# How much will this cost me



## steve1001 (24 Apr 2020)

I saw a figure on a Gov site. It put a figure of £220 billion on the great UK giveaway.

I took a stab in the dark and came up with 30 million people who will likely be paying for it.

That gave me £7333 per person.

If I'm wildy out it must be something over £3000 per person at least.

I expect VAT to be the first thing to go up to, Oh I dunno, 25% 30%?
Income Tax rises?
NI rises?
Council tax rises?

Any body got any other thoughts or info on this.

Keep it financial. PLEASE, NOTHING POLITICAL. Please

Steve


----------



## doctor Bob (24 Apr 2020)

It will be like WW2 debt, the kids will be paying for it for 50 years.
I think every week of lockdown equals 1% income tax.
Most people I meet who are furloughed seem to think they are on a holiday, I think they may get a rude awakening* if* they return to work.
Also be aware that what is happening now is the tip of the iceberg ............... you ain't seen nothing yet, I suspect business is going to suffer like never before over the next 12 months.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (24 Apr 2020)

Dangerous ground, because we need to talk about what money is, where it comes from, and where it goes to die. It can get political before you blink.

If there was anything like a free market, you would just let the market do its thing, but you also wouldnt close the market in the first place. 

We are moving into a new ara now - essentially the government will create money instead of having the economy do it - Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) claims that there will be no repercussions and everything will be wonderful. Free money for all, no need to work, but we will all be smiling, happy people living in the sunny uplands of a new dawning of civilization.

Or something.

Last year I was shot down in flames for suggesting that we had rampant inflation in our future. It looks like it is going to be happening soon, just after the appalling deflation destroys the economy and bankrupts everyone. Hold on to your hats, there are going to be headwinds. Lorry loads of new debt will be created (but not the money needed to pay the interest), and this will be inflated away, just like all the other debt is always inflated away. Debt is never paid off, because repaying debt destroys the money, which reduces the money supply, which is deflationary, and our mad money system needs constant, endless inflation to survive.


----------



## DBT85 (24 Apr 2020)

This is just the start. The spending that will come in the next few years will wipe the floor with what's been spent so far.

Economies have a chance not seen since the aftermath of ww2 to reinvent and reinvest their entire nation. Spending on big infrastructure, low carbon, Internet etc is going to go through the roof to get countries moving, people employed and money flowing.

Doing that kind of thing in any normal year is very difficult. It's easier now as they just will have to do things.

On top of it all, a LOT more people have just worked out that they can work from home at least in part. That's great for workers as well as employers need smaller offices, less computers, etc, less cars on the road and so on.


----------



## Geoff_S (24 Apr 2020)

doctor Bob":3uyr10pq said:


> It will be like WW2 debt, the kids will be paying for it for 50 years.
> I think every week of lockdown equals 1% income tax.
> Most people I meet who are furloughed seem to think they are on a holiday, I think they may get a rude awakening* if* they return to work.
> Also be aware that what is happening now is the tip of the iceberg ............... you ain't seen nothing yet, I suspect business is going to suffer like never before over the next 12 months.



I hope for another 30 years, fingers crossed, and I'm not a kid. Although my wife doesn't agree!

Anyway, as long as the cost to me is less than my life, I'm happy


----------



## lurker (24 Apr 2020)

Nationalise every Chinese owned U.K. company, that should be worth a few quid.
Political?
racist?
I don’t care!

How else do we get them to prevent the next one?
I believe this current catastrophe is just a taster for the real thing.
With hindsight the upsurge of ivory poaching was the very thin edge of the same wedge.


----------



## garethharvey (24 Apr 2020)

I saw this coming a few months back, we will be paying for years.

It will also become political with the opposition stating the current government has caused this and they will also contest the tax rises.

It will be very messy and nasty.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Apr 2020)

Depends how old you are. For the younger amongst us we will be paying this for our lifetime with higher taxes, mostly stealth ones I expect.

Ironic really that we are spending all this money to add a few years of life to a small % of the population, who won't suffer from the depression that has started.

I think one good way to pay for it will be a massive increase on death taxes.


----------



## lurker (24 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":3gfs34yu said:


> Depends how old you are. For the younger amongst us we will be paying this for our lifetime with higher taxes, mostly stealth ones I expect.
> 
> Ironic really that we are spending all this money to add a few years of life to a small % of the population, who won't suffer from the depression that has started.
> 
> I think one good way to pay for it will be a massive increase on death taxes.



Don’t forget that us wrinklies were still paying for the Second World War up until only a few years ago.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Apr 2020)

lurker":1swnn3ih said:


> Rorschach":1swnn3ih said:
> 
> 
> > Depends how old you are. For the younger amongst us we will be paying this for our lifetime with higher taxes, mostly stealth ones I expect.
> ...



Not forgotten at all (by me anyway). Different situation though.


----------



## thetyreman (24 Apr 2020)

I care most about small and medium size businesses and self employed individuals, they drive the economy!

I can't help thinking it will cause massive riots and protests if it goes on too long...


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Apr 2020)

Keeping it financial for the moment - the UK gross domestic product was £2.2tn (trillion) in 2019. This is about £180bn per month.

Assuming the virus knocks out half the economy for three months this amounts to around £270bn. It is only half the economy as some bits - NHS, police, food, pharmaceuticals etc - are still working. And three months loss may be the average over a total duration of (say) nine months as lockdown is gradually relaxed.

Some parts of the economy will clearly fare worse than others - food may be bouyant, but pubs, restaurants and tourism may suffer most.

Some of the £270bn will be a one off loss this year, but much will simply need to be borrowed to fund current government "largesse". There will also be a longer term impact as I suspect unemployment will rise, certainly for a while, and personal behaviours may change radically as a result of the crisis - eg:

- work from home becomes embedded
- online shopping increases - ten years progress in 10 weeks?
- reduced commuting and travel
- changed personal values - home, family vs work, money
- video becomes commonplace - GP, accountant, solicitor, family, etc

Structural change like this will inevitably create winners, losers, opportunities etc and represents a big unknown at the moment.

So back to the original question - how will all this be paid for. There are around 30m people employed in the UK. So to repay borrowings of £270bn is around £9000 per head.

In a very simplistic way national economies have precisely the same characteristics as an individual. Very much more complex, and the capacity to affect 60m people in the UK, but not dissimilar.

So what does a normal person on a normal salary of (say) £24k pa after tax do if suddenly faced with a bill for £9000: 

- my current income is all spoken for so I need to borrow some money
- I already have a mortgage and some loans/national debt
- can I sell any assets (classic car, coin collection etc)/ privatisation (of what)
- over what term and at what interest rate
- how do I cut current expenditure to enable repayments/austerity measures
- can I increase my income - change job/become internationally competitive

There is no easy or right answer for either an individual or a whole economy. Too fast and austerity may create rather than solve problems. To slow and our children will still be paying in 20 years time. 

The solution to it all is to bring in that which we avoided at the outset - politics. The strategy adopted will inevitably impact differently in different groups - eg: elderly with pension concerns vs young with family commitments. This will be a political issue, are we all in it together, what takes priority - economy or public services or higher taxes.


----------



## garethharvey (24 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":tzokzamy said:


> Ironic really that we are spending all this money to add a few years of life to a small % of the population, who won't suffer from the depression that has started.



Not quite, this has been done to allow the NHS to manage patients. If this had not been done, the hospitals would have been over-run and a significant amount of people would have lost their life.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Apr 2020)

garethharvey":16fx0t06 said:


> Rorschach":16fx0t06 said:
> 
> 
> > Ironic really that we are spending all this money to add a few years of life to a small % of the population, who won't suffer from the depression that has started.
> ...



Yes I understand that, but it is clear the lockdown was too severe and too soon. Hospitals are empty, extra beds not being used. Countries with much less severe responses are not being overrun either. Look at Sweden, no lockdown just sensible precautions and their curve is very similar to ours. Their economy will not suffer like ours. Already today I heard several big companies have already thrown in the towel, how many more will go?


----------



## D_W (24 Apr 2020)

thetyreman":jilmg8pn said:


> I care most about small and medium size businesses and self employed individuals, they drive the economy!



people have this sentiment in the US, too. It's a strange fallacy that money from large corporations doesn't do anything. 90% of the equity here that pension funds are invested in are mid and large cap companies. If they do poorly, so do their employees, so does their stock, and so does everyones' pension. 

If the pensions do poorly, our taxes go up, benefits get cut or both. Folks who have invested for retirement see a decline in the value of their accounts. 

financial breaks are given to large businesses to keep them from fleeing (and taking their tax base with them). Financial breaks are given to the small folks (I work for a small business, and I'm a small guy) to buy votes. You can't do without both, and neither can do without the other. We've seen how harsh life is without industrialization and corporate/large wealth base (pre-industrialized economy, venezuela, etc). There is no way to store wealth and no stability. When most of my retirement savings are in large corporations (as are the local governments' trusts, etc), I have no interest in this unnecessary division into "them vs. us". It's all us.


----------



## DBT85 (24 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":15tia8lc said:


> garethharvey":15tia8lc said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":15tia8lc said:
> ...


It wasn't possible to predict how many more beds were going to be needed. I would argue given the evidence coming from Italy that we were too slow to react at all. The ultimate lock down may be more severe than other places, but then some of them also took less harsh measures earlier and earned the benefit of it.

We were still allowing mass gatherings at football and Cheltenham to go ahead well into the period where things were clear and obviously shouldn't be happening.


----------



## thetyreman (24 Apr 2020)

D_W":3exojto4 said:


> thetyreman":3exojto4 said:
> 
> 
> > I care most about small and medium size businesses and self employed individuals, they drive the economy!
> ...



nor do I, and neither did I say such things anywhere in my post, stop trying to turn my post into an argument please.


----------



## lurker (24 Apr 2020)

When I were a lad.......... the only thing that really mattered was the balance of payments.

Mr Micawber expressed all we needed to know about the economy.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Apr 2020)

We do have to realise that there is a trade off between the economy, the spread of the virus, and death toll.

Had the virus had been allowed to spread uncontrolled in the UK the total death toll would be close to the overall mortality rate for the virus. 

Assuming a 1% mortality rate, total deaths would be in the order of 600k. They may have been skewed towards the elderly and those with underlying conditions - but we all have, and most of us value, older friends, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles etc.

With a transmission rate of 2.5 we would about today be at peak deaths with between 30000 to 40000 deaths a day. 

NHS and burial/cremation services would be utterly overwhelmed. Bodies unless removed rapidly would start to decay. The only solution would likely be mass burials.

For some this may be a price worth paying to get through the crisis quickly, although I suspect for most it would be completely repugnant. In any event it would cetainly be a guaranteed vote loser which is why no politician in power would contemplate such a policy.

The only question is how quickly lockdown can be relaxed - a function of risk, testing, monitoring, contact tracing etc.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Apr 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2v4n4cee said:


> We do have to realise that there is a trade off between the economy, the spread of the virus, and death toll.
> 
> Had the virus had been allowed to spread uncontrolled in the UK the total death toll would be close to the overall mortality rate for the virus.
> 
> ...



True, but at the moment the mortality rate looks to be under 0.3% so 200k or so deaths, with social distancing and self isolation of the old and vulnerable that could have been spread over many months and it would barely have registered as worse than a bad flu year.


----------



## D_W (24 Apr 2020)

antibody testing in NY shows it to be about 0.5%, same as south korea and germany. 

We knew this from the beginning, though, that in the absence of testing, in any organized economy with medical capacity (and despite the criticism, we have more in the US than anywhere else in the world - it's part of our problem with medical spending - too much access and capacity) - the number of deaths is a better indicator of total infection than it is as a reflection of death rate from confirmed cases. 

I'm hoping for antibody tests. The week we went into shutdown, I had the trots for two days and more than normal back pain and blamed it in a cake my daughter made. no other symptoms, so it may have been the cake. 

It'll probably be the cake and the chair that I have to sit in to work from home, though.


----------



## DBT85 (24 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":muxp9ve3 said:


> Terry - Somerset":muxp9ve3 said:
> 
> 
> > We do have to realise that there is a trade off between the economy, the spread of the virus, and death toll.
> ...


A bad flu year is like 8000 deaths for the year.

200,000 people dead in one year is not just a bad flu year. Not to mention that many of these dead people will statistically be ones that voted this govt in in the first place.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Apr 2020)

DBT85":2uvpod13 said:


> Rorschach":2uvpod13 said:
> 
> 
> > Terry - Somerset":2uvpod13 said:
> ...



Try 30k as a bad flu year, and that is just over winter, these deaths would be spread over 2 winters, maybe more.


----------



## Richard_C (24 Apr 2020)

The office of budget responsibility (OBR) has produced its first (and by it own admission) not fully tested reference scenario. The normal reports come out on budget day and autumn statement day and primarily look at the impact of decisions on public finances. The OBR is often unloved by politicians from both sides, its independent and not slanted one way or another like IFS or resolution foundation can be. Truly independent.

