Loz

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for "... the last few Brexiteers ... " I think you'll find if Remoaners stitch up the democratic > will of the people the Jarrow March* will look like a fitness club in Dulwich Park The Jarrow march was 200 people in 1936. The population was then about 45m. Today the population is about 60m, so an equivalent march would therefore comprise approximately 267 people. As a comparison, the last Dulwich Park Parkrun had 231 people. So, chuck in a crudely painted banner or two and you are probably not far off.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Asti Spumante (emphasis on the spu...) - Martini > made a particularly foul one. Martini still make it, though they have all dropped the 'Spumanti' - it's all just 'Asti' now. It is better than it was (less sickly sweet) but does rather make prosecco taste rich and complex in comparison. Lambrusco briefly threatened to make a comeback, but I think the danger has safely passed...

randombloke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite how Pinot Grigio and Prosecco have become so popular is beyond me as they were > both second class Italian wines and yet they fly out of the door. Personally I'd rather a Cremant > de la Loire or Cremant de Bourgogne. Cremants are also Trad method. The 'joy' of prosecco is the ripe fruit flavour from the tank method. > Picpoul seems to be appearing all over the place so is > that the latest fad? You read it here first... Picpoul has been and is pretty much on the way out. Rose is looking pretty massive this summer.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the process of making prosecco is cheaper > than that of Champagne; the former is secondary-fermented in large tanks. Correct. Prosecco is secondary fermented (the fermentation that creates the fizz) in a pressurised tank and then filtered before bottling. It's also done quite quickly to preserve the fruit flavours. Tradition method (aka Method Champenoise) does the secondary fermentation in the bottle, usually for over a year to get extra flavours from the yeast cells. > Dry sherry is nice and a real palate sharpener Ooh, I do love a good sherry. Fino with tapas and oloroso or palo cortado for sipping by the fireside.

Not terribly surprising about English sparkling - similar latitude and similar chalk soils. The problem with English sparkling at the moment is price - it's not cheap. That will come down over the next decade as production ramps up and they can get a supply of reserve wines, which will also help with consistency. 'Tis very nice, though. As is the still Chardonnays and Pinot Noirs.

Prosecco passed champagne a few years ago in terms of sales value. Its bubble (ha!) does not look like bursting any time soon. But if you want to be ahead of the game, it seems Franciacorta is going to be the Next Big Thing.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > But in the context of calling things QE that > > aren't, > > > > "We have tried a form of helicopter money before, > to good effect, albeit in the form of fiscal, > rather than monetary policy. As recently as the > global financial crisis in 2008-09, the government > distributed cash benefits directly to households > to encourage spending. This helped keep the > economy from dipping into recession, alongside the > RBA?s aggressive rate cuts, the precipitous fall > in the Australian dollar (AUD) and massive > stimulus in China, which lifted demand for our > commodity exports." > > Stephen Walters > Chief Economist, Australian Institute of Company > Directors Eh?? Which part of 'but that isn't QE' are you having difficulty with?

Didn't we once have an entire thread devoted to the banal? Maybe we can resurrect it.

An article just popped up on my Facebook feed that looks at why Corbyn is a Brexiter. But in the context of calling things QE that aren't, it is also interesting as it suggests that crashing the economy would not necessarily be seen as a bad thing to the current Labour leadership. It is, at least, an interesting theory. https://musealoudblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/why-is-corbyn-pro-brexit/

