Lordship 516

Income

Everyone & anyone will try to pull down all politicians of every hue. People form ideas opinions & hypotheses & then these develop as events happen & people shape these into better ideas for the times we live in. I have read almost everything that all the various politicians have put forward as their economic ideas & nowhere can I see that Corbyn & McDonnell have any notion to welcome a crashed economy. Nowhere can I see that they want to have a Marxist economy. What they do postulate is a fair distribution of the national cake & this does not go down well in many quarters. The current neoliberal model that is extant in the UK [and much of the world] is mainly suited to the wealthy maintaining & extending their wealth & indentures most workers to work in a manner that keeps the wealthy rich & co-opts most workers to enter into credit & service arrangements that keep them on a payment thread-mill that feeds the large corporations cashflow machines. Just look at all the direct debits that you have entered into. After working 4 days for everyone else you probably are lucky if you have one days income for yourself for food etc. The government legislated to keep keep public sector pay below 1% but they didn't extend that legislation to politicians' income. Taking the pi$$. I wish I could do the same with my bills. We need to modify the current brutishnesss that has pervaded our society whereby the few rich don't care about the rest; the rest struggle on as best they can & are given little choice in life. We ought all be willing to share the national cake & society will be a better & happier place to live in. This is not left wing or any wing - it is just common decency & civilized humanity. We do need an adjustment to our economy & distribution/sharing of the national wealth.

uprooted

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > I really rather doubt your sincerity, but here > goes... > > > > I can't imagine why I doubted your sincerity. With regard to your comment that I am not so adept at explaining to laypeople - possibly true but I always assume that I am addressing objective adults. QE will be whatever you declare it to be - it doesn't follow that your view is a realistic proposition. I prefer to address technical matters objectively without being clouded out by political considerations or other subjective ideological notions. Just a note on 'helicopter money' & Australian tax rebates [AUD10.4 billion] was funded by the central bank & distributed by the government to mainly middle & low income earners - that was 'helicopter money' disguised as a discretionary fiscal stimulus & resulted in increasing AD. In 2009 - 2010 the Australian economy experienced a significant dip in GDP but this had been forecast - suitable fiscal & other stimulus was put into effect; this resulted in the Australian economy [along with the Canadian economy] being one of the few well managed economies during that time. Per capita economic output declined for four consecutive quarters, but because the population grew, the economy still expanded. The first quarter of 2009 saw a net growth of 97,000 immigrants, the highest since the figures were first compiled in 1981. They had luck on their side also as a small satellite economy to a much larger Chinese economy - the huge infrastructure stimulus in China fueled exports from Australia & the Aussie banks kept their cool - defaults were low. Australians also benefited from having confidence - Keynes called it "animal spirits" - having faith that things will get better is a prerequisite to things getting better for real. The helicopter money certainly helped it get past the relatively recessionary period. Good strategy but not available to larger economies.