Here:

https://obr.uk/coronavirus-reference-scenario/

There are 3 things to worry about longer term.

First is annual deficit - the in year difference between govt income and govt spending. The recent target has been zero, and UK was getting close. Deficit isn't automatically bad - some is 'capital' with future returns - roads, telecoms and so on. Imagine a household budget, in one year you might run up a deficit to buy a new boiler that will repay itself over 10 years. As long as interest is less than 10% that's a good spend. If you run up a deficit every year just to stay afloat, that will lead to increasing debt.

So that brings us to national debt - the sum that a country owes. Meaningless in £££ or £per person, so its often measured as a % of GDP - GDP being the total amount we produce each year.

Look at the table here - scroll down past the adverts and see a list of countries in order of debt as % of GDP. 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... onal-debt/

We are sort of mid table, c. 86%, below for example USA and France, and way way below Japan.

So the deficit for 2020 and a few yeare beyond will be massive, the debt will go up a bit.

What that costs depends on how expensive it is to service the debt - if the world has confidence in an economy then you can repay it over generations, if the world doesn't have confidence your currency weakens and you all become a lot poorer.

(if you look at low debt countries the reasons vary - Brunei needs no money, Afghanistan need sit but nobody will lend it so they have to live within their means)

The third factor is the sum of personal debt - we don't save up for cars we lease them (75% of 'buyers' do), people in lower income jobs owe a lot to their credit cards, bank loans, etc etc. and when that all comes unstitched the financial system begins to crack. 

My view is bad things will happen, but if public debt is well managed and confidence maintained it won't be as bad as many think. Neverthless new normal won't be like old normal. We won't fly as much or take cruises as much or buy as much new stuff we don't need for a good many years.


----------



## DBT85 (24 Apr 2020)

Rorschach said:


> 30k twice is still a fair bloody jump from 200k.
> 
> It's now irrelevant. The actions have been taken, lives have undoubtedly been saved and some undoubtedly lost due to the earlier inaction. People will pour over the data for generations to learn about it so that they can forget it all in time for the next one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sachakins (26 Apr 2020)

So many valid points, so many views and so many opinions!
What they all appear to have as a basis is hindsight.
Not one of you are wrong, but all are basing decisions on whatever we know today, not what we didn't know several weeks back!

Whichever choices were made then, by whichever country you choose can be now said to be right or wrong with where we are now, with plenty of hindsight.

Given the option that if nothing was done by countries, and possibly deaths running into millions, as 1918 flu pandemic, would you still have the same views.

It will always been seen as a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

Has your view on risk and financial debt changed?
Are you likely to take on unnecessary debt, for luxuries in example, today than you were 3 months ago, I expect not, knowing what you know now.

But if you had taken out that debt 3 months ago, it was on the basis that all things being equal in the future, it was ok to do.

But ask yourself in all honesty would you do the same thing today, maybe you wouldn't, maybe you would but more cautiously or maybe you would do just the same. But if you did the same, would many people think you foolish?

The answer I have is I don't know in all honesty, you have to look at yourself and ask am I a pessimist, pragmatist or optimist, and decide for yourself.

The events at this time and the questions we have should not, as the OP said be politicised, but should also not be theorised in with hindsight. Decisions had to be made, and is easy to decry them after the event unfolds.

Thanks for reading if you got this far. I don't expect many to agree, as it is hard to judge inital decisions fairly, after you know the outcomes. 

Think of it like jury duty, the defendant looks guilty so must be guilty, but after the evidence is known, it's obvious the defendant is innocent, knowing that now maybe you will be less likely to prejudge with more knowledge, but unfortunately more knowledge only comes after the events.

So making judgement today on decisions made weeks ago is always skewed by what we know now, whether we like it or not, like the phrase " ...we can not unknow what we know..." 
Or to use Donald Rumsfeld analogy, there are things we know we know, there are things we know we don't know and there are things we don't know we don't know.

BUT I wish you all to stay safe, thank you. (rant over!)


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Apr 2020)

Sachakins":1akeuajz said:


> So many valid points, so many views and so many opinions!
> What they all appear to have as a basis is hindsight.
> Not one of you are wrong, but all are basing decisions on whatever we know today, not what we didn't know several weeks back!
> 
> ...



Not a rant (at least, I didn't read it as such). More important to me is not where we are, but where we are going to be. Will the economy bounce back as though nothing happened? Will people's spending habits (actually borrowing habits for UK and US) continue as normal? Will colossal new debt cause inflation? Will the oil price being low mean billions (trillions?) of unwanted dollars flow back to the USA, causing hyperinflation and chaos?

I honestly don't know the answers to any of the above, but I am confident that tomorrow is not going to look like yesterday. Normalcy bias will make people assume that it will all be back to normal within weeks, but I am working on the basis that people will now spend less, and save more if they possibly can. This will be a worldwide change. 

Who is looking forward to a foreign holiday this year? Serious question, as I assume no one except the very financially secure will want to do that, and I survive by tourism...or at least I used to. Maybe next year, or the year after.


----------



## doctor Bob (26 Apr 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2sn8rpyc said:


> Who is looking forward to a foreign holiday this year? Serious question, as I assume no one except the very financially secure will want to do that, and I survive by tourism...or at least I used to. Maybe next year, or the year after.



I can't see holidays starting up again this year.


----------



## MikeG. (26 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":3cjl8x2d said:


> ......but it is clear the lockdown was too severe and too soon. ........



Except there are plenty of people arguing the precise opposite. Chris 152, for instance, has long argued that it was too late and too lax and that's why so many people have died.

There are too many people talking in black and white, and not noticing that the world is shaded in grey.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Apr 2020)

doctor Bob":u0rj6h5g said:


> Trainee neophyte":u0rj6h5g said:
> 
> 
> > Who is looking forward to a foreign holiday this year? Serious question, as I assume no one except the very financially secure will want to do that, and I survive by tourism...or at least I used to. Maybe next year, or the year after.
> ...



30% of Greek GDP is tourism. 50% of Greek GDP is government (gdp is a ridiculous metric), so what percentage of the Greek economy is left to support everything else? Spain, Portugal, Italy all have a heavy reliance on tourism - looks like the governments will have to print, print, print to keep food on the table, and rioters off the streets. We live in interesting times. 

[youtube]Ikje8bxl5NI[/youtube]


----------



## MikeG. (26 Apr 2020)

doctor Bob":13j9ap3g said:


> .........I can't see holidays starting up again this year.



I agree. Looks like I'll have to cycle down to Spain (again) to see my first grandchild in October, stealth camping on the way, and sneak over the France/ Spain border at night by some little known goat track in the Pyrenees. Dammit, I guess I'll have to row across the Channel, too.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Apr 2020)

MikeG.":1ovrj2gn said:


> Rorschach":1ovrj2gn said:
> 
> 
> > ......but it is clear the lockdown was too severe and too soon. ........
> ...



Take a look at Sweden, minimal lockdown but with sensible social distancing, deaths and infection curve very similar to our own.
There are plenty of people arguing on both sides, I obviously fall onto one side, others fall onto another. The problem is this was framed as a lives vs economy, but the economy is lives as well, so it's lives vs lives and that's a damn tricky argument to make. All we can hope is that in seeing the folly for what it is, we can get back to a normality that revives the economy instead of living in fear for evermore.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Apr 2020)

This will probably rile some people up my apologies if so but this is how some people think, and yes it is financially based.

Police are saying that with the claps for key workers etc they hope that people can see how important key workers are and that Police funding will increase after this.
They were blind to the fact that Police (and other emergency services) were cut due to austerity. We are about to enter a depression much worse than the 2008 recession, where do they think this extra funding will come from? Funding for emergency services is going to go down especially for Police I think as people will see health as far more important than law and order, not least because Police are continuing to act in bad faith.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":1ol2o9um said:


> This will probably rile some people up my apologies if so but this is how some people think, and yes it is financially based.
> 
> Police are saying that with the claps for key workers etc they hope that people can see how important key workers are and that Police funding will increase after this.
> They were blind to the fact that Police (and other emergency services) were cut due to austerity. We are about to enter a depression much worse than the 2008 recession, where do they think this extra funding will come from? Funding for emergency services is going to go down especially for Police I think as people will see health as far more important than law and order, not least because Police are continuing to act in bad faith.



You are quite right - this comment will rile some people up. It's also veering dangerously close to political territory, and as the OP said - please, no politics. 

Let's get back to matters concerning the economics of all this.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2020)

About the only firm conclusion I've come to in all this is that I just don't understand economics any more.

In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, I (among others) looked at the huge bailouts, quantitative easing and so on and said, "Sure as little eggs, there'll be inflation." Increase the money supply at a time of diminishing economic activity and inflation is inevitable, right?

Wrong.

There's no real inflation anywhere in the developed world. I just don't understand why. No doubt some clever-clogs does, but I've not heard credible reasons yet.

Now here we are, and printed money is falling from the gummint's coffers like leaves in autumn. Are we going to get rampant inflation, thus further diminishing my suddenly devalued savings? I really don't know. What do I do, wait and hope that the value of my savings recovers with the promised economic upturn? Or will my (and others) savings be trashed by gummint policies to bail out the indebted?

Who the [expletive] knows?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Apr 2020)

Cheshirechappie":3ips0fie said:


> About the only firm conclusion I've come to in all this is that I just don't understand economics any more.
> 
> In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, I (among others) looked at the huge bailouts, quantitative easing and so on and said, "Sure as little eggs, there'll be inflation." Increase the money supply at a time of diminishing economic activity and inflation is inevitable, right?
> 
> ...



There is inflation - lots and lots of it, just not evenly distributed. Inflation is actually an increase in the money supply, so by that metric we have had insane inflation. However, it hasn't shown up in price rises for Joe Public. If you are in the market for an Aston Martin DB6, or a Picasso, or a Caribbean island then prices are nose-bleedingly high. That's because all the shiny new money went directly to the billionaires, who spend differently to you and me. The next binge of printing will go to the masses (although the banks are doing everything possible to stop that), and then you will see too much money chasing not enough goods. It's still not a problem if the people use the free money to save, which is why Japan hasn't imploded yet. Savings get reinvested into the economy, and produce growth. US/UK economy is based on spending every last penny, plus a bit, with savings being actively discouraged, so a lack of production (everyone on the dole) plus a rash of new money with nowhere to go _may_ cause runaway inflation. I don't pretend to understand the actual workings of it all though - even economists don't know what they are doing, so all of the above could be completely wrong 

According to my current thinking, which is notable for being wrong quite a lot, we may have chronic deflation in the next few months, as house prices, stocks, bonds crater, and then the central banks will "money printer goes brrr".

More interesting is the idea that, with oil prices in the doldrums, all the nations of the world need much less in the way of US dollars to fund their energy needs. If all the unneeded surplus dollars get sent back to USA in a rush, all sorts of mad things will happen. "They" may have to attack Iran just to get the price of oil back up.


----------



## MikeG. (26 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":20v8exkc said:


> MikeG.":20v8exkc said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":20v8exkc said:
> ...



Precisely. And yet you stated your position as though it were fact. You made no acknowledgement that this was actually your opinion, and that others held a different opinion. In other words, you chose black to, for instance, Chris 152's white, when even you acknowledge that there is a grey. If you'd have said something along the lines of "in my opinion it is clear....." or "it seems fairly clear to me.........." then you'd have saved five minutes of my life.


----------



## Chris152 (26 Apr 2020)

oh gawd...


----------



## woodhutt (26 Apr 2020)

Kind of on the subject of the economy. It seems to me that this pandemic has allowed people and governments to re-evaluate what is important to them. The impression I get from the posts which have gone before is a belief that everyone is striving to return to the way things were before this crisis. Do you really want that?
Here in NZ for example, there is now an awareness of our heavy dependency on tourism which has naturally been hard hit with the pandemic affecting airlines, hotels, and the hospitality industry as a whole. Also highlighted has been our vulnerability due to globalization, with little or no indigenous manufacture of things such as PPE, pharmaceuticals etc. The government has already announced there will be a re-think of our economic strategy.
When we arrived in NZ almost 35 years ago, food was cheap and clothing, white ware, cars etc. relatively expensive. Now it is the other way around and I know which I prefer.
It would seem to me that the UK, about to divorce itself from the EU and with lessons (hopefully) learned from this pandemic, is in an ideal position to reinvent itself. 
Please don't take this the wrong way ( I am, after all, an ex-pat and in no way 'Anti-Pom') but on my last visit to the UK some 18 years ago, I got the impression that Britain had become nothing more than a huge warehouse and consumer for imported goods. Traditional industries had disappeared and nothing put in their place. A visit to my birthplace - a mining village in the North East - led to a meeting with a bloke who had been a miner for more than 25 years and who, since the pit closures, was reduced to delivering pizzas. 
My point is, we know it's going to cost whatever direction we take in moving forward from this situation so take the opportunity and make your decisions count.
Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 Apr 2020)

Inflation normally happens if money supply is increased by printing more money. Conceptually when the economy was underpinned by "£ notes" the concept of more ££ chasing the same quantity of goods simply increased the ££ that people were able to pay.

