COVID19

[Banquo]

A month of very limited social interaction (which is effectively what we are at this time around as opposed to full isolation except key workers) will drive down infection rates. But if we can't figure out test and trace for when lockdown finishes then we are back to square one, and it will be like groundhog day until the virus mutates to something with no impact or we get a vaccine.

Our problem is that there is this constant pressure to open up again for economic reasons, which leads to a fudge, which leads to another lockdown.

That cycle is not only economically unsustainable but is taking a terrible toll on mental and physical health. Unfortunately I’m not in possession of a glib answer solution.

If the question is:

a) lockdown and sacrifice some businesses
b) don't lockdown and sacrifice some lives

I don't see how there's a question.

The government should be supporting people financially through a lockdown. The government should have put aside funds to deal with these kind of things.

However, successive governments have been economically incompetent. Just so happens successive governments have been Tories...hmm...

That’s not the argument. The key is the word cycle. Even if you ignore that sacrificing businesses has more than an economic consequence. Your contingency argument is a bit impractical too- that’s a hell of a lot to build up, especially post 2008, when there was a slight problem- or should there have been deeper cuts to get into surplus

[Stom]

That cycle is not only economically unsustainable but is taking a terrible toll on mental and physical health. Unfortunately I’m not in possession of a glib answer solution.

If the question is:

a) lockdown and sacrifice some businesses
b) don't lockdown and sacrifice some lives

I don't see how there's a question.

The government should be supporting people financially through a lockdown. The government should have put aside funds to deal with these kind of things.

However, successive governments have been economically incompetent. Just so happens successive governments have been Tories...hmm...

That’s not the argument. The key is the word cycle. Even if you ignore that sacrificing businesses has more than an economic consequence. Your contingency argument is a bit impractical too- that’s a hell of a lot to build up, especially post 2008, when there was a slight problem- or should there have been deeper cuts to get into surplus

There should have been spending on economic stimulus. And, well, the way to get people to spend is to put more money in their pocket. And considering you want people to buy in the UK, that means the average person, not the super rich.

Higher tax rates on large businesses, smaller tax on small business, tax breaks for small businesses based upon how many they employ up to a certain number, increase in the tax free allowance.

[Puja]

Not commercial properties

Investments can go down in value as well as up. Life is sometimes unfair, even for multi-million pound portfolio owners like Alan Sugar.

Puja

Laugh at the income others depend on if you wish, I guess it’s not your problem yet. Nor mine, for now. If you can show me an alternative way of funding pensions, great.

Lots of people are losing money that they depend on right now and, while I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is struggling, I have less for people who have investments doing a little worse, than I do for the thousands of people who have the square route of f*ck all and have just lost their jobs. All investments are always a risk and, while I'm sad that a lot of pensions and pensioners are affected, it was always money that was put into a gamble that they knew could go wrong.

This whole thing is a massive paradigm shift in the way the country (maybe even the world) operates - a sudden jarring shift from commuting into cities and working from offices to everyone working at home. The economy needs to adapt to the "new normal" rather than trying to rescue the old order from the change that's already happened.

Puja

[Banquo]

If the question is:

a) lockdown and sacrifice some businesses
b) don't lockdown and sacrifice some lives

I don't see how there's a question.

The government should be supporting people financially through a lockdown. The government should have put aside funds to deal with these kind of things.

However, successive governments have been economically incompetent. Just so happens successive governments have been Tories...hmm...

That’s not the argument. The key is the word cycle. Even if you ignore that sacrificing businesses has more than an economic consequence. Your contingency argument is a bit impractical too- that’s a hell of a lot to build up, especially post 2008, when there was a slight problem- or should there have been deeper cuts to get into surplus

There should have been spending on economic stimulus. And, well, the way to get people to spend is to put more money in their pocket. And considering you want people to buy in the UK, that means the average person, not the super rich.

Higher tax rates on large businesses, smaller tax on small business, tax breaks for small businesses based upon how many they employ up to a certain number, increase in the tax free allowance.

