensions etc. These are big issues and how taxes are levied is increasingly difficult in a world without capital controls.

Hit the nail on the head their China. Two words. 'Capital Controls. Coming soon.

 

What never seems to be debated is the ideological one 'Is our model of a bloated socialist state the issue?' It always seems to be how and how much can we take to maintain this system. Instead of calling into question the insatiable appetite of socialism to devour wealth to maintain itself until it self destructs. There is no bogeyman or shadowy elite, just a bankrupt system that will do anything and everything to keep itself alive.

[pongo]

The whole point of the topic is that according to the EU document it isn't procedure and won't be. It will be a levy with no prior warning to facilitate avoidance, meaning in their warped mind it's fine and the public will eventually forget about it and roll over and carry on afterwards, the poorer by whatever % they deem acceptable to confiscate. Their words.

How do you propose that a bail-out should be funded in the event of an emergency ?

 

IMO part of the reason that the conspiracy forums such as ZeroHedge and many of the posters are so focused on this is that they are in the business of selling stuff which they believe people can use to facilitate avoidance - e.g. coins, even bitcoins etc.

[Lxxx]

 

 

The whole point of the topic is that according to the EU document it isn't procedure and won't be. It will be a levy with no prior warning to facilitate avoidance, meaning in their warped mind it's fine and the public will eventually forget about it and roll over and carry on afterwards, the poorer by whatever % they deem acceptable to confiscate. Their words.

How do you propose that a bail-out should be funded in the event of an emergency ?

 

IMO part of the reason that the conspiracy forums such as ZeroHedge and many of the posters are so focused on this is that they are in the business of selling stuff which they believe people can use to facilitate avoidance - e.g. coins, even bitcoins etc.

Why do you keep veering off topic? Zerohedge is a financial website that offers opinions on financial news and events. It doesn't sell anything. Although if you lived in Cyprus and held a % of your wealth in hard assets instead of sat in a bank account you'd be a lot better off now.

 

I don't know if there us an option that would be acceptable to everyone on this planet. What I do object to though is state sponsored theft to feed a decaying system.

[pongo]

What I do object to though is state sponsored theft to feed a decaying system.

It's been done to death for the past 40 years. But even Mrs Thatcher and Keith Joseph never managed to bring public spending under control and that was what the Centre For Policy Studies was about - rolling back the state. The result was massively increased public spending.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

 

What I do object to though is state sponsored theft to feed a decaying system.

Its be done to death for the past 40 years. But even Mrs Thatcher and Keith Joseph never managed to bring public spending under control and that was what the Centre For Policy Studies was about - rolling back the state. The result was massively increased public spending.

That's my point. The system itself is inherently flawed as governments, regardless of the political party of the moment, have an insatiable desire to consume, grow and spend until bust. That is why we have tax planning and governments hate it. Every person/organisation has a moral duty to pay as little tax as legally and lawfully possible to avoid feeding the beast and keep as much money in the wealth-generating part of the economy.

[Thomas Jefferson]

It's been done to death for the past 40 years. But even Mrs Thatcher and Keith Joseph never managed to bring public spending under control and that was what the Centre For Policy Studies was about - rolling back the state. The result was massively increased public spending.

 

That's because neo-con rhetoric about "smaller government" is just propaganda to mask their real agenda: i.e. to take taxpayers' money away from public infrastructure and social support mechanisms and to pump it into big business subsidisation.

[woolley]

 

The ideal is closer international regulation and understanding of banking in general. Perhaps that means govts, EU, IMF etc employing (paying) the very brightest people. Those who understand the products.

Those would be the people who inflated bubble of false wealth in the first place, then. Those same people who got rich and then got out before the stinking remains of what they had built finally collapsed, taking the security of millions around the world with it. Those same people who continue to ride high on their bonuses because, of course, we need to compete for the best talent. Yes giving them even more via the taxpayer sounds like a wonderful idea.

[woolley]

I think Osbourne's stance will backfire on the 'No' campaign. He may well be right, that the newly independent Scotland cannot enter a currency union, and I'm sure all the economic arguments will back him up. However, it is a complex business and there will be a debate that the average voter just cannot understand or follow. On this basis, I suspect people will just vote with their heart, and this unified Westminster economic argument may well lead to everyday Scots voters voting 'Yes' just to 'stick it to the man'.

Yes. It may well backfire into permanent Tory government in England and Wales, for that would be the consequence of an independent Scotland. Go George.

[Donald Trumps]

Tories in Wales?

[Albert Tatlock]

Tories in Wales?

...as rare as a virgin sheep.

[woolley]

Tories in Wales?

Not so much that. Absence of Scottish Labour in Westminster that swings it.

[Donald Trumps]

If Scotland does choose complete independence, you can bet Wales will start making similar noises - they won't want to be left in a nation of 'Little Englanders'