Johnson

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > > 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'.? 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. Central banking have a different modus operandi. The BoE reviews the economy as a whole & when the money supply is restricted in some particular manner they opt to issue further capacity which recently took the form of what has come to be known as Quantative Easing. They do this by creating a book entry [as you have explained] which from the time of Luca Pacioli [15th C monk] involves a double entry in the accounts - a debit & a credit. The BoE buys Treasuries & other blue chip financial securities from BANKS & this results in four main effects. 1] The banks make a profit on the instruments that they held due to the assets in question increasing in value due to the actions of the BoE. 2] The banks who sell these securities end up with more liquid funds. The idea is that the banks will then lend this money onwards to businesses that need funds for development that in turn will produce an increase in GDP. 3] The stock market prices increase in sympathy with the buoyancy that has been created. 4] The minute the BoE creates the QE amount it causes the ? to be devalued; this in turn increases the value of stocks in money terms, especially for those firms that are receiving an appreciable amount of their income in foreign currency. The BoE now has assets that it can either hold or sell in the future if it wants to cool down an overheated economy. It is likely that the BoE will suffer a loss on the subsequent sale of these assets under those circumstances. The city boy will see to that. At a time of it?s choosing the BoE can simply reverse the process [hopefully not making a loss in the process. The problem with our QE is that holders of financial securities made a substantial profit which they held on to thus increasing their wealth holdings as did the holders of stocks that increased in value. Nothing went towards the real economy - this actually sucked up about 40% of the new money supply. The next problem was that instead of making new funds available to businesses, the banks held onto the new money supply to enhance their balance sheets with relatively little flowing into the real economy. QE failed..! But not for the wealthy family offices, hedge funds & banks - they all made lots of cash but not for you or me. > 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.? 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. 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. 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?. The UK Treasury issues various financial instruments that are not backed by anything other than the ?good faith & integrity? of the government/state. The market decides to support these issues but the interest rates tend to be higher than the BoE could accommodate & having the BoE issue the funds gives the transactions an ?arms length? dimension to the transaction outside the political sphere of the government of the day. > 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. Your assertion is subjective & notional - you are contriving to produce a negative view of the idea. There is a lot to be said for distributing ?helicopter money' to all citizens who would largely spend this in the economy. Friedman approves of this mechanism as it would result in a direct injection of money into the real economy increasing AD. However, the people with most influence would not like this to happen as they would lose control & commissions that they have come to regard as their right. 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. 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.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > His future employers are telling him to return to > UK, get a tourist visa and then go back. I'm > pretty sure that would require him (me) to buy a > return ticket which won't be used. > > I'll try the Embassy to see if they can offer > advice. To get a tourist visa he will have to have a return ticket. However, he cannot work on a tourist visa and technically cannot do any form of business either. What he can do is apply to convert it to an 'F' visa once he gets there. If he runs out of time on the 'L' visa he can apply for one extension of 30 days locally in China. The Chinese Embassy are usually not very helpful other than to advise using an agency or immigration lawyer. Best of luck.

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.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 2nd stage of the application requires him to > give up his passport KK. My suggestion was that he > returns here and posts back his passport.Once visa > has been issued the company post it back to him. > Probably plenty of reasons that won't work. I just > don't know what they are yet. If he comes back here it will probably take longer. The whole issue is that the various agencies make money out of facilitating these type of applications & money talks in China more so than in any other country I know. The employer ouht to seek out an agency to handle the application - they are best placed to do this.

Right

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My son's study visa expires at the end of July. > He's due to start working in China on August 1st. > The company have to start the ball rolling once he > gets his degree certificate. From what I read this > process of obtaining a work visa could take some > time. > > The company have never employed a foreigner before > so the process is new to them and nothing seems to > happen very quickly there. My question is, what if > he stays in the country after his current visa > lapses without having obtained the new one? > > Has anyone any experience of a similar situation? > What would you advise? Hi Alan, It is not advisable to overstay your visa in China; it will result in arrest & a ban forever entering China again. Chinese laws are absolute in their effect & there is no leeway whatever. The police are very powerful & in many ways beyond the law & the courts are essentially police courts. It is generally not possible to change visa type within China - you have to submit application for extension at least 7 days before its expiration. The PSB officers will issue you with a return receipt once they accepted your application and make the final decision within 7 days. Because when you get the new one, the old one becomes invalid. If you are late applying, you have overstayed and are subject to a fine and possible expulsion. X Visa to F visa Materials Required: a. Valid Invitation Letter. Many visa service agencies are able to handle this. Sometimes students are asked to provide a scanned copy of business license of a Chinese company; b. Valid passport and two 2-inch passport-sized photos; c. Students from certain countries are required to provide a Letter of Agreement, which can also be handled by visa service agencies. The F visa is classified into several types such as 3 months and 1 entry F visa, 6 months and 1 entry F visa and 6 months and 2 entries F visa, etc. Each type has different requirements to applicants: a. For 1 year and multi entries F visa: Applicants must at least have 8 leaving and entering records; b. For 6 months and multi entry F visa: Applicants must at least have 3 leaving and entering records; c. For 3 months and 1 entry F visa: Applicants must at least have 1 leaving and entering record. Since not many visa service companies can handle this alteration service directly, applicants can first alter their Residence Permit into L visa and then F visa. Materials Required: Besides all the materials needed for X Visa to F visa which mentioned above, applicants are required to provide the valid residence permit [this needs to be validated at a police office]. X Visa to L Visa The disadvantage of altering X visa into L visa is that applicants can only get another 1 month stay at most for once and no more extension. Materials Required: Graduation certificate, financial certificate (RMB 21000 in Chinese account), accommodation letter [this needs to be validated at a police office], two 2-inch photos I have been caught like that a few times & had to leave even though I hold a special semi-permanent visa due to being married to a Chinese person. The Chinese officials are very suspicious of the intentions of foreigners & act accordingly. Advise him not to overstay.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. 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...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is their border? You're joking. They don't even > want it and neither does either part of Ireland. UG & many others in the UK don't have any understanding about the DUP & their runners in NI. They have one cant "NO SURRENDER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER" When they say this they are very serious about it. There is no negotiation - it's always their way or the highway. That is what caused decades [even centuries] of needless misery in NI with collusion from the conservative/ascendancy class. They did the same to Thearse May, are doing the same to Sinn F?in today & will do the same in the future. You must ask yourself - Why did so many businesses run away from NI..? Simply because they couldn't put up with the straight-jacket of so-called Unionist/Loyalist politics & restrictions there. NI has always had the same opportunities open to them as Ireland but the businesses always opt to go to Ireland as it has a non-judgemental pluralist society. The UK has had to pump millions annually into keeping the few industries that are there, in place. Ireland care about their relationship with NI but have to bow to the realpolitik that exists. However, the EU will support Ireland in relation to any deficits they will experience due to Brexit conditions - they are already negotiating on that; they are in a strong position in this as they hold the key to the continuation of the EU. If Ireland pulled out in parallel with the UK as some suggest, the ramifications for the EU are too great to even imagine. It is NI which will suffer & the DUP/Loyalist camp have no concept of needing to reach a pragmatic accommodation with anyone. They always take money today and bugger the rest. They have ruled the roost in NI for a long, long time & have never conceded anything to anyone for any reason. NI will be the poorer for it & the rest of the UK will end up paying...& paying...& paying...