Zero guarantee of building up the huge surplus which you are demanding. And the govt did put money in people’s pockets through tax cuts- and a recovery of sorts was underway; but as before, you’d have needed huge surpluses pretty quickly from the 2008 ground zero.
Are you saying that government should also sustain through an extended period of lockdown cycles, as you didn’t answer that point?

[Puja]

That’s not the argument. The key is the word cycle. Even if you ignore that sacrificing businesses has more than an economic consequence. Your contingency argument is a bit impractical too- that’s a hell of a lot to build up, especially post 2008, when there was a slight problem- or should there have been deeper cuts to get into surplus

There should have been spending on economic stimulus. And, well, the way to get people to spend is to put more money in their pocket. And considering you want people to buy in the UK, that means the average person, not the super rich.

Higher tax rates on large businesses, smaller tax on small business, tax breaks for small businesses based upon how many they employ up to a certain number, increase in the tax free allowance.

Zero guarantee of building up the huge surplus which you are demanding. And the govt did put money in people’s pockets through tax cuts- and a recovery of sorts was underway; but as before, you’d have needed huge surpluses pretty quickly from the 2008 ground zero.
Are you saying that government should also sustain through an extended period of lockdown cycles, as you didn’t answer that point?

Tax cuts are a far less useful method of stimulating the economy than helicopter money. They have a regressive effect, so people who earn more (and are thus less likely to immediately spend extra money) get more and the effect is spread evenly through the year, meaning the immediate boost is negligible.

Helicopter money, like the stimulus check the Yanks gave out, means that the poorest - those who don't work, those on minimum wage, those on benefits, get the full amount of the stimulus. Yes, it feels icky to fiscal conservatives giving money to people who haven't earned it all and don't "deserve" it, but it's those people who spend every penny, either because it's needed to keep themselves afloat, or because they were already keeping themselves afloat and they've just got a grand of spending money to use rather than keeping to their strict budget.

Puja

[Banquo]

Investments can go down in value as well as up. Life is sometimes unfair, even for multi-million pound portfolio owners like Alan Sugar.

Puja

Laugh at the income others depend on if you wish, I guess it’s not your problem yet. Nor mine, for now. If you can show me an alternative way of funding pensions, great.

Lots of people are losing money that they depend on right now and, while I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is struggling, I have less for people who have investments doing a little worse, than I do for the thousands of people who have the square route of f*ck all and have just lost their jobs. All investments are always a risk and, while I'm sad that a lot of pensions and pensioners are affected, it was always money that was put into a gamble that they knew could go wrong.

This whole thing is a massive paradigm shift in the way the country (maybe even the world) operates - a sudden jarring shift from commuting into cities and working from offices to everyone working at home. The economy needs to adapt to the "new normal" rather than trying to rescue the old order from the change that's already happened.

Puja

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.
I feel sorry for all businesses in this environment and esp the small businesses who have bent over backwards to create a covid secure environment, yet are being shut down unnecessarily in a number of cases- you’ve alluded to the problem with ‘the people’ before.

[Banquo]

There should have been spending on economic stimulus. And, well, the way to get people to spend is to put more money in their pocket. And considering you want people to buy in the UK, that means the average person, not the super rich.

Higher tax rates on large businesses, smaller tax on small business, tax breaks for small businesses based upon how many they employ up to a certain number, increase in the tax free allowance.

Zero guarantee of building up the huge surplus which you are demanding. And the govt did put money in people’s pockets through tax cuts- and a recovery of sorts was underway; but as before, you’d have needed huge surpluses pretty quickly from the 2008 ground zero.
Are you saying that government should also sustain through an extended period of lockdown cycles, as you didn’t answer that point?

Tax cuts are a far less useful method of stimulating the economy than helicopter money. They have a regressive effect, so people who earn more (and are thus less likely to immediately spend extra money) get more and the effect is spread evenly through the year, meaning the immediate boost is negligible.