This time around, and in 2008, the Treasury borrowed the money to ensure the banks were able meet their obligations despite assets not being worth their balance sheet values.

As the UK had (and largely stll has) a good credit rating, other countries, pension funds and individuals were happy to lend the UK money at fairly low rates. Alternative investments looked very unattractive at the time. The UK was fortunate in that a large part of the total national debt was long term.

So we had austerity - reducing public expenditure over the last decade to get the national books close to balance. This "trick" may be the end result this time, although a political debate will no doubt be had as to whether the repayment is made by (a) reducing public expenditure, (b) increasing taxes, (c) varying the duration.

However the current crisis has the potential to radically change the future in the way that 2008-10 did not:

- work from home, reduced office space, flexible working
- online shopping - ten years progress in 10 weeks
- increased use of face-time, reduced travel
- revised supply chains to reduce future vulnerability, UK manufacturing boost
- possibly reduced tourism - both UK and overseas
- part home based education

How all this may impact on unemployment, speed of recovery etc is unknown - although I would expect business closures to drive job losses initially. But what I do think is that every crisis can create opportunities. Or perhaps I am just an optimist!


----------



## Chris152 (28 Apr 2020)

Terry - Somerset":33afuqsk said:


> However the current crisis has the potential to radically change the future in the way that 2008-10 did not:
> - work from home, reduced office space, flexible working
> - online shopping - ten years progress in 10 weeks
> - increased use of face-time, reduced travel
> ...


I keep coming back to this. 
Little doubt online shopping's increased significantly (in my experience), and becoming really efficient in the case of larger stores. Less so in the case of stuff I recently ordered from smaller, local shops who don't seem to have efficient delivery info or deadlines (I'm still waiting for orders put in last week). You have to wonder if this crisis isn't the final call for small shops on the high streets, both in terms of how they keep going through lockdown but also how they cope with shifts in shopping trends further in the direction of delivery from large stores/ warehouses.
As for working from home/ part home-based education, these can work together as more parents don't need to go away so often, relieving schools of their child-minding function. I think there's already a whole generation of kids who turn to the net if they want to know something, and the idea of well-crafted teaching sessions and discussions online would probably come pretty naturally to them. Obviously that needs to be combined with hands-on time and social and behavioural learning so physical presence would still be needed at least part of the time, but however you look at it the crisis must have pushed technology-based learning along a fair way. 
And less travel - at least til we have less-polluting technologies - is a good thing in many ways. 

Terrible times, but maybe productive ones in some ways.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Apr 2020)

Terry - Somerset":3u7vodsd said:


> - work from home, reduced office space, flexible working
> - online shopping - ten years progress in 10 weeks
> - increased use of face-time, reduced travel
> - revised supply chains to reduce future vulnerability, UK manufacturing boost
> ...



I think you are right, a lot of this will come to pass in a very short period of time. Some of those things I think are probably a very good thing what worries me though is the speed of change which I think will have terrible consequences.

I am not a luddite, I embrace change but I recognise there are some changes which can happen very quickly and are a good thing, and other changes which need to happen much more slowly in order for people to adapt.

Lets take changing attitudes to public transport. I personally would love to see most public transport (outside of major cities like London) disappear. I think it is very wasteful, polluting, expensive and impractical. I would like to see it replaced by a network of self driving electric cars that you hire as needed. However, this change takes time, if we introduced that network right away, the roads wouldn't have the capacity in some places, we would have hundreds of thousands of buses, trams, trains, taxis scrapped and their respective drivers out of work. The national grid couldn't cope with the electricity demand and the country would grind to a halt. A major change like that needs time for people to adapt. 

These same sentiments I think can be applied to a lot of things that care changing so quickly now, online shopping increasing too fast, home schooling, working from home, collapse in tourism. There are benefits to all these changes, but not when they are enacted in a matter of weeks rather than years or decades.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":20sczmbi said:


> ... The national grid couldn't cope with the electricity demand and the country would grind to a halt ...



What?? You mean there won't be enough windmills? :shock: 

By the bye. Many working practices will change permanently. My wife works for a bank, and she says they've now been forced to make changes that have been talked about for years. They work perfectly well, and will not be reversed. She has never cleared so much work in such a short time since her two immediate bosses are both working from home.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Apr 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1c59jo55 said:


> What?? You mean there won't be enough windmills? :shock:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 



Phil Pascoe":1c59jo55 said:


> By the bye. Many working practices will change permanently. My wife works for a bank, and she says they've now been forced to make changes that have been talked about for years. They work perfectly well, and will not be reversed. She has never cleared so much work in such a short time since her two immediate bosses are both working from home.



My partner wanted to do some work from home before all of this, certain parts of her job are better in the office with easy access to colleagues but other parts are best done with no disturbances. They told her it wasn't possible to work from home, how quickly that changed.
That being said, she can't wait to get back to the office, at least for a few days a week, her home office setup is far from ideal and when things get back to a bit more normality we are going to need to re-think the furniture a bit.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Apr 2020)

Swmbo can do a certain amount of work from home, but as her work is clerical she needs to be be in the office most of the time. Working from home isn't always very practical - last night the broadband speed was 0.3mbps. Even at 3.00am it was only 7mbps.


----------



## Chris152 (29 Apr 2020)

Presumably things will have to change even more rapidly if we can't develop a vaccine and can't develop immunity that lasts a significant length of time?


----------



## Rorschach (29 Apr 2020)

Chris152":1dthzfqq said:


> Presumably things will have to change even more rapidly if we can't develop a vaccine and can't develop immunity that lasts a significant length of time?



If that happens we are pretty stuffed. The only option will be open C19 hospitals a bit like the old TB hospitals and just accept that lots of people will die every year from it.


----------



## rafezetter (29 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":16w93pkb said:


> MikeG.":16w93pkb said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":16w93pkb said:
> ...



I don't see it that way - and no I'm not in a position like Dr Bob possibly on the brink of losing 30 years worth of hard work and everything attached to it, but _you can be broke and alive_ - if you are alive you have a chance - those people that have died from the virus caught from some public place like a shop / pub / venue etc etc ... not so much.

So it's not quite such a "lives vs lives" equation as you make out Rorshach.


----------



## Rorschach (29 Apr 2020)

rafezetter":1o8qej39 said:


> I don't see it that way - and no I'm not in a position like Dr Bob possibly on the brink of losing 30 years worth of hard work and everything attached to it, but _you can be broke and alive_ - if you are alive you have a chance - those people that have died from the virus caught from some public place like a shop / pub / venue etc etc ... not so much.
> 
> So it's not quite such a "lives vs lives" equation as you make out Rorshach.



It's not as simple as just losing your job or losing some money. Economies are lives in many ways both obvious and not so obvious. A depressed economy will cost use many more lives, young and old, in the long term than we lose from C19.


----------



## rafezetter (29 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":o76kqki6 said:


> I think you are right, a lot of this will come to pass in a very short period of time. Some of those things I think are probably a very good thing what worries me though is the speed of change which I think will have terrible consequences.
> 
> I am not a luddite, I embrace change but I recognise there are some changes which can happen very quickly and are a good thing, and other changes which need to happen much more slowly in order for people to adapt.
> 
> Lets take changing attitudes to public transport. I personally would love to see most public transport (outside of major cities like London) disappear. I think it is very wasteful, polluting, expensive and impractical. I would like to see it replaced by a network of self driving electric cars that you hire as needed. However, this change takes time, if we introduced that network right away, the roads wouldn't have the capacity in some places, we would have hundreds of thousands of buses, trams, trains, taxis scrapped and their respective drivers out of work. The national grid couldn't cope with the electricity demand and the country would grind to a halt. A major change like that needs time for people to adapt.



Quite apart from the maintenance and costs issue - they would be so expensive in the first 10 years or so while companies claw back the initial investment - plus a good few years for profits (ecause it WILL be the major companies like Honda / google / FB etc not govts with the money to do this) so your average old granny who needs to go shopping won;t be able to afford it - unless they put on some sort of "OAP discount" - driving the prices up for everyone else. 

I'm guessing you've not used overland public transport that much eh? You can't have with that idea.

The infrastructure required to allow the potential 60 odd people (iirc) on a SINGLE bus to have a small electric car EACH is mindblowing - entire towns would have to be revised - 

Smart cars are 2.6 mtres long and most would agree are the shortest car in existence today - x 54 = 140.4 metres - BUMPER TO BUMPER add spacing = 200 metres give or take - a double decker bus = 4.4 metres.

You've not really thought this through at all have you?

alternative idea - electric buses / trams.... how novel.

Edit: some DD buses carry 87 people or 226.2 meteres wroth of cars (BUMPER TO BUMPER) with spacing for the 87 cars - 300 meteres plus - thats 3 football pitches instead of the 4.4m for a bus :roll: .

There's so many things wrong with that idea I'm not even going to start because it'll take me hours to list them all.


----------



## Rorschach (29 Apr 2020)

Of course, how silly of me, no I haven't given a single moments thought to how it would all work, in fact I have never used a tube, a bus or a train in my life. You were right all along, we should continue as we are, in fact, lets bring back horses and carts :roll:


----------



## rafezetter (29 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":iids7c1y said:


> rafezetter":iids7c1y said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see it that way - and no I'm not in a position like Dr Bob possibly on the brink of losing 30 years worth of hard work and everything attached to it, but _you can be broke and alive_ - if you are alive you have a chance - those people that have died from the virus caught from some public place like a shop / pub / venue etc etc ... not so much.
> ...



Sorry wrong again.

A depressed economy can be combated - the effects reduced, a reduced standard of life is STILL LIFE - death from a pandemic is death. The 2008 crash didn't see a massive surge of deaths - yes there were deaths, people who were graded as "fit to work" when they were clearly not and lost benefits, some ultimately taking thier own lives, and there were obviously other cases but that was not "hundreds PER DAY" or it would be all over the world news as "poor people dying in droves as depression hits". Didn't happen that way did it? Sensationalist much?

Reopening the parts of the economy that rely on person to person human interaction when there is still a risk of a second wave is utter lunacy - I know it's hard and I cannot imagine Dr Bob's situation and others in a similar position, but ask him if he would trade a single persons life to keep his business. I don't know him and never met him to my knowledge, but my gut says he and many others in his position would say "no"; a Flat NO, not even an "umm maybe".

Like the backlash against wetherspoons today - if you open up a public confined space PEOPLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED NOT TO TAKE THE P*SS. Did you learn NOTHING from all the reports of the daytrippers to Mt Snowdon and other beauty spots and parks?

Give the people even HALF a reason and they will go "all in" - and screw everyone else.

Full disclosure Rorschach - do you have some skin in this game? What's your business and mode of income?

Me - I've got no work - I'm a handyman and my 2 main clients have told me to stay away - I'm out of work for 4 months at least give or take.


----------



## Rorschach (29 Apr 2020)

Time to use the ignore feature myself :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Apr 2020)

rafezetter":giy9r0il said:


> I know it's hard and I cannot imagine Dr Bob's situation and others in a similar position, but ask him if he would trade a single persons life to keep his business. I don't know him and never met him to my knowledge, but my gut says he and many others in his position would say "no"; a Flat NO, not even an "umm maybe".



It depends on whose life we are talking about ...... the pineapple and the 2 pineapples who did my extension in our old house, easy decision. The person who reversed into my car on xmas eve doing £8k of damage and drove off .......... I have quite a list.

Actually I'm feeling much more bouyant, I think we will be OK. When the dung hits the fan you look at the worst senario, as time passes you start to truely look at the situation. I have enough reserve to last for 6 months with zero work, with the current booked in work approx 4 months and good quotes out there I think we will be fine. I could have done with more help, no hand outs for me, but we will be fine and treat it as a challenge. 

And I can get away with a peaky blinders haircut....


----------



## rafezetter (29 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":1gx09ml6 said:


> Of course, how silly of me, no I haven't given a single moments thought to how it would all work, in fact I have never used a tube, a bus or a train in my life. You were right all along, we should continue as we are, in fact, lets bring back horses and carts :roll:




Being flippant shows you've got no real argument - if you've got proper solutions, then let's hear them - otherwise it's just yet another half baked "this would be nice" idea from someone who doesn't really understand the ramifications. Using a bus now and again isn't the same as being a regular public transport commuter - and Horse and carts would be worse for different reasons. What you propose is to scrap the current system in favor of a system that would add 79 more vehicles on the road, make each journey more expensive because "1 person 1 vehicle" in the majority of cases. - you want to add MORE vehicles to an already overburdened system. 80 vehicles (per bus) = an army of mechanics to maintain them, great for those mechanically minded I guess.

