Posts by codejunky 7123 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
@Hawkeye Pierce
"Factually incorrect. Spending by the UK Government fell every year from 2010/11 until 2013/14 even before adjusting for inflation."
Actually I might have been wrong. For the years 2012-2013 (set the chart to per yr)-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/ebft/pusf
@Mooseman
"No, it isnt."
Again in bold before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism. They didnt go full on socialism because as they moved towards that direction they pulled back as they saw the damage it was causing.
"You quite plainly said that they tried socialism"
They were trying socialist policies and pulled back due to the harm. I am not sure how you are confused?
As for the rest of your comment, didnt you complain earlier about something to do with insults. Although amusingly you were arguing against the word greenie for those who deem themselves green.
correction you were complaining about 'offensive' not 'insults'.
@Mooseman
"Oh please. That old chestnut again?"
Yeah because the oldies are goodies especially when they are right.
"Austerity didnt happen, eh? Maybe not where you live, but certainly did in the rest of the country"
In the UK so no. You are wrong that that was easy. The coalition planned to spend less than the planned spending of labour, but was still an increase in spending.
"You seem to be blissfully unaware of the hopeless record of the conservatives when it comes to debt"
You seem to be assuming something wrong again. Neither political party has done well.
"tired old tropes of "ooh but labour....note...selling gold...""
A serious blunder of serious stupidity at cost to the UK, and you dont think its worth noting?
"while conveniently ignoring the fact that pre-covid your mob had more debt than every labour government ever, combined."
My mob? This isnt the playground, this isnt school. No mob, I have no loyalty to any party. At no point to I excuse the debt, instead insisting spending should actually be cut. Get out of the childish mentality of mobs and maybe our conversations will progress more.
@Mooseman
"As usual with your ramblings you are unable to actually form a sentence without trying to be offensive"
You consider greenies to be offensive? What new term should we be using to describe people of that ideological bent?
"Fracking, as you know perfectly well, was not and is not a solution to our energy issues."
Why? If we want to be running gas powered generation to back up all that green energy tech that is unreliable then we need gas.
"The fact that local groups didnt want polluted water sources and (probably very minor but man made) earthquakes for a very dubious return is not really why freacking never got going."
Except there seems little risk of polluted water and the earthquake propaganda has nothing to do with the almost non-existent tremors as the limit for fracking is extremely low while other drilling activities it is much higher. Ed Davey (lib dem) was very publicly proud of stopping fracking which was the goal, not about any 'problems'-
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/wgmny1ph6hvfwmlhn6nfvyo0wf478w
"When gas prices started rocketing (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) the UK was the one suffering rapidly increasing consumer costs, unlike most other countries. Your obsession with anything "green" being bad is embarrassing, really - yes Germany was subsidising fuel costs, which was rather my point in the first place."
So your point is that gas prices were going up. The UK was increasing consumer costs but others such as Germany was increasing consumer costs on the tax payers. And you can get upset that I point out the unreliable techs failings but we need gas for when the monuments to a sky god dont provide power. Germany had to subsidise fossil fuel to keep the lights on after screwing the market to support 'green tech' that didnt work. You should be embarrassed at still not getting this.
"More sensible countries like France and Germany didnt see why the costs of a rampaging gas market should be borne by the consumer, unlike the UK."
The costs shouldnt fall onto the people using it? Wtf?? And you dont seem to realise that it is on the customer as they are the tax payers. 25% of the UK energy bill was green madness. That is on top of government subsidy and market manipulation to force the use of unreliables and requiring gas as a backup. Your idea of sensible is madness.
@Dan 55
"Video is an excellent summary of recent events, codejunky will be unable to answer any of the questions raised."
What questions? Watch the video, what questions? Its a crying waa that the lobbying groups the gov are listening to are no longer the green madness, economically illiterate groups that have brought us to this situation. Its to say other lobby groups with their 'evil' agendas took over and idiots have their knickers in a twist.
I dont care about lobby groups, I am interested in the policies.
@Dan 55
"Doing anything except talk about the real-world effects in the Uk from Truss' and Kwartang's announcement that they were going to implement IEA policies, which is what my post was about."
So you decided to slip into someone elses conversation so you can cry and moan because I provided a link for someone else. Then you ask questions that have nothing to do with the link. Then you cry and moan because my response has nothing to do with the conversation you are having in your own head?
Your post has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Not even close. If you want to talk about something completely different go start off that thread but thats not a reply to a different conversation.
@Dan 55
"I'd like you to cite exactly what part of that pamphlet you found so fascinating and why."