Helicopter money, like the stimulus check the Yanks gave out, means that the poorest - those who don't work, those on minimum wage, those on benefits, get the full amount of the stimulus. Yes, it feels icky to fiscal conservatives giving money to people who haven't earned it all and don't "deserve" it, but it's those people who spend every penny, either because it's needed to keep themselves afloat, or because they were already keeping themselves afloat and they've just got a grand of spending money to use rather than keeping to their strict budget.

Puja

Helicopter money has a different and short term effect and you know that. The key point was about size of surplus, and helicopter money likely won’t give that, and about the unsustainability of cycles of lockdown.

Whatever, there is no simple way out of this now, if there ever was.

[Stom]

That’s not the argument. The key is the word cycle. Even if you ignore that sacrificing businesses has more than an economic consequence. Your contingency argument is a bit impractical too- that’s a hell of a lot to build up, especially post 2008, when there was a slight problem- or should there have been deeper cuts to get into surplus

There should have been spending on economic stimulus. And, well, the way to get people to spend is to put more money in their pocket. And considering you want people to buy in the UK, that means the average person, not the super rich.

Higher tax rates on large businesses, smaller tax on small business, tax breaks for small businesses based upon how many they employ up to a certain number, increase in the tax free allowance.

Zero guarantee of building up the huge surplus which you are demanding. And the govt did put money in people’s pockets through tax cuts- and a recovery of sorts was underway; but as before, you’d have needed huge surpluses pretty quickly from the 2008 ground zero.
Are you saying that government should also sustain through an extended period of lockdown cycles, as you didn’t answer that point?

There are certain sectors that will need support during any lockdown. These are entertainment, arts, and tourism.

Businesses should be supported through that, but local businesses should be prioritised over large companies. Which is the opposite of what happened.

If Wetherspoons ceases to exist, it's a boon to the British economy, not a bust. Ditto all these other drains on local business, which is the heartbeat of any economy and should be prioritised.

Trying to save Pret again...local coffee shops should have had financial support. Interest free loans should have been made available, moratoriums on mortgage payments, rent relief for the worst impacted...

Jobs are always likely to be lost in many sectors and these people should be supported and retrained. The numbers that come out of jobcentres (as well as the anecdotes) are pretty terrible.

I do believe the entire world's economy has been absolutely gutted. The first thing I would have done is put a 100% trade embargo on China, tbh. Which is Trumpian sounding, but that country is not producing anything Europe cannot produce. The only reason we buy from China is because it's cheaper...

Why is it cheaper? Because they exploit their workers with poor pay, appalling working conditions, and forced labour. And then have to transport those goods thousands of km across the globe.

I would have a straight tax on imports based upon the distance it has come.

[Stom]

Zero guarantee of building up the huge surplus which you are demanding. And the govt did put money in people’s pockets through tax cuts- and a recovery of sorts was underway; but as before, you’d have needed huge surpluses pretty quickly from the 2008 ground zero.
Are you saying that government should also sustain through an extended period of lockdown cycles, as you didn’t answer that point?

Tax cuts are a far less useful method of stimulating the economy than helicopter money. They have a regressive effect, so people who earn more (and are thus less likely to immediately spend extra money) get more and the effect is spread evenly through the year, meaning the immediate boost is negligible.

Helicopter money, like the stimulus check the Yanks gave out, means that the poorest - those who don't work, those on minimum wage, those on benefits, get the full amount of the stimulus. Yes, it feels icky to fiscal conservatives giving money to people who haven't earned it all and don't "deserve" it, but it's those people who spend every penny, either because it's needed to keep themselves afloat, or because they were already keeping themselves afloat and they've just got a grand of spending money to use rather than keeping to their strict budget.

Puja

Helicopter money has a different and short term effect and you know that. The key point was about size of surplus, and helicopter money likely won’t give that, and about the unsustainability of cycles of lockdown.

Whatever, there is no simple way out of this now, if there ever was.

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

[Banquo]

Tax cuts are a far less useful method of stimulating the economy than helicopter money. They have a regressive effect, so people who earn more (and are thus less likely to immediately spend extra money) get more and the effect is spread evenly through the year, meaning the immediate boost is negligible.