These companies that had these systems over an entire country wouldn't dream of using your average independant garage mechanic so you'd have to have airfield hanger sized storage facilities dotted all over the place to house all the damaged / broken ones that need repairs.

I'm guessing you'd need to have 10 MILLION or more of these vehicles around at any one time. TEN MILLION. possibly more as some people decide it's easier for them to use that than have thier own car.

I'm guessing you've never seem the mountains of "free bicycles" that are damaged beyond repair - because people are people - and the army of bike mechanics trying to keep up with repairs - and that's just a simple mechanical device.

It would take many many many years before the country (and world) as a whole embraced the new situation - but even when they did, it still doesn't change the fact that you'e got 80 vehicles on the road when there used to just JUST ONE.

Here's the bottom line Rorschach - TRADING *ONE* VEHICLE FOR *80* IS A REALLY REALLY REALLY DUMB IDEA. I don't care how "clean" it is.

and yeah - ELECTRIC buses / trams.

So you are either a fool or trolling, because if large capacity transport wasn't cost (and environementally) efficient - it wouldn't exist at all.

Should we all get rowing boats to go to the continent as well?

Oh yeah and it would give these companies a chokehold on the public - you know the cost of a BUS ride in Bristol? £4. £4 anywhere. They scrapped the "return fare" years ago in favor of "two singles" (more money) then they scrapped that in favor of a flat fee - £4 and you can go one stop or 50 - all day. Great for some, most others, not so much.

And that's a BUS company that can seat 60/80 people on ONE BUS. Now imagine you got all the overheads I've just descibed above, and more probably and consider how much a short trip to the shops would cost an OAP who has no other means of transport.

Christ it's £12 in a taxi from the station to my house and that's TWO MILES. - from the centre of Bristol to my home FOUR miles away is almost £30 - I'm truly not kidding.

You obviously live in some nice super cheap utopia, but here in the real world - removing buses where the cost of running that bus is _shared over all the people using it that day_ - would be a catastrophe. 

Think about it - IF EVERYONE COULD AFFORD UBER (TAXI) PRICES EVERYONE WOULD ALREADY BE USING AN UBER!!!!!! 

un-beleiveable.


----------



## rafezetter (29 Apr 2020)

doctor Bob":3xz3y3xn said:


> rafezetter":3xz3y3xn said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's hard and I cannot imagine Dr Bob's situation and others in a similar position, but ask him if he would trade a single persons life to keep his business. I don't know him and never met him to my knowledge, but my gut says he and many others in his position would say "no"; a Flat NO, not even an "umm maybe".
> ...




Thats great to hear that you think you'll be OK and yeah lol I know what you mean.

Rorshach - still no info on what your business is yet - is it a secret or do you indeed have some skin in this game?


----------



## RogerS (29 Apr 2020)

rafezetter":2s5fxvh1 said:


> Rorschach":2s5fxvh1 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, how silly of me, no I haven't given a single moments thought to how it would all work, in fact I have never used a tube, a bus or a train in my life. You were right all along, we should continue as we are, in fact, lets bring back horses and carts :roll:
> ...



Spot on...spot on.


rafezetter":2s5fxvh1 said:


> So you are either a fool or trolling,....


Perhaps both ?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Apr 2020)

I suspect the answer to the transport dilemma is not the replacement of a single bus by 80 driverless vehicles.

Firstly, few busses outside of peak periods actually have ~60 passengers on board. Often you have a ~60 seater diesel bus with less than 10 passengers. Very inefficient!

Secondly the current crisis is likely to promote material changes in behaviours - work from home for several days a week, schooling may be increasingly online, grocery shopping will undergo 10 years transition to home delivery in 10 weeks. This will reduce peak loads and total travel.

Thirdly I would not expect 100% personal ownership of driverless vehicles - they are more likely to be an app based charge per mile, or minute, or time of day, or combination of all three. Fitted with cameras, software, credit card data etc any damage could be recorded and charged for.

And finally a driverless bus, even with partial occupancy is likely to be cheaper per person than a single user vehicle. It may be possible to flex the size of vehicle 12/25//40/60 seater depending on demand. So public transport is likely to continue.

As for R, I think he is being deliberately provocative. Or closely descended from Marie Antoinette with the "let them eat cake" detachment from reality gene. If you don't like his remarks , ignore them. Responding = encouragement - as oxygen to a fire it fuels the flames.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Apr 2020)

Terry - Somerset":sb6g8z1z said:


> I suspect the answer to the transport dilemma is not the replacement of a single bus by 80 driverless vehicles.
> 
> Firstly, few busses outside of peak periods actually have ~60 passengers on board. Often you have a ~60 seater diesel bus with less than 10 passengers. Very inefficient!
> 
> ...



Nice to see some thinking sensibly about this.

Yes I envision an app based system, charged based on journey distance but also time of day you want to make the journey and if you are willing share part/all of it with someone else. Price would be much cheaper than a taxi/Uber because there is no driver to pay and you can travel 24/7. For those journeys where time is not such a concern you could travel in the middle of the night at very cheap rates. 
Advantages are unlimited locations available for door to door transport, unlike public transport, so perfect for elderly or those living in rural areas. Buses are trains are next to useless in these situations now. I know elderly people in the city who cannot walk to their nearest bus stop and I have relatives who live in the country and have a bus one day a week!
Disadvantages? Of course there are some, it does put more vehicles on the road but again as mentioned rural areas are very quiet anyway and of course the vehicles will be live-tracking other vehicles on the road so can plan routes to avoid congestion. 

Of course you are not going to replace every seat on a bus with a car, that's madness, in very big cities like London you will likely still continue to have tube and buses, probably driverless eventually as is already starting in London. The system I propose is for the rest of the country and smaller cities where we have public transport but it is useless. I have a bus that runs past my house 4 times an hour, but it only goes to the city centre. I can't use it to travel to a supermarket or anything else, for that i need 2 buses at a cost of £5 for each return trip, per person. Taxis are cheaper than buses here if 2 people travel together.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Apr 2020)

Going back to the original question I am of the view that no one knows but whatever the cost, given we cannot change that C19 has happened, it will be much less than the cost of not having put measures in place.

I feel there is a prevalent tendency (possibly influenced by shock news making headlines) to think about the worst that could happen which then becomes an expectation. The human race is actually very resilient and generally finds opportunity out of adversity. Behaviours and expectations will be changed by the experience we are going through - hopefully some of the good with a bit more recognition of what's really important and general kindness prevailing will be part of that.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Apr 2020)

Blackswanwood":qfi1acok said:


> Going back to the original question I am of the view that no one knows but whatever the cost, given we cannot change that C19 has happened, it will be much less than the cost of not having put measures in place



We will be able to make fairly accurate estimations of how much this has cost in the next year or so. At the moment we don't know, but the cost is going to be high for certain.

It is a logical fallacy though to suggest that the cost (economic or death toll) would have been higher had we simply done nothing, or done less.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Apr 2020)

Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.

It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.


----------



## DBT85 (30 Apr 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2rvl7v39 said:


> Swmbo can do a certain amount of work from home, but as her work is clerical she needs to be be in the office most of the time. Working from home isn't always very practical - last night the broadband speed was 0.3mbps. Even at 3.00am it was only 7mbps.


This is one of the key points in getting the whole country on fibre to the home. It would drastically improve things like this. It can also only happen with huge govt funding, which this crisis will make flow like wine.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":30hidpfl said:


> Blackswanwood":30hidpfl said:
> 
> 
> > Going back to the original question I am of the view that no one knows but whatever the cost, given we cannot change that C19 has happened, it will be much less than the cost of not having put measures in place
> ...



No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":19yxyk88 said:


> Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.
> It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.



As there are approximately twice the number of usual deaths, half of them are not C19 related. They're dying because their time is up.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Apr 2020)

Blackswanwood":34zucbkr said:


> No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.



Wrong again. It will be a fact that either more or less people will have died because of intervention. (Notice I didn't say which would happen, I don't know yet)

My opinion is no more people would have died if I had acted differently. Others have different opinions. 
You stated a fact that ore people would have died, you don't know that, I don't know that, the world doesn't know that (yet).


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Apr 2020)

Rorschach":1rolnyjm said:


> Blackswanwood":1rolnyjm said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.
> ...



I made no reference to the number of people dying and was clear I was stating my view as opposed to a fact. Not sure which bit of it confused you.


----------



## garethharvey (30 Apr 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2rans6a9 said:


> Swmbo can do a certain amount of work from home, but as her work is clerical she needs to be be in the office most of the time. Working from home isn't always very practical - last night the broadband speed was 0.3mbps. Even at 3.00am it was only 7mbps.



The UK broadband system is useless. This is evident every morning on the news when they try to have a video call with a member of the public. There are developing countries with better infrastructure than us. My business broadband with BT was so useless, I had to buy a lease line as I work from home.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Apr 2020)

Blackswanwood":mo0ggw3q said:


> Rorschach":mo0ggw3q said:
> 
> 
> > Blackswanwood":mo0ggw3q said:
> ...



Ok change deaths to economic costs, it's the same argument (and in some ways the same thing, higher economic cost = more deaths/lower standard of living)


----------



## rafezetter (1 May 2020)

Rorschach":1tkuau8h said:


> Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.
> 
> It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.



That info is no proof of anything unless you've got EXACT INFO of EVERY SINGLE DEATH AND IT'S ROOT CAUSE and most especially not "because of lockdown", people do actually still die, it's just that now people with your viewpoint are suddenly paying attention to them because it fits with your agenda, it was just winter - with all the related deaths from that, then there's all the heart disease, cancer etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Yes there have been cases of people having heart attacks and such not going to hospital, but if you think everyone in the UK has suddenly become "selfless, self sacrificing people" recent evidence in the shops PROVES otherwise - those deaths that might have been prevented had medical help been available are in the minority - because _those people who might do that are in the minority_. I think the truth is most people are still seeking medical help for medical stuff, ESPECIALLY the life important stuff, because most people have the desire to stay alive - but of course that whole situation doesn't fit with your narrative so you've conveniently editied it out and replaced it with sensationalist - "seee? I told you the lockdown was a bad idea - people are allowing themselves to die, coz lockdown, instead of going to hospital to get life saving treatment! See, see, I told you so!"

Ridiculous. Utter pappekak - to use the dutch original.

If this is how the general population behaves WITH A LOCKDOWN - what do you think the situation would have been without it? I'd love to know which parallel world you are getting this information from how, where _all the people_ actually did thier civic duty like they are required to and stayed indoors except for ESSENTIALS like food, or buying gas electric (for those of us with a keymeter) - excluding the key workers obviously.

I posted about that "yoof" I saw buying that ONE can of energy drink - no mask, no gloves - if he is doing it - others are too and all it takes is JUST ONE infected person to start it all again, or do you dispute that as well?

I'd wager EVERY YEAR there are people who die because of the very English "it's nothing, it's nothing" and "oh I didn't want to bother them" mentality that many of the older generation have.

You just didn't pay any attention to those poor souls, because you didn't have an agenda then.

I truly makes me nauseous how all of these "extra" deaths has suddenly become "news" and grabbed by the "we want the lockdown lifted, coz we are losing money" brigade as "proof" that the lockdown was ineffective and actually harmful.

but yeah - lets forget about the "stay at home save the health services of the world [from being swamped]" message. Unless you or ANY of those from that brigade can show me that you are on your uppers, house has been sold and downsized to a caravan to release vital life saving capital, all savings gone and are now about to sell the caravan and become homeless on the streets with your family then yeah - most of what you, and those with the same viewpoint, are saying about how the lockdown wasn't essential has a *very hollow *ring to it.

I'm still waiting to hear what community vital business you are in that requires the lockdown being eased or lifted. You are LOUDLY silent on that point still. So I'll make my own guess - you are a trader (NOT tradesman like Dr Bob) of some sort and are losing profits like the rest of us. We are just dealing with it in a less "needy" manner.

This isn't personal to you Rorschach, my problem is with anyone who thinks the lockdown was "not essential" *for the UK* - because clearly they haven't been paying proper attention to the news in the UK or the rest of the world.

Yes Sweden had a more lenient lockdown, but that was because thier population didn't all take the mickey and treat it as an opportunity for a "grand day out" someplace, along with millions of others.

You've conveniently forgotten that the lockdown was *BECAUSE* OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE POPULATION - not mandated by an overly controlling govt in spite of most people adhereing to it.

There are still people going out DAILY for shopping instead of buying for a week or two. The roads around Bristol still have a LOT of traffic on them as I live very close to a high traffic area - normally gridlocked in rush hour - when I go shopping I'm looking and thinking what the HELL are all these people doing / going, and that's NOT during previous rush hour times - middle of the day - loads of cars - mid morning - loads of cars..... but the carparks of the 3 local supermarkets - mostly empty - so WHERE are they going?

