RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
So after a decade of slagging off the US, the Venezuelan government expects Washington to play nicely? That’s some anti American policies and sound bytes coming back to hurt them, together with some terrible economic policies (should we mention the attempts at price control and huge inflation) and a surge towards totalitarianism in dealing with dissent.

The only bit that doesn’t make sense is the belief held by some that we should emulate Venezuela in some way.

I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Our main problems are our debt levels, both government and household, no matter whether one wants more spending in the public sector or not, and that we're in the process of spending a shit load of money to shrink our economy

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Our main problems are our debt levels, both government and household, no matter whether one wants more spending in the public sector or not, and that we're in the process of spending a shit load of money to shrink our economy

Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

Household debt is a problem because it dampens domestic spending, therefore it's part of that same issue I mentioned.

Regarding 'dutch disease' that I mentioned, it is interesting to note that perhaps a similar effect has been seen in the UK whereby the financial sector growth has reduced manufacturing competitiveness.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Unless you're trying to draw comparisons with the UK and repeated economic crises caused by financial sector price crashes?

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Unless you're trying to draw comparisons with the UK and repeated economic crises caused by financial sector price crashes?

You're not sure what my point is? You yourself reference the fact that Venezuela is over dependant on oil exports. I was pointing out that this continued over dependence is criminally negligent given that they have experienced several cycles of boom and bust, and had plenty opportunities to broaden the focus of their economy. Instead, they stuck their paws in the honey pot, and continue to scream BAD USA! every time their lack of foresight bites them on the arse.

In an earlier post, you stated that that you had studied the Venezuelan economy and were confident that it had a bright future. Did you overlook the fact, that they have failed to plan for the cyclic nature of oil prices and the fact that their entire economy is dependant on a single hydro scheme?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Debt in and of itself is not a problem so long as it is serviceable. What is a problem is shrinking your economy while simultaneously increasing the debt burden...

Government debt should be used for one purpose and one purpose alone: to grow the economy, so that the debt ends up costing less than what you actually borrowed...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Debt in and of itself is not a problem so long as it is serviceable. What is a problem is shrinking your economy while simultaneously increasing the debt burden...

Government debt should be used for one purpose and one purpose alone: to grow the economy, so that the debt ends up costing less than what you actually borrowed...

Debt being serviceable isn't to be ignored of course, but it's hardly the only criteria and frankly debt is a problem a long time before you get to the point you can't service it

And I don't think debt should only be taken on for the purposes of investment, sometimes it is needed to manage spend on ongoing items, flexibility is a virtue at times

Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

kk67 wrote:Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

And a cheeky c**t.

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

And a cheeky c**t.

Lee Nelson,....I saw him live in a Camden pub supporting Harry Hill.
The door to the Ladies toilet was hard up against stage left.........none of the girls in our party enjoyed the gig.
But it was fantastic.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

And a cheeky c**t.

Lee Nelson,....I saw him live in a Camden pub supporting Harry Hill.
The door to the Ladies toilet was hard up against stage left.........none of the girls in our party enjoyed the gig.
But it was fantastic.

Same bloke who chucked the money at Blatter?

He's fucking awful.

Mikey Brown wrote:He's fucking awful.

Hello Pot.
He's totally in your rugby fashion. I'm embarrassed you don't know it.

Whether or not I'm awful at rugby doesn't change the fact Lee Nelson is totally shit at comedy.

I mean Theresa laughed, but I don't imagine that's what he was going for.

Mikey Brown wrote:Whether or not I'm awful at rugby doesn't change the fact Lee Nelson is totally shit at comedy.

I mean Theresa laughed, but I don't imagine that's what he was going for.

Publicity

The idea to expand the social housing stock is a good one, providing it doesn't all get sold off, and of course providing it ever gets built. If nothing else it should help in the longer term to bring down the cost of rents and we really could use a big reduction in the monies being handed over from the public purse to private landlords in rent.

Brexit means brexit
Strong and stable
The British dream
Make America Great Again

Hang on that last one is not hers. It's all about moronic meaningless soundbites. What is this so called British dream?

canta_brian wrote:Brexit means brexit
Strong and stable
The British dream
Make America Great Again

Hang on that last one is not hers. It's all about moronic meaningless soundbites. What is this so called British dream?

I wondered that.
The only idea that I could come up with is the bucolic vision of a rural England* where everyone lives in a stone cottage with roses round the door, untroubled by foreigners or their foreign accents, and everyone is white.


*not a typo

canta_brian wrote:Brexit means brexit
Strong and stable
The British dream
Make America Great Again

Hang on that last one is not hers. It's all about moronic meaningless soundbites. What is this so called British dream?

It's like the American Dream, but with Tea and Cake instead of Guns and Christ

Which Tyler wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Brexit means brexit
Strong and stable
The British dream
Make America Great Again

Hang on that last one is not hers. It's all about moronic meaningless soundbites. What is this so called British dream?

It's like the American Dream, but with Tea and Cake instead of Guns and Christ

It really isn't. In the American Dream, anyone can become rich through hard work and application regardless of their background. In the British Dream, the rich are ruined and their sexual peccadilloes are exposed in the Sun.

We also it seems have dreams for Libya, just as soon as they can clear the dead bodies away. It says something about the mess the government is in that Boris still has a job, he's not fit for cabinet, he's not fit to be foreign secretary, and he's only foreign secretary as he's not trusted with a domestic portfolio