Helicopter money, like the stimulus check the Yanks gave out, means that the poorest - those who don't work, those on minimum wage, those on benefits, get the full amount of the stimulus. Yes, it feels icky to fiscal conservatives giving money to people who haven't earned it all and don't "deserve" it, but it's those people who spend every penny, either because it's needed to keep themselves afloat, or because they were already keeping themselves afloat and they've just got a grand of spending money to use rather than keeping to their strict budget.

Puja

Helicopter money has a different and short term effect and you know that. The key point was about size of surplus, and helicopter money likely won’t give that, and about the unsustainability of cycles of lockdown.

Whatever, there is no simple way out of this now, if there ever was.

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

[Puja]

Laugh at the income others depend on if you wish, I guess it’s not your problem yet. Nor mine, for now. If you can show me an alternative way of funding pensions, great.

Lots of people are losing money that they depend on right now and, while I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is struggling, I have less for people who have investments doing a little worse, than I do for the thousands of people who have the square route of f*ck all and have just lost their jobs. All investments are always a risk and, while I'm sad that a lot of pensions and pensioners are affected, it was always money that was put into a gamble that they knew could go wrong.

This whole thing is a massive paradigm shift in the way the country (maybe even the world) operates - a sudden jarring shift from commuting into cities and working from offices to everyone working at home. The economy needs to adapt to the "new normal" rather than trying to rescue the old order from the change that's already happened.

Puja

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

[Stom]

Helicopter money has a different and short term effect and you know that. The key point was about size of surplus, and helicopter money likely won’t give that, and about the unsustainability of cycles of lockdown.

Whatever, there is no simple way out of this now, if there ever was.

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

[Son of Mathonwy]

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

Forget it. That would require discipline. This government doesn't do discipline.

Your plan is a bit extreme, but I agree with the goal - full suppression of the virus. Hard work, but cheaper in the long run.

[Puja]

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

Forget it. That would require discipline. This government doesn't do discipline.

Your plan is a bit extreme, but I agree with the goal - full suppression of the virus. Hard work, but cheaper in the long run.

We could join Australia and New Zealand's travel bubble!

Puja

[Banquo]

Lots of people are losing money that they depend on right now and, while I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is struggling, I have less for people who have investments doing a little worse, than I do for the thousands of people who have the square route of f*ck all and have just lost their jobs. All investments are always a risk and, while I'm sad that a lot of pensions and pensioners are affected, it was always money that was put into a gamble that they knew could go wrong.

This whole thing is a massive paradigm shift in the way the country (maybe even the world) operates - a sudden jarring shift from commuting into cities and working from offices to everyone working at home. The economy needs to adapt to the "new normal" rather than trying to rescue the old order from the change that's already happened.

Puja

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

[Sandydragon]

Lots of people are losing money that they depend on right now and, while I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is struggling, I have less for people who have investments doing a little worse, than I do for the thousands of people who have the square route of f*ck all and have just lost their jobs. All investments are always a risk and, while I'm sad that a lot of pensions and pensioners are affected, it was always money that was put into a gamble that they knew could go wrong.

This whole thing is a massive paradigm shift in the way the country (maybe even the world) operates - a sudden jarring shift from commuting into cities and working from offices to everyone working at home. The economy needs to adapt to the "new normal" rather than trying to rescue the old order from the change that's already happened.

Puja

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

Amen to that. It was obvious that approach would increase infections but equally that city centre businesses were suffering so that idiotic media campaign was pushed forward. The amount of abuse home workers got despite having worked through the initial lockdown in most cases and being totally knackered was unforgivable. The economic world is changing and the likes of Starbucks must either adapt or go under.

[morepork]

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

Forget it. That would require discipline. This government doesn't do discipline.

Your plan is a bit extreme, but I agree with the goal - full suppression of the virus. Hard work, but cheaper in the long run.

We could join Australia and New Zealand's travel bubble!

Puja

You wish Quasimodo.

The plan isn't that extreme btw. It's less disruptive in the long run than rolling half shut downs.