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I really rather doubt your sincerity, but here goes... [cue: long convoluted answer from LL516] I can't imagine why I doubted your sincerity.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Banks don?t ?create? money per se. They have a set of regulations to abide by & the amounts that > they can ?lend? are dictated by reserve requirements?and?capital adequacy?ratios, both for > the amount they can lend overall & the sizes of individual loans. The ?creation? of money supply > through ?deposit multiplication? is rare - a very complex & controlled scenario. You need to look up 'fractional reserve banking'. It is one of cornerstones of our money supply. Granted it is a different process than the central bank, but I was trying to keep it simple. [snipped a very convoluted explanation of QE that pretty much said what I did, but using 27x more words. Explaining things to the layman is not your forte, is it?] > The BoE could issue new money against 50 year bonds ; the money thus created would be used > productively to build necessary assets, providing much needed jobs & economic activity; the various > asset owning entities would then have to pay off these bonds within their annual budgets, thus > balancing the issuance of the moneys over time. Why would they QE to issue new money against a new bond? That makes no sense. You can issue bonds to get money, or you can QE to get money - why would you do one to do the other? I think you are confusing it with the fact you can create money to redeem the bonds, which is why govt bonds are considered rock solid investments, but the dangers in that are similar. > There is nothing wrong with a technical devaluation of currency if it will result in a > rebalancing effect in the economy elsewhere, particularly if this rebalancing results in > necessary productive assets being created. The already wealthy will squeal about this as it will > devalue their vast asset holdings that are usually sheltered against taxes & other fiscal burdens; > The banks would squeal as they would lose some of their grip o the market as they would no longer > profit from PPP & similar ?opportunities?. OK, we've moved from Economics 401 to Junior Politics 101. > Loz, your comment is nonsense & actually contradicts what was proposed. McDonnel?s idea of creating > a National Infrastructure Bank would actually work quite nicely. It would [ostensibly] create much > needed assets [housing, schools, hospitals, prisons etc] all owned by ?we, the people? so everyone > would benefit. As far as I saw, he was proposing to use a form of QE to finance the NIB, which given the liquidity of the 'assets' (and, indeed, their liquidable value) would be impossible. > Another method is for the BoE to give a tax rebate to every > permanent resident taxpayer as Australia did in 2009. It actually worked quite well for the > Australian economy as most of this money was directly injected into the economy at a critical > time for their economy & Australia has not looked back since that. You are confusing issues - that's was not QE. Also Australia's economy was rather buoyant anyway because of China and the mining boom. Australia was one of about two or three economies that didn't go into recession poost-2008. In fact, my home city boomed during most of that period, all thanks to China. Certain states were suffering, though, so the stimulus package was enacted. And the rebate was quite small - about AUD$1000 if I remember correctly. It did cause a boom in flat screen TV's and white-goods, though - my brother in law did very well out of it. > The banks & city people want to skim a piece of every financial movement in the economy - QE for > the people would limit some of this & at the same time reduce the costs of funding for essential > projects, making them less of a burden to repay & bringing forward essential facilities for the > whole population. Calling it 'QE for the people' is misinformation - it cannot be QE. It is, and always will be, just printing money.

I suppose the question there, Rendell, would be how to quantify such 'assets' (especially given that they don't actually exist at the time of the money creation - they are more of an end goal) and, more importantly, how they would be realised to ensure the debit hole would eventually be filled. Anyway, I've always been a bit dubious as to the quantification of such 'benefits' - you hear people say that ?1 spent on, say, smoking campaigns sees a (pulling a number out the air) ?10 return, but does that flow to the government and, if indeed it does, do they know it has and that it is to pay off the QE? That balance sheet hole has to be filled sometime. > Not everything can be quantified on a balance sheet. I fully agree, but since QE is basically fiddling with balance sheets, in this case probably has to be!