So you call it a pamphlet but yet its too long for you to read. I found the entire thing fascinating as it contained quite a lot of information.
"So far it seems you posted a link to... something"
I didnt realise you couldnt read. Get someone to read it to you. I cant really condense something fairly well condensed.
"Nobody's got time for IEA nonsense, it just doesn't stand up in the real world"
Because it has words and you dont have time to figure them out? You inserted yourself into the conversation, I posted it to James Anderson who seemed interested in how the nordic model works. If your just gonna moan about a conversation with someone else you might fins something better to do with your time.
@TRT
"Dig it out of the UK, but sell it to the highest bidder. Wherever they are."
True, we could keep it for ourselves but instead sell to the world market. However that means a lot of tax revenue from it with which can support our purchases. Also any surplus we cannot move fast enough remains here (I heard there is a similar issue with piping gas to the continent. Only so much pipe and a lot more gas so it keeps our prices down).
@Dan 55
"Does it explain why the UK pissed its North Sea oil and gas away and why Norway didn't and is now enjoying much higher standard of living as a result?"
I dont think it mentioned the disaster politicians made sucking up to the unions and the need to generate revenue to dig the UK out of such debts.
"Also does it explain how the UK is dependent on Norwegian gas to keep the lights on but out of the European Internal Energy Market?"
Why would it? That would be a green madness issue for our reliance on gas. Although continental Europe also needs Norwegian gas which we pipe over as we have the infrastructure Germany is now franticly trying to build.
The book mostly looks at the changes the nordics went through, the necessary economic liberalisations required to sustain it and a comparison to nordic people who emigrated to the US. If you want to know whats in it why not read the book? Then you dont need to guess topics that it may nor not contain?
@James Anderson
"Opps -- cut and paste error"
I guessed so, unless you were getting commission :)
So as per your 2020 list it is good to see that while there is a need for some tax that high tax does not correlate with success. Noting the Africas and such taking a higher percentage than the US and the US being a desirable destination. And the UK attracting so many yet having lower taxation than some others (even with our increasing tax rates).
@James Anderson
"Just to illustrate the total lack of correlation between low taxes and a successful economy,"
Ah. Just as there is no correlation between high tax and a successful economy.
"If there is any correlation it is that higher tax economies tend to be more successful."
Except that has yet to be shown. High tax has been shown to be extremely damaging and has to be reversed unless massively transforming the economy to private hands and market forces and trading off growth and prosperity.
"Note to neo-liberal novices. Most government spending is included in GDP calculations, George Osbornes cruel and unnecessary "austerity" automatically reduced growth in the UK economy."
Except there wasnt austerity. Austerity would be a reduction, not less of an expansion. And where was the spending to come from? Labour even left them a note saying good luck there is no money left and thats after selling gold, PFI contracts and drunken sailor spending. Should have done even more borrowing? Look where that gets us, we are here.
@graeme leggett
"Number of economists who thought the mini-budget was "pro-growth""
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/goldman-sachs-sees-deeper-uk-recession-after-tax-u-turn-bloomberg-news-2022-10-16/
"1 ie Minford"
Plus-
https://cebr.com/reports/the-telegraph-liz-trusss-tax-plans-backed-by-leading-economists-as-needed-and-not-inflationary/
@Mooseman
"Sorry, you think countries like Sweden were socialist?"
No. They tried heading that way but luckily pulled back when they realised socialism destroys the economy and freed up their markets to afford the redistributive state. Hell its in my comment you fool- "before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism"
"You have a weird obsession with socialism, yet enjoy a lot of socialist benefits. And no, I'm not a labour supporter."
Worthless blather of usual froth.
@Mooseman
"The cost of gas was already rising rapidly before Putins little expedition, yet other countries seemed capable of limiting the impact on their citizens, unlike the UK."
The UK tried but greenies didnt like fracking. Aside from that what do you mean other countries seemed capable of limiting the impact? Countries are now running out of gas but before the war Germany (poster child of green madness) was subsidising fossil fuel and green tech and discussing lights going out in a few years.
@Mooseman
"Pro growth? growth for whom?"
Go look up economic growth.
"I know you blindly believe any old cobblers the tories put out, but seriously?"
Eh what garbage?
"Yes we are facing a deeper recession because the economically illiterate policies have caused a huge dip in the value of the pound"
A deeper recession if we dont follow the pro-growth policies. By U-turning to business as usual we are expected a deeper recession.
"This isnt coming back down any time soon."