Clearly wherever you live Rorschach you aren't seeing this - or you just don't want to acknowldge it's STILL happening DESPITE the lockdown.

The old adage of "give them an inch" has been proven to be absolutely true about a disturbingly large number of the general UK population - and India if a housemates information is to be believed. While there are countries with a portion of the population still being reckless about self isolating and social distancing, then this situation won't change and the risk remains of a second wave. I can envison that India might end up as a "no fly" country for many more months than other countries.

You just have to suck it up like the rest of us and the more you keep going on an on about how it wasn't necessary shows which side of the fence you are one and for my opinion of you, it's profit, not people.

Money can be replaced, and our national support systems like benefits is enough to ensure no-one dies from neglect or lack of availability and access to the basic things of life of food, water and a roof. Everything else is a LUXURY we are NOT ENTITLED TO.

Your viewpoint (and those like you, like that wetherspoons guy) when taken in the context of people in Africa and India is frankly in incredibly poor taste. "waaa I might have to stop paying for internet BB and netflix services and wine and other luxuries I don't need because money is tight". 

A "first world problem" if ever I saw one.

You are not broke, clearly, you have means and assets you could dipose of before you are down to your last pennies and slice of bread (a place I have been to) - and the UK govt as I said has things in place to help prevent starvation in that event that anyway.

These are hard times sure - but you'll just have to suck it up - like the rest of us.


----------



## doctor Bob (1 May 2020)

rafezetter":2dfu7a9p said:


> but yeah - lets forget about the "stay at home save the health services of the world [from being swamped]" message. Unless you or ANY of those from that brigade can show me that you are on your uppers, house has been sold and downsized to a caravan to release vital life saving capital, all savings gone and are now about to sell the caravan and become homeless on the streets with your family then yeah - most of what you, and those with the same viewpoint, are saying about how the lockdown wasn't essential has a *very hollow *ring to it.



Trust me I'm not in that brigade but in about a year or two, plenty will forfill your criteria above. The economic impact of this will be mind blowing.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

I've been trying to keep away from these discussions, because they just go in circles. However...

There were options that the government (all governments) had to consider - and all decisions lead to consequences. The full lockdown, switch off the economy choice has benefited a certain sector of the community, at the expense of virtually everyone. It could be argued that the depression was coming anyway (I would fall strongly in that camp), but it will be even worse because of what has been done to protect the eldely and infirm. If you are elderly and/or infirm, you are probably delighted at the actions of the government, and have strong views about anyone who doesn't follow strict orders (or buys evil energy drinks - what was the silly person thinking!!?).

However, if you are young, and about to enter the workplace and find your place in the world, you have just had your entire future crippled for the benefit of a small group of people who couldn't be further removed from your world. The oldies had already rigged the system to ensure house ownership, sensible employment, debt-free education etc were all a distant memory of an older generation and almost impossible to aim for as a youngster, and now to rub salt into the wounds, life will be even harder, for even longer. Perhaps even impossible, for the majority. The days of the middle class might be over.

Perhaps a thank you may be in order. "Never before in the history of Britain, has so much been owed by so few, to so many".

Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead. An interesting, and biologically improbable, choice.


----------



## Rorschach (1 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2wdlxccv said:


> Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead. An interesting, and biologically improbable, choice.



A (probably now shortened) lifetime of hardship for young people in exchange for a couple of years (maybe) for the most elderly who were already sick with underlying health conditions.

Those who say that we can cope with this or have that the government will provide the money to those who lost their jobs or business clearly have no idea that governments have no money, it all comes from the tax payer. If business fail and people lose jobs there is no money to pay for benefits, NHS etc.


----------



## Chris152 (1 May 2020)

Cherpy start to the day!



Trainee neophyte":byhel3n9 said:


> Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead.


Is that what's happening, though? As far as I can see the most elderly have been told to stay in their homes and where they're in care homes, there's a terrible rate of mortality unfolding. 

That said, the economic impact of all this seems to go waaay over my head. I've been assuming/ hoping that development of a vaccine/ therapeutic drugs/ learning from other countries' return to work would mean things get back on some kind of track within the next 12 months. Clearly, irreparable damage will be done to many businesses in that time, but others - certainly the essential ones - would survive one way or another. And with time, businesses that had gone under would be replaced, tho not to the same level on account of profound recession and return to harsh austerity.

I'm assuming my relative optimism comes from ignorance of how the economy works, that the functioning of the global economy undermines my simple understanding - can anyone spell out for me in really, really simple terms where the danger comes from? Maybe it's not possible and you could recommend some reading? Thanks.
[eta - is it as simple as: govt borrows loads to help us through crisis; economy's nose-dived so too little tax paid to pay back money borrowed; nearly everyone's poorer and far less opportunity?]

ps - Clinging on to possible positive outcomes, I do think that much of how we live our lives in 'the West' is ultimately self-destructive - I'm thinking of work patterns, increases in serious physical and mental illnesses that result from an excessive lifestyle, pollution and its consequences (you know the lists) - and a decrease in many of those things could be a positive for young people? In the words of Nietzsche, 'Praised be a moderate poverty'. :?


----------



## craigs (1 May 2020)

I'm with Chris, I'm sure there will be a bumpy ride, but ultimately i think we will comes out ok. It seems the government of the day are doing the best they can with the cards dealt and there seems to be a focus on getting the economy to bounce back as quickly as possible (could be wishful thinking). If i didn't think that then i wouldn't have just exchanged contracts on a house, and let me tell you trying to release the deposit which happens to be all our savings from my wifes clutches was like wrestling a mobile phone from an angry mob of "like-hungry" instagrama's.

Was it a stupid idea, maybe. but i'm not planning to sell anytime soon and as long as the storm can be weathered, at least i can pass something down (hopefully).

I find it interesting, and that could be that i'm an older person in slightly-less-old-more-fat body that younger people (not everyone admittedly) just blame older generations for their failings/future without learning anything that the older generations try to teach them. why is this? nihilism? narcissism? reliance on attention on social media? 

in essence, i hope all is well and we all learn to be better people.

oh sorry my tangent took a tangent....ill get my coat.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (1 May 2020)

The economy is 70% a confidence trick.

30% is around that which is required to keep us fed, housed, clothed, watered etc. If these decline, for whatever reason, then physical comfort and well being is directly impacted.

About 80% of GDP is services. Some of these are very important to physical well being. The rest (say 60-70%) are discretionary not essential. We are encouraged to value them in large part through advertising and social conditioning. 

Entertainment, tourism, pubs, restaurants, gardeners, hairdressers, etc are all discretionary - if you want them and have the income, buy it. If you like movies, subscribe to Netfix, if you are not bothered ............

If I pay someone to cut my lawn, and they pay me to cut their hair, this is an economic transaction and part of the gross domestic product. If I cut my own grass ..... the economic transaction disappears without loss to either of us. If I entertain at home GDP is reduced compared to having eaten in a restaurant, but my enjoyment of the meal and company may be greater.

The fall out from the virus will affect behaviours - some we can anticipate, but others we can't. But to me it seems likely that (a) the opportunity to spend money will be limited for some while, and (b) many people will realise the benefits of having their own financial safety net and save more.

In summary I think we need to question whether traditional measures of economic performance will actually reflect future personal aspirations. The value of family, friends, society, hobbies, sport may rise. The desire for material wealth as a visible measure of personal economic success may decline.


----------



## Rorschach (1 May 2020)

You make a lot of good points there Terry.

I would add though, while a lot of these industries might be discretionary or "luxury", their existence not only adds a lot to social well being for (some) people but they also employ people and create tax revenue that pays for those essential services that we all need.

Using your example of cutting your own lawn is a good one but I would say it is a little more complicated than that. Changing the example to one that works for this forum. Lets say many members here do not go out for entertainment, pay for movies or buy mass produced furniture. Instead they spend their leisure time making things in their sheds. That is not a loss or zero gain to the economy because they are not spending on those luxury goods. Instead they are buying materials, tools, new or secondhand. Keeping companies like Axminster in business relies heavily, maybe almost entirely on hobbyists. Everyone contributes in their own way, one persons essential is another persons luxury and vice versa. 

And to go back to Chris152's point, I am afraid if you think businesses can last 12 months before getting back to normal then please just look at how many business have failed in the last 6 weeks, and those are just the ones who made the news. Our local pub (independent not chain) and a friends pub are both now looking at ways to liquidate the business, they are too small to allow social distancing if they were to re-open and the last 6 weeks have wiped out any buffer they might have had. A lot of small businesses probably have about a month,maybe 2 of buffer built in that would allow them to weather tough times. Government grants might have helped a bit but for many they are just not going to be able to re-open even if it was all lifted tomorrow. Even for big businesses it will tough and their workers, what are 4000 BA pilots going to do? Tesco deliveries?


----------



## cookiemonster (1 May 2020)

Trying to paint this current crisis as some kind of inter-generational problem is tempting (every generation blames the one before, as someone once sang), but as ever reality is way more complicated. True, all other things being equal, the elderly are more vulnerable to Covid19 than youngsters, but all other things could hardly be less equal. What about the role played by underlying health conditions, occupation, gender, ethnicity, etc. etc? As Gandhi once said (or perhaps did not say, but the point still stands), “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”


----------



## RobinBHM (1 May 2020)

The scary thing is that (if true) 16 million people only have £100 or less in their bank account / available savings.
That is an awful lot of people just 1 weeks wage away from debt.
my guess an awful lots of people are in the gooey stuff financially right now.


----------



## Chris152 (1 May 2020)

Rorschach":1oz9vib8 said:


> And to go back to Chris152's point, I am afraid if you think businesses can last 12 months before getting back to normal then please just look at how many business have failed in the last 6 weeks





Chris152":1oz9vib8 said:


> Clearly, irreparable damage will be done to many businesses in that time, but others - certainly the essential ones - would survive one way or another. And with time, businesses that had gone under would be replaced, tho not to the same level on account of profound recession and return to harsh austerity.


I can only imagine that many pubs and restaurants will more or less disappear in the short term, at least.


----------



## Rorschach (1 May 2020)

Chris152":4wtmu6oy said:


> I can only imagine that many pubs and restaurants will more or less disappear in the short term, at least.



Yes I think so, bigger chains might be able to carry on, though some branches will close I am sure. It's the independents that will suffer most. Same goes for shops, already several have gone under and we still have another week at least before any kind of re-openings.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

I was possibly a bit trollish this morning - apologies for that. There are some unusual things unfolding at the moment, and it will be interesting to see where it all ends up.

Firstly, the reality of money is going to be better understood after all of this. I.e. money is created out of nothing, at no cost, by banks who then get to charge interest on that money. A phenomenal scam in anyone's book. The creating of astounding amounts of new money is going to have some effects, but what and where is yet to be seen.

Secondly, people are going to want to save rather than spend, for quite some time. The fact that saving is actively discouraged by the system may mean drastic actions will have to be taken: digital currency and negative interest rates to steal your savings would be one option to force you to spend.

Finally, never let a good crisis go to waste: the initial deflationary crash will crush many businesses - assets will be available to be bought for pennies. If you happen to have cash available, then serious fortunes can be made. If you happen to be close to the creators of new money, you could end up owning everything. The conspiracy theorists claim that these crises are intentionally engendered for exactly that purpose - to let the super rich become super richer, at everyone else's expense. As it stands, the "free market" will be reduced, and monopolies and cartels will benefit by squeezing out the competition. Thise closest to power will get bailed out, and their lesser competition crushed. We, the little people, will all lose out by paying higher prices and having less choice.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1lpfofor said:


> Firstly, the reality of money is going to be better understood after all of this. I.e. money is created out of nothing, at no cost, by banks who then get to charge interest on that money. A phenomenal scam in anyone's book. The creating of astounding amounts of new money is going to have some effects, but what and where is yet to be seen.
> 
> .



Could you share the secret of creating money out of nothing ... this could solve a lot of problems :roll:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":17o4viuf said:


> Trainee neophyte":17o4viuf said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, the reality of money is going to be better understood after all of this. I.e. money is created out of nothing, at no cost, by banks who then get to charge interest on that money. A phenomenal scam in anyone's book. The creating of astounding amounts of new money is going to have some effects, but what and where is yet to be seen.
> ...



Ahh, well - if you or I do it, we go to prison. Banks can do it with impunity. Funny old thing, life.

Edit: here's how it works: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarter ... rn-economy



> This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
> · Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions -- banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3m3ze9p6 said:


> Blackswanwood":3m3ze9p6 said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":3m3ze9p6 said:
> ...



Yes, I’m familiar with that article. You’ve missed a couple of key points though - it’s not out of nothing or at no cost.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":3m6joiji said:


> Yes, I’m familiar with that article. You’ve missed a couple of key points though - it’s not out of nothing or at no cost.



