Search results

Fair play to Wilder imo, fronts it up to the stupid pricks

Anyway, I'm going to retire from this thread I think. It's tedious arguing the same points all of the time.

A bond is just swapping a reserve attracting interest at the BOE for a gilt, it pays interest on a defined investment over a defined period rather than just interest on reserves. Not really sure what difference it makes in inflation terms.

I've just watched it, I've got two sons who are not yet teenagers and couldn't help put the older one in Jamie's shoes. Terrifying like you say.

The are limitations to government spending of course, but they are nothing to do with tax collection which you continuously imply.

The point is that it does not need to sell bonds to the bond market

Why do they have a minimum capacity of 10k? No such rule exists for the many many many many many many many many times more popular Football Premier League

I think they're in a false position though on account of the terrible job O'Neil was doing

Given that he's appeared in every game since Lampard has been in charge you'd wonder what would happen to a player that he really doesn't rate

What are you on about? MVE has shown himself perfectly capable and just needs a backup.

Public debt is all money created that hasn't yet been taxed, it necessarily goes on forever

No, where does it say that. It is a simple fact that there is no operational dependency on either tax or borrowing to spend.

Private debt is a problem, public debt is a necessity

Citations needed into your ridiculous statements about inflation. Public bodies have a fixed income, their way of dealing with inflation is to cut costs. Private companies deal with inflation primarily by raising prices. The debt markets do not expect the government to fully fund their...

Presumably by fair she meant it should be 10x the amount

You just can't write it

Oh dear. He's asking for a kinder, gentler politics now

It isn't bullshit, it's a myth. The government does not need to borrow to spend. It chooses to sell bonds to the market, it's yet another subsidy for the already wealthy.

Citations needed. Everything you post is just the sort of half baked drivel you hear from Tufton St airheads.

Well it is what it says, it is paragraph 1 of the case for change. If that isn't the essence of the reason for change then what is? Why is cutting benefit even part of the solution?