Not with business as usual it wont. And I didnt like how she promoted the tax cuts but without saying where the money was coming from for it. And yes I agree the tories made a hash of it, I have been saying this for a while, just as its continuing the problems since labour I also complained about. So your stupid statement that I just believe tories is plain stupid.
@Graham Cobb
"The world is having a deeper recession"
Yet with the pro-growth policies we were expected to have less of a recession. Her pro growth plans wernt necessarily bad, they were to a point better than what we have been doing. Windfall tax isnt a great idea, the policies up to now have brought us this situation and she now proposes to build more windfarms! Madness! The tax cut for the rich seemed mostly self funding with possibly a short fall of £2bn, yet keeps the rich here to spend. Trickle down was the insult used for economics which has been shown to have worked and outside the straw man version actually works.
"at a time of global economic crisis"
And the reason for such economic crisis is a severe failure of the obvious for a couple of decades at least. The BoE and treasury (and the equivalents elsewhere in the world) have been spending like drunken sailors and reducing interest rates desperately to push up inflation. Now we have it coinciding with expected self inflicted recession. Breaking away from that and actually trying to resolve the issues is the only way out of it. Instead we will go back to what we have been doing and making things worse.
@James Anderson
"Have a look at the stats here:--"
I am not looking for a freesat box thanks (assume posted wrong link).
"The high tax countries at the top of the list are basically the places you would most like to live and work."
And that contradicts what I said? Its a different way but depends on how you consider "nice places to live with successful economies and high standards of living" which I was responding to.
"Pakistan at with taxes at 12 % of GDP is a low tax country as well as a borderline failed state."
And? What has that to do with the price of fish?
@James Anderson
"If high taxes are so bad why are the Scandinavian countries such nice places to live with successful economies and high standards of living?"
Enjoy- https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf
But freer markets, even not having minimum wage, less central body control and homogeneous population makes it somewhat stable while having trade-offs of established 'classes' will low social mobility, less entrepreneurship, etc. Plus they are living off the success they had before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism. Also for those in NATO it helps that they dont put in their 2% letting the others carry the bill.
"Instead we have a political elite that thinks we should emulate low/no tax countries like say Pakistan."
That comment is so dumb I am sure reading it kills braincells.
@R Soul
"I see. Despite having no clue or competence at macroeconomics or running a country least Dizzy Lizzy was willing to give it a try"
You say that yet we are now expected to have a deeper recession after the U-turns. A pro growth policy is not a bad thing and is needed to work off the debt. Not presenting how the tax cuts would be funded and the U-turns were the problem.
"Would you use that bollocks as an excuse if our cheesmonger in chief was designing a nuclear reactor or doing a bit of brain surgery?"
I give credit where it is due and healthy scepticism over their ability to deliver. Especially if the party contains pro labour/lib dem members,
@AC
"Which policies were "deemed better"?"
Tax cuts which were expected to put the economy in a much better position. The problem they had was presentation. Unfunded tax cuts (even if less destructive than what we have been doing), the BoE not raising interest rates as much as expected and the policies of the last 2 decades that got us here doesnt look good.
I expect it was the straw that broke the camels back.
@Andy 73
"I note that there have been a bunch of analysis in the wake of this U-Turn that suggest (as per Goldman Sachs) that the abandonment of tax reform will significantly worsen our economy next year. Great."
It is interesting how bad things have got that policies which are deemed better for the country would be the spark to expose some of the problems that have been created.
Unfortunately I had the bad feeling Truss would back down and of course with U-turns and now pretty much a 'back to normal' we are looking at more of the same from those who brought us such a wonderful situation that we are in.
Agree with her approach or not at lease Truss originally was willing to try but for whatever reason she backed down at all has trashed all hope and now we just wait to see what next useless sockpuppet might take over. A general election cant solve this either, just another useless sockpuppet in the various parties available.
@Death Boffin
"The idea is to get people to vote Democrat in November. But the courts won't get around to ruling it unconstitutional until after the election"
With the current leadership they need to do something to get elected. Kinda like having to bury the laptop story to get Biden elected.
@Andy Non
"So the issues were well known but there has been no political will or foresight to prevent the unfolding mess."
But the gov did plenty. Vast amounts spent on monuments to a sky god to save us. And we can always rely on cheep gas when the sky god is displeased with us.
The govs did plenty, but not much of use.
"This is despite their wealth of gold, copper, silver, palladium, and other reclaimable internals."