You obviously know a lot more than I do about these things - I'm just the cynic looking in from the outside. However, if it is not "out of nothing", where does the increase in money supply come from? It can't be from previously existing money, because it didn't exist before being created, so where does it magically come from? As for there being a cost, I would say that it is irrelevant accounting until such time as the bank needs a bailout, whereupon the bank WILL be bailed out, and the public WILL be saddled with the debt. In other words, a transfer of wealth from the public to the bank. This is going to happen again, quite soon - and this time we have the legislation for bail-ins, where they just steal money directly from peoples' bank accounts.

But, as I said, I am no expert so your thoughts would be very welcome.


----------



## Chris152 (1 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3r3f0zm5 said:


> Edit: here's how it works: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarter ... rn-economy


Well, I just gave that two viewings Tn and can honestly say I'm absolutely none the wiser! In my world, you labour and get paid some money in exchange for your time and efforts. You then blow that on bills and stuff. It's bizarre how the likes of me can spend our lives not really having a clue how the very system we spend most of our lives working for (money), works. I'm off to see if my laser printer can manage a passable likeness of a £50 note.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

Chris152":2y7tyt3f said:


> Trainee neophyte":2y7tyt3f said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: here's how it works: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarter ... rn-economy
> ...



I think of labour as hours of my life I will never get back, doing things I don't want to do, for people I don't like very much. The government then takes about half of your total income in taxes, one way or another, so all that labour - all those hours of your life, for what purpose? Who benefits?

I am officially allowed to go the beach on Monday - woo hoo! I used to have a job, but I'm alright now.


----------



## Chris152 (1 May 2020)

I assume you've used lockdown wisely, Tn, and will be launching your newly built wooden SUP on Monday...


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

Chris152":3brwnngm said:


> I assume you've used lockdown wisely, Tn, and will be launching your newly built wooden SUP on Monday...



pineapple! Too busy before Christmas, too disorganised after Christmas, and then 80% of my income was taken away from me - no spare cash for fripperies. I may make one anyway - it's only €200, and how much food do children need, anyway?


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":36v25u13 said:


> But, as I said, I am no expert so your thoughts would be very welcome.



Banks have to hold capital - if you cannot sleep Google Basel III. Since the credit crunch when banking regulation was arguably flawed the amount of capital needing to be held has increased (as has the level of scrutiny by regulators). So, a bank needs to hold a significant amount of money on deposit itself deposited with the Bank of England (if a UK Bank). 

Banks are regularly stress tested - the regulator says assume the economy goes to hell in a handcart and if they wouldn’t have enough capital to survive banks have to produce a plan and quickly deposit more money with the BoE.

Banks have had to structure themselves so if they do get into trouble part can be allowed to fail (go bust) but those parts that are essential can continue. Deposits are protected to a well advertised limit but their shareholders are not. Unlike what happened after the credit crunch the regulatory regime holds the people who make decisions in banks personally liable and accountable if they screw things up.

After three beers on a Friday night that’s a quick explanation. Banks where you live may be different and don’t get me wrong there are things that could be better in the banking and financial system but I just don’t believe the conspiracy rollocks!

Anyway - how are you getting on with your Walnut timber harvesting? I was hoping they were going to come out like Turkish Walnut and was a bit surprised when you posted the pictures.

Cheers.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":ait2jkhu said:


> Trainee neophyte":ait2jkhu said:
> 
> 
> > But, as I said, I am no expert so your thoughts would be very welcome.
> ...



Every time I almost finish, someone gives me another tree! Poplar this time, which is very straight, and not as bland as I expected. The walnut is almost all done - not sure what to make of it, or from it - at least I have a year to puzzle over it all. I have run out of sticks to sticker it, so using bamboo as a temporary freebie resource, but it's not ideal.

Re stress tests and Basel III etc - Deutsche Bank passes with flying colours, every time, so what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## RogerS (1 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":1uqoy4jb said:


> Trainee neophyte":1uqoy4jb said:
> 
> 
> > Blackswanwood":1uqoy4jb said:
> ...



It is in TN's alternative universe that only he is privy to.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

RogerS":zpqbujll said:


> It is in TN's alternative universe that only he is privy to.



By all means put me straight - the government (probably all governments) are about to increase spending radically, by increasing borrowing. The "money" that they will borrow doesn't exist yet - where will it come from? What makes the magic happen? Why should you, as a tax payer, be saddled with perpetual interest payments on the debt, if it was created out if nothing?

We can talk about QE, direct monetisation and other such excitement, but the majority of debt, both public and private,will be issued by private banks. How? From where? It didn't exist yesterday, but tody it does - where did it come from? More importantly, why can they do it, but I can't?


----------



## Chris152 (2 May 2020)

Trying to understand the very basics of this! Just looked at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

Is it like a confidence trick? You want more money circulating so you make the gold-buying-power of GBP (for example) lower and print/ create more. So now it costs £200 to buy the bit of gold that yesterday cost £100? (Does the gold still come into it at all?) GBP is worth less in reality, but in practice it carries on being used as before - so a house that was worth £500K before QE should now cost £1000K but it doesn't, so there's 500K left over to buy other stuff and keep the economy going. And that's fine til someone asks about the true correlation between GBP and gold/ house (once the house has risen in value to £750K), we realise there's a gap, and we have 2008 again?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

Chris152":naq7p7iv said:


> Trying to understand the very basics of this! Just looked at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789
> 
> Is it like a confidence trick? You want more money circulating so you make the gold-buying-power of GBP (for example) lower and print/ create more. So now it costs £200 to buy the bit of gold that yesterday cost £100? (Does the gold still come into it at all?) GBP is worth less in reality, but in practice it carries on being used as before - so a house that was worth £500K before QE should now cost £1000K but it doesn't, so there's 500K left over to buy other stuff and keep the economy going. And that's fine til someone asks about the true correlation between GBP and gold/ house (once the house has risen in value to £750K), we realise there's a gap, and we have 2008 again?



Modern currency has no underlying value. Zip. Nada. Nothing. It is fiat currency. From Wikipedia:



> " Fiat money is a currency established as money, often by government regulation, but that has no intrinsic value. Fiat money does not have use value, and has value only because a government maintains its value, or because parties engaging in exchange agree on its value.[1] It was introduced as an alternative to commodity money and representative money. Representative money is similar to fiat money, but it represents a claim on a commodity (which can be redeemed to a greater or lesser extent)."



All currencies have been removed from any underlying value since 1971. Guess when inflation went stratospheric...



> “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of﻿ inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.”
> ― John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

How to win with inflation: own assets. Assets increase in "value" faster than wages increase. Asset owners win out over labourers.

During deflation, asset "values" decrease faster than wages, so the labourer wins. This is why deflation is sold as being the most evil, dangerous thing that could ever happen to an economy. Imagine enriching the workers at the expense of the asset owners! Blasphemy!!!


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1imt1tmy said:


> RogerS":1imt1tmy said:
> 
> 
> > It is in TN's alternative universe that only he is privy to.
> ...



You cannot do it because I am guessing that you don’t have the billions of capital needed to lodge with a central bank to convince them to give you a licence to do it. This then becomes a bit circular as clearly you need the capital (and a whole host of other things) to be a Bank so you are not making money out of nothing. (The Bank of Trainee Neophyte Plc also doesn’t sound quite right :lol: :lol: )

If we take a step back though when Adam met Eve no money existed. (If it had he might have taken her to the cinema rather than just nicking an apple). Money is a promise that enables a transaction to take place with a party making a promise to make good the transfer of value. The note, coin or whatever else is used to represent it is a record of the promise. Where a loan is involved the interest relates to the risk of default and the cost of the use of the capital (i.e. the money stumped up by the shareholders to set up the bank)

Obviously the morals, pros and cons of the monetary system, regulation, pricing of credit and banking ownership can all be debated but I won’t be doing as it risks getting into politics which isn’t for this forum. I would just say again though that I am not arguing that any of them are without fault but the conspiracy angle is just utter rubbish.

I’m off to do some woodwork - have a good day!


----------



## doctor Bob (2 May 2020)

These threads seem to go the same way, most of the last 2 pages is a repeat of the brexit thread. seemed like incoherent ramblings back then as well.


----------



## Chris152 (2 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":31h89zuh said:


> Modern currency has no underlying value. Zip. Nada. Nothing. It is fiat currency. From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> > " Fiat money is a currency established as money, often by government regulation, but that has no intrinsic value. Fiat money does not have use value, and has value only because a government maintains its value, or because parties engaging in exchange agree on its value.[1] It was introduced as an alternative to commodity money and representative money. Representative money is similar to fiat money, but it represents a claim on a commodity (which can be redeemed to a greater or lesser extent)."



Strewth. So the 'promise' on my £10 note to pay the bearer on demand 'the sum of' means nothing, because there's nothing beyond it apart from a number in an account on a computer that allowed for the printing of the note? I'm sorry to be so utterly naive, but this is mind blowing - or, rather, I'm amazed that I didn't know. I assumed there was still a little bit of gold that i could trade the piece of paper in for. There's got to be an introductory book for idiots on how all this works - can anyone recommend one?


----------



## RogerS (2 May 2020)

Chris152":20qvdf34 said:


> ...There's got to be an introductory book for idiots on how all this works - can anyone recommend one?



There are lots. But they won't help because some are written by folk saying QE is good. And some are written by folk saying QE is bad.

If you are really interested then I'd Google "Tim Harford" and "quantitative easing"

For example...https://www.ft.com/content/e3f955ec-80f ... 144feabdc0


----------



## Chris152 (2 May 2020)

RogerS":g5axal0q said:


> Chris152":g5axal0q said:
> 
> 
> > ...There's got to be an introductory book for idiots on how all this works - can anyone recommend one?
> ...


I'll read that [ugh, i need a subscription...], but was thinking more generally of an account of how money works, especially since what sounds like a big shift in 1971?


----------



## RogerS (2 May 2020)

You don't need a sub as you can get a certain number of free pages, I believe.

ig around in these archives ?

http://timharford.com/articles/sya/page/4/


----------



## rafezetter (2 May 2020)

doctor Bob":2q1y93sv said:


> rafezetter":2q1y93sv said:
> 
> 
> > but yeah - lets forget about the "stay at home save the health services of the world [from being swamped]" message. Unless you or ANY of those from that brigade can show me that you are on your uppers, house has been sold and downsized to a caravan to release vital life saving capital, all savings gone and are now about to sell the caravan and become homeless on the streets with your family then yeah - most of what you, and those with the same viewpoint, are saying about how the lockdown wasn't essential has a *very hollow *ring to it.
> ...



It could very well be - and it's not something I would be even remotely happy about, but I personally feel, rightly or wrongly, that there are many that want the lockdown lifted to protect personal assets, at the risk of creating a second wave, and that's the context under which I wrote.

The social media backlash against the owner of the Wetherspoons chain was very clear, most people are against it. It's been mostly good that many people during this period have re-assessed the true valuables in their lives, family & friends, and recognised the real heroes of our society, but there are those that still cling to the "old ways" which sounds odd even as I write it - that money is thier god and it seems they would combat it's loss with the lives of other people.

Yes the economy is struggling but we aren't at the point yet where the reward outweighs the risk - there are no breadlines or rioting in the streets and people are not dying by the scores every day from malnutrition.

We are not there yet - no proven vaccine - and still more than enough new cases worldwide to start this whole gadamn thing all over again.


----------



## rafezetter (2 May 2020)

Rorschach":2tz6upid said:


> You make a lot of good points there Terry.
> 
> I would add though, while a lot of these industries might be discretionary or "luxury", their existence not only adds a lot to social well being for (some) people but they also employ people and create tax revenue that pays for those essential services that we all need.
> 
> ...



I do agree with the realities of what's going on, but I do also question the WHY. One of them I feel is our consumptionist society as TN points out - the whole "earn £1 spend 99p = happiness - Earn £1, spend £1.01 = misery" situation. Our society seems to be programmed to spend the £1.01 - and even those who stick to the 99p mark are still in trouble in situations such as this.

I would wager that quite a few of the larger business that have failed recently had shareholders and a company board - they made profits, the board got fat payouts and so did the shareholders, and now the company is failing yet the shareholders are nowhere to be seen.

Maybe more companies in the future might want to consider the system used by Lloyds Bank - the Lloyds names - shareholders get paid in the good times, or have to return that money in the lean times.

or do what the Japanese do - keep a MUCH larger "float" - liquid assets that are easily useable, just like the people who have savings and assets than can easily liquidate.

Buying the largest house you can afford, or the fanciest car is all great while money flows - when it stops and you can't afford it anymore - well that's on you and YOUR choices. Same for companies that leverage existing, yet not fully paid for, assets to open new stores, or to try to expand into other markets etc etc.

Unless I'm mistaken this is how most capitalistic companies work - with no safety net - and this is only 11 years after 2008, so they learned nothing. (apart from banks obviously who seemed to learn they can do pretty much whatever they want)



RobinBHM":2tz6upid said:


> The scary thing is that (if true) 16 million people only have £100 or less in their bank account / available savings.
> That is an awful lot of people just 1 weeks wage away from debt.
> my guess an awful lots of people are in the gooey stuff financially right now.