Wart

Hedge

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any way I don't > begrudge Northern Ireland the money- it is spread > over 2 years and they will need it to sort out > their border after Brexit HaHaHa - you think..? Don't worry - they'll be back for more to sort out the border issues..!

Bout

Day (of)

vented

rough

sooth

Orange

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the terrorism stuff aside, the DUP are > loyalists and Sinn Fein (which probably accounts > for majority of the 56% soft brexiteers) are not, > therefore it makes sense to join with the DUP. And > as for anti-abortionist and homophobes etc- that > applies even more so to Catholics etc. > Corbyn is a terrorism apologist, (as is John > McDonnell) and has shown himself to be an agitator > feeding off the misery of the Grenfell tower > disaster. It is very true that many Catholics are anti-abortion - this is for reasons of principle which is their democratic right but the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of LGBT rights as Ireland were the first country to approve gay marriage with an overwhelming majority in favour. You say the DUP are loyalists - this is not quite true; they SAY they are Loyalists & bang great drums every now and again to proclaim loudly about it but they are loyal to an England & in more recent times to a UK that is long gone in the mists of history. They are loyal to William of Orange [who was at least a bi-sexual but they don't like that said]and all that he stood for and funnily enough he stood for something much different that the concept of the UK that now exists. If they were really loyalists they would engage in the democratic process that has been practiced throughout the UK for many years now and also participate in a co-operative manner with Her Majesty's Government to render NI a viable & peaceful place for all citizens to live with equality & harmony. It makes no sense to join with the DUP and that will come to light in time. Just ask Sir John Major, ask all the UK politicians that ever had to try to reason with these neanderthal minded bigots. As the Bible often says "It shall come to pass"

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone posted a link to Corbyn meeting Sinn > Fein and then two more listing a couple of IRA > atrocities you would be first to squeal like a > stuck pig, L516. > > Or maybe not, since you regard Martin McGuinness > as "a patriot & a great man". All of these issues have to be examined in context. The reason that the PIRA came into existence was because the Unionists lead by Paisley & his acolytes had NI in an iron grip & disallowed democratic rule in NI. They resisted people having votes in local elections until 1968 & disadvantaged Catholics/republicans education, housing, jobs etc. Catholics were regarded as second class citizens and were virtual serfs in NI. When McGuiness was offered a reasonable chance of peace he grasped it with both hands to the extent that he & Paisley became almost blood brothers. The DUP chucked Paisley out because they could not leave the past go and want to subvert the peace & control NI in their own twisted image. These are the people that Wheatfield May is seeking to consort with. It will end in disaster for her but worse still it could end in disaster for the peace in NI.

Down