Oh wow wonderful! So WEEE members can set up a recycling centre and pay people for their E-garbage where they extract the 'wealth' of metals and make a profit while they are at it. Cant they? With all that wealth of metal? *tumble-weed*
@Binraider
"Spend on the right stuff would go a long way."
Like what? And the problem is spending incontinence. Too much government spending and too little focus on growth. As soon as Truss signalled a move to trying to promote growth (agree with her plans or not) there was panic. So much is currently reliant on government throwing money in all directions and 14 years of QE and lowering interest rates.
Recently I was listening to a podcast about the current inflation and how it has been the aim since 2008 to stimulate it, and how they need to be careful what they wish for.
"Considering the news of the last 12 hours that the BoE is going to suspend it's bond-buying in a couple of days, and the FTSE is collapsing left and right along with pension funds; do the "unbelievers" now have the evidence of the utter incompetence of Kwasikaze's policies?"
While there are questions over what the policies actually are and how good they will be this is the result of the wonderful policies of pissing money up the wall for at least a couple of decades. Interest rates on the floor and governments spending in desperate hope to get inflation and now they have it without much room to manoeuvre.
What is worse is some people thing the gov should spend more!
@Dan 55
"It doesn't matter, it's not a living wage."
And? This started as me responding to someone that you are not entitled to a job, you earn your job. You seem to be running away a bit by talking about a living wage which has nothing to do with being paid what you earn.
"Do you believe the Tories are socialist?"
The tories had been shifting left since taking over. First in coalition and then facing of with actual socialist/communists which the tories tried to hoover up (and succeeded for a short time). They do seem to be moving back towards the right but considering some tories were so incensed at Boris moving slightly right they left for the lib dems they were obviously in the wrong party.
"The welfare state as it is today is not the same as the welfare state of 10 years ago."
It never is. The govs have even tried to 'fix' welfare a little with universal credit but the problem is the complication of eligibility before a simpler system could work.
"Over 330,000 excess deaths in Great Britain linked to austerity, finds study"
Oh damn thats a big problem. We never had austerity, spending wasnt reduced and instead under Cameron was above Browns! The austerity budget increased spending which is the opposite of austerity.
@LybsterRoy
"When I was young, sometime last century, if you were "on the dole" it was a matter of shame. Nowadays its a career choice for many."
In a previous job of mine it was a matter of pride for one of the girls to quit the part time work and draw dole. In her eyes us idiots were working a rubbish job while she got money for nothing. Another got knocked up (either she didnt know the father or didnt matter) so she could get the free house and benefits, again same job.
@Dan 55
"A pound per trolley hasn't got great career progression has it?"
I said job and employment but I dont think I said career? Instead of just begging he traded his time to get a little money.
"So if working isn't a right and the person in question is in a hopeless position right at the bottom, then you must agree that it follows that some form of welfare state is required"
It already exists. The welfare system already exists to support these people but some still choose to remain outside of it.
"I always knew you were a socialist at heart."
That you suggest we need a welfare state, which we have, and this is still a reality it would seem the socialist idea doesnt get there.
@AC
"Everyone has the right to employment, so they can support themselves as necessary."
So where can you walk into and demand to be given a paid job to support yourself? Even the basic trade of going up to someone and offering to help for a price is not a given. Nobody is owed employment just because they exist. That would preclude the ability to be fired (without being hired elsewhere).
"The person must have the ability to perform that job function adequately."
Every employment is a trade. As per the trade you must offer something they want in return for what they will offer that you want. That exists at the lowest levels as well as the higher levels.
In a pretty crushing example locally- a homeless guy would walk around the local supermarket carpark offering to take a persons trolley back to the bay as long as he could keep the pound coin. A good trade people seemed happy with. It was very unfortunate he was told he was not allowed to do so any more (not sure if it was the supermarket or a busybody clipboard git).
@Plest
"Instead of moaning about it here, how about you moan at the Tories of screwing up the economy for the last 12 years?"
Been going longer than 12 years.
"I'm sorry but everyone is entitled to a job, irrespective of age unless you think age descrimination is the right way?"
I agree with the sentiment but I would say that people earn their job. They are not entitled to work, they earn their job to trade their ability for something of value.
@Richard 12
"The lack of regulation in the City (and US banking) caused the banking crisis, and cost us plebs billions rescuing them."
Pushing US banks to lend to sub-prime borrowers caused the banking industry to come up with a fool proof plan based on the security that there was never a housing crisis across the whole of the US at the same time. This was approved by the federal government as safe. It was deemed to be secure based on all available evidence. Then of course the housing crash all over the US and these 'safe' assets turned out not so great and the world had bought into it.
