Economy & Banks

i was just being an armchair expert. no hard facts to back up my waffle sorry !

Same position I'm in and no-one seems to be very interested in presenting an expert's view.

Ain’t the inflation the inevitable payback from ten years of cheap money following printing a shit load of money. Weak demand in those intervening years kept things mostly in their bottle but Covid - more cheap money and the general price rises across the board it caused, energy, ukrain and maybe, maybe Brexit have triggered a chain reaction of increasing prices that folks could mostly simply pay with cheap borrowed money or by moving jobs or demanding more pay.

The conditions for this shit show have existed for yonks, but it took a while for something to trigger it.

The government wants goods and services to become more affordable for its citizens.

I don't think that's a significant motivation for the current government.

For (a paywalled) example: Britain's inflation pain is mostly self-inflicted and getting worse:

Britain is an outlier, and not in a good way. Core inflation both in America and the euro zone, though still high, has been ticking down gently ...

Among the G7 countries, none has higher inflation than Britain. Only Italy comes close, with a headline rate of 7.6%. Even its trend, unlike in Britain, is firmly downwards.

... it is clear inflationary pressures are overwhelmingly the result of decisions taken at home.

Old excuses that it is imported, because of war, snarled-up supply chains or high global food prices, no longer wash. The rate of services inflation, overwhelmingly a domestic factor, rose in May to an annual rate of 7.4% from 6.9% previously.

Britain stands out for the stimulus it gave to the economy in the pandemic and then, last year, during the energy crisis. ... Only America doled out a bigger stimulus. Britain heavily outspent other peers: around 23.1% of national income, vastly more, for example, than the 13.3% in France.

Those setting monetary policy are also to blame. In hindsight, they were too cautious. ...

Easy policy combines with a weaker supply side. Again, Britain stands aside from its peers (again, in a bad way). Labour-force participation remains below its pre-pandemic level. One portion of missing workers are those—perhaps half a million more than before—too sick or tired to seek work. EU workers are also missing. And whereas, post Brexit, non-EU migrants have poured in, many are refugees or students, not full-time workers.

So roughly, the US has had equally cheap money and a larger COVID stimulus, but they haven't simultaneously cut off their main source of economic migration. Also their mortgage and housing markets are explicitly backstopped by their government, resulting in generally cheaper mortgages, with long fixed terms, which are much easier to get out of.

The US also wasn’t / isn’t importing gas from Eastern Europe, but yea they will be hit by price rises in energy too.

Fwiw Reuters seemed to think that labour shortages in the U.K. were due to early retirement (and they can afford to retire because of cheap money) and workforce sickness, again sustainable because it’s affordable due to cheap money.

Net immigration to the U.K. is higher than it ever has been, I guess it’s just hard for folks to work - both motivation and deliberate blockers due to migration policy.

Yup, I agree but it's being presented as such by BBC et al.

It's largely true. You can't have a circus but no bread. Ultimately the government thinks it should be running the country, that's what it wants, and giving folks bread, or at least, not preventing their access to bread, is a key, if not the key to remaining in power.

It would be good if they actually passed on some of the interest rates to savers instead of the banks pumping everyone, making fuck tons of more money from the misery but giving a bit back to folk who have some money in the bank.

Alas no cunts.

Anyone read the latest Varoufrakis book? His principal thesis (that FAANG et alia's ownership of the internet's platforms and commons is a new form of feudalism that will succeed and eclipse capitalism) is fascinating and possibly has some merit, but his arguments always sound like: my opinion is correct because it aligns with these other opinions, which are also mine 😆

a new form of feudalism

That's also Cory Doctorow's take on those platforms, and neither would be the first to notice that capitalism tends to decay into rent-seeking when it's not well regulated.

Right ok. I see he has a book, The Internet Con. Worth a read?

No idea! Maybe. I've only seen this stuff on his blog. If you read it, let me know what you think...

It's telling I guess... The amount of people on my LinkedIn feed spouting nonsense and penning open letters to the Chancellor about the negative effects of any abolition of business asset disposal relief will have on the 'entrepreneur economy' of the UK is making me feel sick.

I paraphrase, but it goes something like this:

"Please please Rachel don't be an idiot, we risked everything to start our businesses and become rich and if the govt doesn't allow us to reap the benefits of this by not taxing us on that risky income [even though all our employees that did the work to build this unicorn have paid all their taxes, all the way through, and likely worked for basically fuck all in the early years] then we'll just be absolutely forced to go and live in Dubai (assuming we can come and go freely all time because every knows Dubai is a bit shit). If you do this, you will be ripping the heart out of the entrepreneurial spirit of all UK citizens because nobody anywhere ever starts a business unless they can totally buy three Ferraris. It's not too late to change your mind, you idiot."

Is my view of the world so myopic that I cannot see past my working-class hang-ups or do these people need a fucking reality check?

Amusing (or not, really) article on the BBC, with different people's struggles before the upcoming budget. Most people struggling to make ends meet, and then the one person earning an extra 0, and spending more on childcare than other parents are earning in a month, worrying about how a raise in CGT will impact their potential "earnings" 😂

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o

Or as laura kuenssberg put it, won't somebody think of those people who scrimped and saved to buy a couple of rental properties and the impact on them.

I read that article and was struck by two things.

The person on £150k, but "skint" and complaining that they won't be able to afford energy costs but at the same time worried about CGT when she becomes a partner in the firm she works for. Honestly, fucking listen to yourself you greedy bellend.

And, naively, I had no idea someone could earn £33k on benefits. No value in that statement, I simply wasn't aware.

And, naively, I had no idea someone could earn £33k on benefits. No value in that statement, I simply wasn't aware.

Isn't that the sum total of all the benefits they receive, a large proportion of which will be the rent they pay?

Don’t be like Yasmin who hasn’t figured out how to make her £150k salary look like £70k despite apparently being smart enough to command such a salary at 31.

Where do they find these people? AI?

do these people need a fucking reality check?

this, 100%

only use linkedin for memes

I was surprised by how low her childcare costs were.

Earning £150k with two kids in childcare you could easily be paying £4k on that, £2k on mortgage, £1k on utilities, council tax, food, etc and be left with ~ £500 a month for extras.

If you're working full time child care costs are pretty ludicrous.

There's a real issue with families leaving London because for many it is just too expensive to have kids here.

Or not having kids at all.

I had two kids at the Bright Horizons in London Bridge and it was £3,800 per month which included the 10% sibling discount for baby 2. At the time my wife was bringing home £2,200 after tax and the quality of childcare was a total corporate box-ticking malaise. Every day we questioned the sanity of it.

Obviously she could have given up her job that she loved and been a full-time Mum for 6 years whilst both kids got through early years and into school but ultimately chose not to as she wanted to be economically productive and not put a huge hole into her career, and we were fortunate enough that I could close the gap with my salary.

We were obvs lucky but it's a terrible set of choice for the majority of families, women being almost exclusively affected by it.

£70k before tax wouldn't pay her childcare+mortgage. (It's not clear how much her ex- contributes to childcare.)

Tiny violins though, but it's just the BBC trying to demonstrate "balance" in their reporting.

The struggle for Additional Rate taxpayers is real.

I came to both of these same conclusions.

IMO it’s obviously right for someone on such a high income to be paying for childcare and for free childcare to be left for those not so fortunate.
It’s a shame she doesn’t recognise her privileged position.

I honestly don't know, mate.