In the last 3 years I earned less than £20,000 after costs - yet because of the way my life has been, and after 2008, I have always been extra cautious about money when I have it - such that I can ride this out without the govt money should I choose to.

Now granted I have no children or non working spouse, but so do quite a few other single people - the largest portion of which are the 18-30 age group - who are now getting a very rude and unavoidable lesson in personal fiscal responsibility.

I would also re-iterate the above about those that spend each month at the 99p mark, have also been doing so without paying heed to 2008, or other previous economic downturns.

I'm not trying to be self righteous even though it may seem that way - I'm simply pointing out that peoples (and businesses and Govts) choices affect thier OTHER choices in times such as now, which seems bizarrely as though it's something most people don't beleive will ever happen to them - except this is the second time in just over a decade.

Those countries with a positive GDP (a cash surplus like we had before Blair) will ride this out no problem, and maybe we should start following thier examples of how they got that way in the near future.

You're not going to like what I'm going to say next but ... leaving the EU may well be one of the things that helps the UK weather the oncoming storm, for a whole bunch of reasons, but the open borders being the predominant one as the very poor EU countries with little to no govt support network, empty out to the countries that do.


----------



## lurker (2 May 2020)

How many here are old enough to remember Harold Wilson’s “pound in your pocket “.


----------



## Garno (2 May 2020)

rafezetter":1p5sbx9h said:


> Maybe more companies in the future might want to consider the system used by Lloyds Bank - the Lloyds names - shareholders get paid in the good times, or have to return that money in the lean times.



The Lloyds names are nothing to do with Lloyds bank they are from Lloyds of London a totally different business altogether, this is from Wikipedia

Lloyd's of London, generally known simply as Lloyd's, is an insurance and reinsurance market located in London, United Kingdom. Unlike most of its competitors in the industry, it is not an insurance company; rather, Lloyd's is a corporate body governed by the Lloyd's Act 1871 and subsequent Acts of Parliament. It operates as a partially-mutualised marketplace within which multiple financial backers, grouped in syndicates, come together to pool and spread risk. These underwriters, or "members", are a collection of both corporations and private individuals, the latter being traditionally known as "Names".

The business underwritten at Lloyd's is predominantly general insurance and reinsurance, although a small number of syndicates write term life assurance. The market has its roots in marine insurance and was founded by Edward Lloyd at his coffee house on Tower Street in c. 1686. Today, it has a dedicated building on Lime Street within which business is transacted at each syndicate's "box" in the underwriting "Room", with the insurance policy documentation being known traditionally as a "slip".[1]

The market's motto is Fidentia, Latin for "confidence",[2] and it is closely associated with the Latin phrase uberrima fides, or "utmost good faith", representing the relationship between underwriters and brokers.[1]

Having survived multiple scandals and significant challenges through the second half of the 20th century, most notably the asbestosis affair, Lloyd's today promotes its strong financial "chain of security" available to promptly pay all valid claims. At the end of 2019 this chain consisted of £52.8 billion of syndicate-level assets, £27.6bn of members' "funds at Lloyd's" and over £4.4bn in a third mutual link which includes the Central Fund.[3]

In 2019 there were 80 syndicates managed by 54 managing agencies that collectively wrote £35.9bn of gross premiums on risks placed by 335 brokers. Around 50 per cent of premiums emanated from North America, 30 per cent from Europe and 20 per cent from the rest of the world. Direct insurance represented 68 per cent of the premiums, mainly covering property and casualty (liability), while the remaining 32 per cent was reinsurance. The market collectively reported a pre-tax profit of £2.5bn for 2019, thanks to strong investment income returns.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London


----------



## doctor Bob (2 May 2020)

rafezetter":9zyfv21s said:


> Yes the economy is struggling but we aren't at the point yet where the reward outweighs the risk - there are no breadlines or rioting in the streets and people are not dying by the scores every day from malnutrition.




Give it time, as I said you ain't see nothing yet.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 May 2020)

rafezetter":jcu239p9 said:


> Maybe more companies in the future might want to consider the system used by Lloyds Bank - the Lloyds names - shareholders get paid in the good times, or have to return that money in the lean times.



I think you'll find Lloyd's Bank and Lloyds of London are totally seperate entities.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

Apart from the all too easy typo confusing Lloyds Bank and Lloyds of London, Rafazetter has a point. In the old days, back when we had something approaching a level playing field (free market is too inaccurate a term), shareholders participated in both the gains _and the losses_ of the parent company. These days, with central banks buying shares both indirectly and directly to prop up the price, shareholders can't lose. Neither can the companies, regardless of actual real world performance. Given where we are with a world lockdown, this is going to get worse before it gets better.

https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-s ... SL8N1B7383


> ZURICH, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland’s central bank now owns more publicly-traded shares in Facebook than Mark Zuckerberg, part of a mushrooming stock portfolio that is likely to grow yet further.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 May 2020)

I think the answer is more complex than riots on the streets vs mass poverty , or hunger vs deaths. The UK is a society where laws work largely by consent, not through military or police force.

If unconstrained the virus will spread at a rate of infection of 2.5 - 3.0 - the number of infections doubles approx every 3 days. So after a month (2^10) there will be 1024 times the number of infections than we started with. However you do the sums, daily deaths could readily exceed 10-20,000, possibly more as even minor assistance (eg oxygen, ambulance) would be unavailable. Images of the few months over which it happens will haunt a generation.

But it is clear that the tolerance of the public for constraints will be strained as time passes. Depending on socio-econmoic position of individuals the best strategy for individual survival will be either hermit behaviour (isolation) or disobedience.

Disobedience could manifest itsself as street riots etc, but may be more likely to be the result of individual frustration or economic pressure. Just suppose that in July the skys are blue, the temperature comfortably warm, and the seaside beckons. Tired of constraints, 10,000s individually decide to go to Blackpool, Brighton, St. Ives etc. 

The number of people are beyond a simple "move along please" plea. To disperse the crowds will require more. Do the police appear in riot gear, truncheons at the ready, water cannon, horses, dogs, call in the troops, rubber bullets ............. A more likely response will be roadblocks on motorways and 15 miles short of tourist destinations.

We can hypothesise other situations - the police may easily close a single pub that opens - but what happens if 20 in the local area are open? Self employed start working - plumbers, electricians, kitchen fitters etc - there is a backlog of work to do, they are financially stressed, what happens?

IMHO the government will very slowly relax some elements of lockdown, probably at a rate just ahead of the point at which material disobedience kicks in. This also gives them time to build stocks of PPE, antibody testing (?), set up trace and track etc.

Both alternatives are unacceptable - mass deaths, or a second wave forcing a further severe costly lockdown to avoid the death toll.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":29xvp6fe said:


> I think the answer is more complex than riots on the streets vs mass poverty , or hunger vs deaths. The UK is a society where laws work largely by consent, not through military or police force.
> 
> If unconstrained the virus will spread at a rate of infection of 2.5 - 3.0 - the number of infections doubles approx every 3 days. So after a month (2^10) there will be 1024 times the number of infections than we started with. However you do the sums, daily deaths could readily exceed 10-20,000, possibly more as even minor assistance (eg oxygen, ambulance) would be unavailable. Images of the few months over which it happens will haunt a generation.
> 
> ...



I don't think Bob's worried about a few bored yoofs breaking quarantine rules: people riot when they are hungry, unemployed, and forced to pay poll tax. Or have their work forcibly closed and their communities destroyed. Basically, Brits riot in the 1980s recessions. Are we headed back to the era of awful music and bad hair cuts?

Edit: I've just looked it up, and the poll tax riots were in 1990 - my bad. I'm still right about the haircuts.


----------



## doctor Bob (2 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2rlgqct0 said:


> Apart from the all too easy typo confusing Lloyds Bank and Lloyds of London



not a typo, it's a lack of knowledge.


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1zn8w49i said:


> Apart from the all too easy typo confusing Lloyds Bank and Lloyds of London, Rafazetter has a point. In the old days, back when we had something approaching a level playing field (free market is too inaccurate a term), shareholders participated in both the gains _and the losses_ of the parent company. These days, with central banks buying shares both indirectly and directly to prop up the price, shareholders can't lose. Neither can the companies, regardless of actual real world performance. Given where we are with a world lockdown, this is going to get worse before it gets better.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-s ... SL8N1B7383
> 
> ...



Is there no end to your extrapolation of oddities from the internet? :lol: :x

Switzerland pursued this strategy of passive investment as part of their monetary policy. They didn’t do it to prop up share prices. It’s not an activity carried out routinely by central banks albeit some countries have sovereign wealth funds which invest excess income in different assets.

If you can point me in the direction of where this share propping activity that means I cannot lose is I will be eternally grateful as I would like some of it. Unfortunately it isn’t happening!!!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":1oq0y4wp said:


> Trainee neophyte":1oq0y4wp said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from the all too easy typo confusing Lloyds Bank and Lloyds of London, Rafazetter has a point. In the old days, back when we had something approaching a level playing field (free market is too inaccurate a term), shareholders participated in both the gains _and the losses_ of the parent company. These days, with central banks buying shares both indirectly and directly to prop up the price, shareholders can't lose. Neither can the companies, regardless of actual real world performance. Given where we are with a world lockdown, this is going to get worse before it gets better.
> ...



Isn't it? Remember the "taper tantrum"? Looked like propping up the market to me.

Well, we have the Plunge Protection Team, which officially doesn't exist, and then there is this: Edit: I wanted to show a chart showing qe and stock prices, but it didn't show up. Here's an article which goes into the whole thing: https://seekingalpha.com/article/430535 ... ock-market

Of course correlation isn't causation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... r-BB11B2hh

That would be actively affecting bond prices by buying ETFs (but not bonds themselves, so it's not monetisation or market rigging).

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streett ... id/904724/


> ...The two most prominent "convertibles" are the Bank of Japan and the Bank of Switzerland. The Bank of Switzerland now owns $8.8 billion in U.S. technology stocks.
> 
> The Bank of Japan’s voracious appetite for Japanese exchange-traded funds also did not abate with the Dow and the Nikkei’s October highs. In fact, the bank bought a record $7.68 billion in October, “apparently aiming to support equities.” Central banks obviously feel safe employing this policy, and the public finds a reason to feel safe because of it...



If one central bank buys into a market, that affects not just the local market, but the entire world. I quite agree that the Swiss bank is doing it to try to keep their exchange rate down, but they are still flooding the market with cash, which is pushing the bubble higher, around the world.

We have Trump complaining that the Fed isn't doing enough to get stock prices up, until they do, whereupon it's the best organisation since sliced bread: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... m-on-virus



> “I am happy with him,” Trump said at a White House news conference. “I really think he’s caught up. He’s really stepped up over the last week. I called him today and I said ‘Jerome, good job.’”
> 
> The Fed ventured into unchartered territory Monday by offering to directly finance U.S. companies, jumping ahead of the government, which is still struggling to produce a multi-trillion dollar package of support for American businesses and families.
> 
> ...



Not everything above is direct purchasing of shares, out in the open, but it is all market manipulation of one variety of another. Free market, democratic , non-interventionist, open government. Marvelous stuff.


----------



## rafezetter (3 May 2020)

doctor Bob":g9am64l7 said:


> Trainee neophyte":g9am64l7 said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from the all too easy typo confusing Lloyds Bank and Lloyds of London
> ...



Thanks for that generosity of doubt Trainee Neophyte - appreciated.

It wasnt either actually actually Bob - I was on a mental line of thought about those people that get dividends from shares in _privately _owned companies, where the amount of shareholders is less and the dividends significantly higher - and my understanding is they generally don't then get tapped by the same companies for funds when the company is struggling - but I freely admit that is just my limited understanding.

However that line of thought then jumped the tracks as the remembrance of the Lloyds names appeared about how at first it was just the very wealthy were offered to be a Lloyds name, then as more and more dilution of risk was required, they opened it up to people with income and assets thresholds much lower - and those people who had become a Lloyds name "for the profits" without really accepting the "losses" part could happen (and without the means to soak up potential losses), then started to get stung when Lloyds of London had some heavy losses and people lost life savings and in some cases, homes.

I did say I had been in the insurance / assurance sector myself, but for a different area, and most of that was not information I needed professionally, but I was still aware obviously; However it's been a while and that information hasn't exactly been at the forefront of my mind for almost 30 years. Normally I do factcheck a lot of the time, so as not to look or thought a fool, on this occasion I didn't, and although I still haven't now I'm fairly confident my recollection is a little clearer - or have I got it wrong again?

or I should just keep my mouth shut?

Look - without the pedantry I'd like to think people get my point of saying that the wealthy are more than happy to take the cream off the top in the good times, but are suddenly nowehere to be seen in the lean times - and the people at the bottom pay the price with lost jobs - again.