Had the initial push not to make home owners of people who cant afford to own a home not happened then things would have been different. But nobody saw it coming which is why public and private suffered losses from it.
@David Hicklin
"She knew where we were better off - Inside rather than outside in the cold"
of a trading block. And that we were better not suffering a federalised EU.
"She got us the best deal possible - rebate and op-out - but we still had access to a single market on our doorstep."
I love how amazing the EU is, as long as we have rebates and opt outs and special treatment. Yet even that wasnt enough to justify the EU in her eyes.
@Roj Blake
"The Thatcher who campaigned for us to stay in the then EEC in the 1970s?
The Thatcher who signed us up for the Single Market?
That one?"
I know you think your making a point or that you got me there but read your comment first then read mine. Get your facts right and you may maybe understand my response countering the idea that Thatcher wanted to join the EU.
@John Smith 19
"Thatcher (the only PM ever with an actual hard science degree) understood the UK's real place in the world and that it was way better inside a big tent (of 550m people) p**sing out than being outside the tent getting doused."
Thatcher who pushed back against the EU, that one? Thatcher who opposed the federalisation of a trade block. That one? The PM who had a spine and would face down her counterparts in Europe instead of selling us out. That one?
@Ken G
"Somerset Capital Management LLP did not move. Somerset Capital Group set up a completely new and completely separate company in Dublin and the funds previously administered by Somerset Capital Management were moved to that new company."
The EU funds moved to the EU jurisdiction you mean?
"I might say I'm moving house but what I really mean is that I'm buying a new house and moving my things to it. Sloppy phrasing."
Except this would be more like you are buying your kids a property in a country the kids want to be in. You're not moving.
@AC
"Use of real names harks back to friendlier times on here. Perhaps posts such as yours are the reason so many now post FullAnon? Abuse, vitriol and exhibiting stalker/doxxer behavior."
Which anon are you? First, second, third? Ah sod it you cant understand the basics of a conversation (you know you are conversing with the same name) anyone can post as you and even claim to be you. Feel free to remain as coward but as my original response states clearly-
"Stick your username to your posts and we can talk. No fun showing you how wrong you are when you will repeat your garbage under anonymity."
That being to a coward who lied and tried to insult me in their first post. Was that you? Dont cry if I wont hold a conversation with 'the coward', stick a name, any name, I dont care as long as it ensures we can hold an actual conversation.
@AC
"Jacob Ress-Mogg's probity is a curious hill to die on, codejunky..."
It is interesting that trying to get to the facts instead of validating a lie that was perpetuated years ago is considered dying on a hill. Does that mean there is no new information and so the original claim is the lie that was perpetuated? Or are you going to contribute something useful to the conversation?
@AC
"Some of us use our actual names in our handles"
Not necessarily smart in the first place. I would recommend a new account with a new handle so your able to hold a thread with someone instead of being a coward.
"Are you looking to dox? Post your actual name up yourself."
Thats a dumb comment. Wanting to be able to associate the comments with the correct user is somehow a problem? Proved by-
"- Another Anon"
Are you? Look like a coward to me, which just so happens to be what I was responding to.
@Loyal Commenter
"If you copy and paste every other sentence from a paragraph, you can radiacally change the meaning conveyed. Whodathunkit?"
Exactly which is why when you selectively posted "not just" I posted your entire sentence- "Not just because who is saying it, although that does play a big part of it in this instance". Because your attempt to again change the meaning of your posts can be resolved by quoting your actual post. Whodathunkit?
"To sum up what I was actually saying; I don't trust a thing that comes out of JRM's mouth, but even if you put to one side the person who is saying it, what is being said is still deeply suspicious.
Is that succinct enough for you?"
Sure. I dont care if what you wrote was hyperbole or a dislike of the man/party. I was genuinely asking if there was a single politician of any party you would feel better coming out with this stuff. Somehow this ended up down the rabbit hole of you denying you wrote what was in your comment and complaining I selectively quoted your comment by you selectively quoting your own comment.
@Loyal Commenter
"But this isn't about me, the original AC's comment was about how your posts lack factual substance"
Except the original comment didnt point to any example of a lack of factual substance. So far you havnt either. So apart from agreeing with an unfounded lie from a coward you have done nothing but claim to be smart enough to spot bullshit (seeing the oxymoron?), that your clever enough not to fall foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect (read our conversations please) and have so far on this reply thread said nothing of substance. But it isnt about you!!!
Glad you made that clear
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