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > The Bank of England does effectively print money, > > > albeit electronically, and uses it to buy assets. > > > From the BofE's own website: "This policy is > > > designed to inject money directly into the > > > economy." > > > > Sort of, but not quite. There is a little more to > > it than that. However, it is very similar to the > > way banks 'create' money. > > So, Loz - if it is "Sort of, but not quite. There > is more to it than that" > > Please let us have the advantage of your unstated > knowledge - I am always very happy to learn. I > look forward to receiving your perceived wisdom in > the matter. I really rather doubt your sincerity, but here goes... Banks 'create' money by raising a debit and a credit on the books. The credit goes to you in the form of money. The debit is usually held in the form of a lien on the purchased assets. As you pay off the loan the debit is paid off, until the created money is 'unmade'. QE is very much the same. The BoE 'creates' the money (as Rendell said), but they also create a debit. The newly created money buys assets which balance the credit and will be later sold to 'fill in' the debit. That's why turning QE into helicopter money won't work (or, as I think McDonnell's idea was, to use on infrastructure), as there is no mechanism to balance the debit with a suitable asset and to later refill the 'debit' hole by selling it. You could possibly do 'helicopter money' by just printing money, but it's a extremely dangerous path, as you are essentially just devaluing your currency.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Bank of England does effectively print money, > albeit electronically, and uses it to buy assets. > From the BofE's own website: "This policy is > designed to inject money directly into the > economy." Sort of, but not quite. There is a little more to it than that. However, it is very similar to the way banks 'create' money.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > If you think QE is a magic money tree, then you > > don't understand QE. > > QE doesn't have to be done the way it's done though (which I don't think is the right way > personally). > > The bank could just dump money into the economy - of course that risks inflation. No, they can't. That's wouldn't be QE then - that would just be printing money.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If you think QE is a magic money tree, then you > > don't understand QE. > > It has been a magic money tree for the banks & the > richest 5% of the UK population who creamed 40% of > the benefits. > > Trickledown did not happen ... & does not > happen...QE has been a failure for most of the > population & has been a massive > transfer/maintenance of wealth for the already > wealthy... > > For the rest of the population it merely resulted > in a devaluation of their megre assets & the > erosion of their incomes... > > Sorry Loz...it is you who needs to understand the > consequences of QE... > > On top of all that you have the devaluation of the > ?...coming up a little for now but destined to > further fall over the next few months... We can debate til the cows come home about the *consequences* of QE, but my point is that few people (including, it seems, yourself) understand the *mechanics* of QE. Then you would realise that it ain't no magic money tree.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > there is no magic money tree. > > ...quantitative easing.... anyway: If you think QE is a magic money tree, then you don't understand QE.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure you didn't Loz, just as you claim that you're > 'not saying it isn't racism' (are you saying it is > then?). It's the corollary of your argument that > Boris is also abused on twitter. You can dance > around your arguements as much as you like and > accuse people of bias and logical errors, but it's > all quite plainly an attempt to obfuscate. The > truth is that Dianne Abbot has been on the > receiving end of huge amounts of racist and > mysogonistic abuse for years now. I'm happy to > give my view on what was driving the press > hounding, what's your opinion on it? How does that explanation justify your claim that "Because someone (Boris in this case) has also been attacked on Twitter and the nature of that abuse wasn't racist or sexist, then no abuse is racist or sexist?" That's quite a specific allegation. And an extraordinary vague justification. You're usually quite a whizz at quoting people. Yet you've failed to quote here. Coincidence? I think not. You're usually a competent debater, rah. Have you really descended to making stuff up?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry but when the Tory MP's were laughing and > cheering yesterday because the public sector pay > rise cap was kept at 1%, it did come across as > offensive. As offensive as Corbyn playing political point scoring games with the Grenfell disaster?

It's interesting that a lot of the reaction (not here, thankfully) has been along the lines of "see, there is a magic money tree", presumably to somehow justify Corbyn's profligate spending propositions. But there is no magic money tree. That DUP billion is a billion less being spent in more deserving areas. That's the tragedy. And it was unnecessary. The DUP were never going to bring down the government given the latest opinion polls and the deal doesn't cover anything more than supply and confidence, with Brexit legislation bolted on.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because someone (Boris in this case) has also been attacked on Twitter and the nature of that abuse > wasn't racist or sexist, then no abuse is racist or sexist? And you're criticising erroneous > thinking in others? That might have been a very good point had I actually ever said that. But I didn't. So it wasn't. It did make the last sentence amusingly ironic, though.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the thread made me realise why I rarely go on Twitter :) Agreed. It really is the green, slimy scum pool of inhumanity. I have occasionally wandered onto it during Question Time and never felt better for the experience.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not available in this country Loz. Where are you? London...! But I can't see it from work, so maybe they changed the setting overnight.

Given the pitiful state of political satire in this country (oh, how we miss Bird and Fortune), it took the Aussies to nail it brilliantly...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You may well not believe there is anything racist or sexist about the attacks on > Dianne and so you've looked to see if Boris has also been criticised in some / any way on Twitter. > I would argue that this may be a case of confirmation bias however. I think you are completely misunderstanding the point I am trying to make. I'm not trying to say it's not racism. Nor am I trying to say it is. My point is that many people here have made the assertion - quite strongly - that it is. And without any attempt at justifying it, except to say two people were treated differently, she's black and female, he's white and male, ergo it's racist and sexist. Especially as there is a possible similar example available - indeed almost a counter example. As I pointed out, two other people from the same two parties were treated just as differently - male Jeremy Corbyn and female Theresa May, but without an underlying belief in that sort of sexism, people have no assumptions to fall back onto and so they have actually needed to consider other possibilities. So, in summary, I'm not saying it is or isn't sexism/racism/priveledgism (though it's interesting in its own way that you think I am). Just that no one (with the possible exception of yourself in the last post) has bothered to consider doing any wider thinking as to why the two were treated differently. (Sadly, I can't re-find the meme I once saw of this, but it was a picture of some scientist-type with the caption of "This completely aligns with my beliefs. Obviously no further research is required.")