I think most would find that hard to refute.


----------



## rafezetter (3 May 2020)

Further to stuff I've said about easing the lockdown I'd like to share some information that was part of an email I was copied into just this morning - this has come directly from one of the scientists working on a vaccine Michelle Baker (via Her Uncle whom my stepmother has known for 45 years) - as part of an interview she did.

------------------

I'm back, thought you might be interested to know, if I haven't told you already, that my niece Michelle is one of the scientists working on finding a vaccine, although she said it is probably a long way off they are hoping to find an antiviral in the meantime.



She is a clever little one, was interviewed recently and the following was in most of the papers here. 



_*Michelle Baker, a world-leading bat immunity researcher based at the CSIRO, agreed that scientists had been waiting for the next coronavirus outbreak and she expected they would become more frequent.

"I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. But I'm not surprised it's a coronavirus at all," she said.

When Dr Baker started in the field a decade ago, she "could review everything we knew about bat immunology in an afternoon. There were no resources, no reagents.

"We have been completely complacent. Not nearly enough research has been done.

"It gets really difficult to get funding when there is not an outbreak. People feel a sense of security. They don't feel it's relevant any more."

"We were just waiting for the next outbreak. I'm not surprised at all. And I hope we can learn from this one. Because they are probably going to become more frequent." - interestingly I just heard this morning on the news that we will get more of them in the future and they could be worse than this one.*_

She is at the CSIRO in Geelong and there has been a lot in the media recently about 2 scientists from Wuhan who spent time there. I recalled in her early days there she often had post doctorate students working under her and I have just asked her if this chap was one of them and yes he was. She said she doesn't believe the virus came from the lab in China but "who knows". She said the media have been camping out at the CSIRO from 6am and she has been inundated for interviews but "handballed" them to their communications department. She hates being interviewed or televised but sometimes can't avoid it.

*I asked her did she think the Govt was premature in relaxing the isolation rules at this stage and she said yes. She said to keep isolating *and take care, I will.

----------------

This is literally as close to "the horses mouth" as it gets, and as such I feel vindicated in my beliefs that the threat of a second wave is far from over and relaxing the lockdown is an EXTREMELY bad idea.

oh and then there's this nugget:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/asia ... index.html

I reiterate people are stupid and this will happen pretty much everywhere they ease lockdowns.

Edit and I've just heard this on the radio:

Russia records its biggest increase of Covid-19 cases

Russia has recorded its highest daily rise in confirmed Covid-19 cases, with 10,633 new cases listed today a large portion of them are from people _*WITH NO SYMPTOMS whom have only become aware they have it via screening*_. It brings the overall number to 134,686. A further 58 deaths have been reported by the country’s coronavirus crisis response centre, increasing the total number of fatalities to 1,280.

The people that have tested positive without screening could well have been behaving as though they don't have it - no gloves, no masks, no close attention to social distancing.

But sure - ease the lockdown - open stuff up - I'm sure you'll be fine, right?

It's unreal that I've been getting angry PM's from people saying I'm risking thier livelilhoods while utterly not getting that what I'm advocating might SAVE THIER LIVES!!!! 

*sheesh*.


----------



## RogerS (3 May 2020)

rafezetter":19oe5iuc said:


> ....
> However that line of thought then jumped the tracks as the remembrance of the Lloyds names appeared about how at first it was just the very wealthy were offered to be a Lloyds name, then as more and more dilution of risk was required, they opened it up to people with income and assets thresholds much lower - and those people who had become a Lloyds name "for the profits" without really accepting the "losses" part could happen (and without the means to soak up potential losses), then started to get stung when Lloyds of London had some heavy losses and people lost life savings and in some cases, homes.
> 
> .....



Getting 'stung' is an emotive word. Sorry but I disagree...anyone going into a Lloyds Syndicate is responsible for their own actions.


----------



## RogerS (3 May 2020)

rafezetter":3ujmy19r said:


> ....
> 
> I reiterate people are stupid and this will happen pretty much everywhere they ease lockdowns.
> 
> .....



Actually I'm all for it. It's the stupid ones who behave as if nothing has happened, queue in NZ for a burger FFS! So they get Covid...great...the cull has started. About time to.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 May 2020)

About time to what?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 May 2020)

RogerS":3768ve7h said:


> Getting 'stung' is an emotive word. Sorry but I disagree...anyone going into a Lloyds Syndicate is responsible for their own actions.



As my mother told me from a very young age - don't gamble with money you can't afford to lose.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":115nbs5c said:


> RogerS":115nbs5c said:
> 
> 
> > Getting 'stung' is an emotive word. Sorry but I disagree...anyone going into a Lloyds Syndicate is responsible for their own actions.
> ...



Lloyds pulled a fast one in the 80's, and signed up lots of people who really didn't have sufficient assets to cover potential liabilities. You sign on the line, pledging your house as collateral, and Lloyds sends you free money, every year - what's not to love? The only downside is that, should your syndicate make a loss, you may be asked to raise a few hundred, possibly a few thousand pounds, but it never happens, so don't worry!

Then the US asbestosis claims happened, and a significant proportion of UK middle class wealth was sent to the US lawyering class. Oops.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 May 2020)

RogerS":1oz5s5lz said:


> Actually I'm all for it. It's the stupid ones who behave as if nothing has happened, queue in NZ for a burger FFS! So they get Covid...great...the cull has started. About time to.



So do you mean covid only kills stupid, or you would like the stupid to die?


----------



## RogerS (4 May 2020)

doctor Bob":2iapz3o3 said:


> RogerS":2iapz3o3 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I'm all for it. It's the stupid ones who behave as if nothing has happened, queue in NZ for a burger FFS! So they get Covid...great...the cull has started. About time to.
> ...



Hyperbole, Bob. Hyperbole.


----------



## Rorschach (4 May 2020)

doctor Bob":19zi7c0k said:


> RogerS":19zi7c0k said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I'm all for it. It's the stupid ones who behave as if nothing has happened, queue in NZ for a burger FFS! So they get Covid...great...the cull has started. About time to.
> ...



He's probably one of those old people who goes around saying "I didn't fight in a war just for you young uns to go around enjoying yourselves and having free speech" Despite being in his early 70's. :lol:


----------



## Droogs (4 May 2020)

Well, he's right then - He didn't fight in a war :twisted:


----------



## doctor Bob (4 May 2020)

RogerS":k9pih3k7 said:


> doctor Bob":k9pih3k7 said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":k9pih3k7 said:
> ...



"Hyperbole" ............. the word most used on these threads.


----------



## lurker (4 May 2020)

Come on lads lets lighten up.
No squabbling and backbiting amongst friends.


----------



## rafezetter (5 May 2020)

doctor Bob":vbw5cggm said:


> RogerS":vbw5cggm said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I'm all for it. It's the stupid ones who behave as if nothing has happened, queue in NZ for a burger FFS! So they get Covid...great...the cull has started. About time to.
> ...



Unfortunately Covid doesn't kill only the stupid - whether in thought or deed - but those stupid people who act selfishly can then easily spread it to the innocent, I've just read that some scientist has had to resign because he broke the lockdown rules to meet his lover (the fact she is married is irrelevant tbh).

Just today I had a run in with a woman in Asda - her young son was standing around clearly bored and just wandering around next to people, one of whom was an elderly man - I told him to move, quite firmly - wherebuy the mother reared up on me asking me "what the **** do you think you are doing?" I said your son is wandering around the aisle clearly not caring about the 2m rule.

She then went on about "he was only 9 and I'm an a-hole" - I said_ if he is 9 he should know by now about the social distancing after 6 weeks._ She then said "he's only 9" again; so I said - _if neither you or him are able to understand the social distancing rules and that the risk is as much TO HIM from other people, then you should have left him at home and come shopping ALONE - it's YOUR responsibility to make sure your children adhere to the social distancing and if they don't and get sick that is ON YOU and if people complain and you don't like it, that is ALSO ON YOU, and if you swear at me once more I'll get security to throw you out for causing a public disturbance and breaching the social distancing rules which are meant to protect everyone here including the staff and YOU TWO IDIOTS. How do you know you don't have it ? Have either of you been tested? _ (and neither of them were wearing gloves or masks. - I was doing both)

I got a few smiles from the other onlookers and a "thank you" from the old gent.

Unfortunately it seems it's the stupid people most likely to cause a second wave, so when RogerS says we can do without them - he's not wrong - sure it's a callous statement depending on your point of view, but when balanced against the evidence so far, it's not an incorrect statement just as "we shouldn't allow people in the uk to openly carry guns - incase they get stupid and kill someone" isn't wrong either and potentially just as deadly.

"The stupid" are the ones least likely to adhere to social distancing, masks, use sanitizer regularly and STAYING INDOORS AND ISOLATING IF THEY FEEL ILL.

just for the sake of clarity for the pedantic, when I say "the stupid" I don't mean intellectually, I mean by deed and there's really no other way to state it.

I'm going to repeat myself: it's the stupid people most likely to cause a second wave - and I'm really starting to lose my patience with them.


----------



## Trevanion (5 May 2020)

I feel bad for those people in that Penygraig Co-Op, one killed and three wounded after a woman went mental with a knife. If the rumor mill is to be believed, it was an argument over social distancing.


----------



## rafezetter (11 May 2020)

Apologies but at the risk of beating a dead horse.... "the stupid" continues....

Today at 11am I had to go to the bank in person to pay some stuff in for a friend who cannot, I drive down Gloucester road, which won't mean anything to non Bristolians, but it's one of the main roads into the centre and is lined with shops for miles.

Heaving with people. Almost like any normal day, shops open with people coming in and out - I don't mean food shops and essentials, I mean shop shops - like a bicycle shop I saw 2 people go in and out, then walk in DIFFERENT directions, a knickknack and gifts shop, a firework shop (presumably people stocking up for the soon to be had massive party) and a host of others.

Virtually no social distancing - I walked in the road because there were too many people on the pavement, shops with pavement front stalls - like the butchers had 4 or 5 people around it, all bunched up and they most definitely were not from the same household.

I talked to the lady controlling and montoring the customer in/out of the bank which thankfully is on a sidestreet and I said "what is GOING ON?" and she said "I have no idea, it's been like this all morning, the streets are filled with people like a normal saturday".

The parking zones which are normally chock a block any given hour were - chock a block, not a single empty spot in sight and I ended up parking near the bottom in a side street and walked a fair way to the bank and back.

Oh yeah - a shop that sells speakers, hifi systems and and music stuff - open.

I get people and companies are losing money - but this wasn't the way to do it - the mixed message from Boris seems to have made some people think the "all clear" has been sounded.

I've advised all of us in the house to continue lockdown and for those in towns and cities I advise you to do the same, because from what I saw today, a second wave is imminent and virtually guarenteed.

This is absolutely no exaggeration - "the stupid" people are out in their hundreds and hundreds.


----------



## RogerS (11 May 2020)

Surely the Bristol police should be sorting that out ?

EDIT: A quick Google shows that they didn't....from the Bristol Post

_The number of reported lockdown breaches to Avon and Somerset Police went up by 25 per cent over the bank holiday weekend - *but just two fines* were given by officers in Bristol.

As of May 8, the force had recorded 18,615 incidents of suspected breaches since the lockdown came in on March 23 - averaging to around 405 recorded breaches every day.

And between Friday and Sunday, the police recorded a total of 1,643 reports of suspected breaches across the force area - taking the daily average to 547 a day, meaning the number of recorded breaches went up by more than 25 per cent._

Two fines ? Pathetic.


----------



## Nigel Burden (11 May 2020)

RogerS":nfmfqnap said:


> Surely the Bristol police should be sorting that out ?
> 
> EDIT: A quick Google shows that they didn't....from the Bristol Post
> 
> ...



Dorset police put a post on face book over the weekend that three men from Slough had the good fortune to call out the Coast Guard when they got cut off by the tide near Old Harry rocks. They will apparently be getting a nasty surprise coming in the post.

Nigel.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 May 2020)

This is going to be an interesting litmus test. If the infection rates go through the roof in the next 10 days, then obviously lockdown again is the only option.

But if they don't? Either it's hard to catch outdoors, or everyone has already had it without noticing. Either way, carry on up the Khyber - what could possibly go wrong?

In the interim, it doesn't hurt to let other people be the Guinea pigs.


----------



## Chris152 (11 May 2020)

This morning, on the tube in London


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 May 2020)

Chris152":o2m71mx5 said:


> This morning, on the tube in London



The advice is to avoid public transport, but bicycles are best. Pushing cycling hard over the last few days - I have visions of them wanting to turn UK into China of the 1960s, "for the good of the planet", you understand.






Or to put it another way: expect to be significantly poorer, for quite some time.


----------



## Rorschach (11 May 2020)

The fines are a waste of time anyway, they will be thrown out as unlawful by the courts.


----------