[Banquo]

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

And so we go back to paying for it. But I agree if you do lockdown, there is no logic to coming out of it until the virus is eliminated. So I would have favoured the close the borders plan etc, in hindsight as it’s clear it had a lower ‘cost’ in all senses than what is about to happen.

If you’d just agreed to my original point about a cycle of lockdowns being unsustainable we could have saved a lot of time! . And I wasn’t even referring to the economics- the strain is massive mentally and physically for employers and employees and everyone else.

[Puja]

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

I think you're arguing a point I haven't made there. I never mentioned dividends or stocks and shares - literally just talked about commercial property.

I would very much disagree with the point about the "Return to the office to save the town centre" policy being necessary to keep economic sanity. That would only apply if you were expecting this to be a temporary event that needed weathering before everyone went back to the office in the same numbers that they were before, which ignores the very obvious truth that, even if there were a universally available vaccine tomorrow, we will never go back to the way things were. After the massive disruption and costs of moving all their work remote, a significant number of companies will prefer to keep it that way because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying rent on a city centre building and they can take their recruitment nationwide, and a significant number of employees will prefer to keep it that way because it makes sense in terms of commuting costs/time, childcare, being able to work nationwide, etc. I don't know if the office is dead as a concept, but there's certainly going to be a hell of a lot fewer of them going forwards.

Far better to start working on what is going to happen going forwards and attempt to have some kind of control over that than try to artificially keep both Greggs in the town centre viable.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

I think you're arguing a point I haven't made there. I never mentioned dividends or stocks and shares - literally just talked about commercial property.

I would very much disagree with the point about the "Return to the office to save the town centre" policy being necessary to keep economic sanity. That would only apply if you were expecting this to be a temporary event that needed weathering before everyone went back to the office in the same numbers that they were before, which ignores the very obvious truth that, even if there were a universally available vaccine tomorrow, we will never go back to the way things were. After the massive disruption and costs of moving all their work remote, a significant number of companies will prefer to keep it that way because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying rent on a city centre building and they can take their recruitment nationwide, and a significant number of employees will prefer to keep it that way because it makes sense in terms of commuting costs/time, childcare, being able to work nationwide, etc. I don't know if the office is dead as a concept, but there's certainly going to be a hell of a lot fewer of them going forwards.

Far better to start working on what is going to happen going forwards and attempt to have some kind of control over that than try to artificially keep both Greggs in the town centre viable.

Puja

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me). And in terms of govt policy I was referring to encouraging back into the work place where safe to do so; and frankly those who did make it safe at great cost are being punished once more, and as I also said it was poorly executed. I do agree with adapting to use what worked well, and indeed have done so in my own business. As ever, probably not a binary debate or set of solutions. That said, having no sympathy when businesses one might not like are tanking isn’t a great look either- it’s profoundly sad for employees and business owners; apart from betting shops

[Digby]

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

It's not exactly a red herring. More the risk being spread across different investment types is still seeing failure almost across the board. And we're still far from unclear another credit crunch isn't in the offing

[Puja]

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me).

I apologise, you are correct - I did mention dividends first. I had put it in as a flippant riff on the "Protect the NHS, Save Lives" slogan, mostly because it scanned, but reading back, I can see that's where you brought it up from. You saw it as an attack on dividends as a filthy word whereas I'd forgotten I'd even mentioned the word cause it was just a throwaway comment.

Typical Rugby Rebels argument - two people being ever more confused at each other over nothing much in particular.

Puja

[Digby]

Bar those dividends are actually very important, and about the only plan I've seen for addressing the problem is to hope the problem goes away without needing to do anything.

[Banquo]

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me).

I apologise, you are correct - I did mention dividends first. I had put it in as a flippant riff on the "Protect the NHS, Save Lives" slogan, mostly because it scanned, but reading back, I can see that's where you brought it up from. You saw it as an attack on dividends as a filthy word whereas I'd forgotten I'd even mentioned the word cause it was just a throwaway comment.

Typical Rugby Rebels argument - two people being ever more confused at each other over nothing much in particular.

Puja

‘Thumbs up emoji’

[Galfon]

Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral