Brixton news, rumour and general chat - May 2015
- Thread starter SpamMisery
- Start date
- Status
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
So Lambeths debt has come down? That's great. Has it been a steady decline or had peaks and troughs?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I remember asking a councillor how much Lambeth had lost when the Icelandic banks crashed. Loads of councils were badly stung. They thought the idea that Lambeth might have had any savings to lose was hilarious.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Even Lambeth probably has a cash reserve.
I think its a legal obligation for councils?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Indeed. It's kept in a cookie tin at reception, apparently.
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Why is public debt a bad thing? The figures quoted work out as an interest rate of 2.56%. While rates are that low they’d be incompetent not to borrow heavily to invest in the area, if anything they should be borrowing/spending a lot more. Articles like that are damaging
ی صحبت می کنند
من حتی نمی فارسی صحبت می کنند
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
Apparently if you want to open a bar in the container park the rent being asked is equivalent to £100 per sq ft. The typical rent for a shop unit in central Brixton is more like £35 to £40 per foot. There's a suspicion that somebody is lining their pockets.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I don't think it's a bad thing per se, but borrowing money just because interest rates are low does carry risk
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Why does it? The bailiffs can't be sent round to remove Lambeth's TV. It's not the same as a personal debt
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
If cheaper elsewhere, why not rent elsewhere?
No one is forcing them to take a container.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Perhaps G Pycock is aware of stuff via his party then, but did the FOI so he could raise it as an issue in the public domain (with figures).He is not. Graham didn't get elected at this, or the last election.
Tim Briggs is now the leader of the Tory majority opposition.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Well, I'm no expert, but I was assuming that in a worst case scenario interest rates explode then more of our tax has to be put towards servicing the debt, thereby reducing the council's ability to fund other things. But like I say, I'm no expert so happily bow to those with a bit more knowledge
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Economics is not a science. They are still arguing about the Great Depression.
steeeve
Well-Known Member
We have our own bank (well not Lambeth but the UK) that sets interest rates so they will definitely not explode, if money runs out they print more (quantitative easing I think it's called) the reason Greece is fucked because Germany calls the shots.
Roosevelt's new deal ended the great depression (which was shorter than the current one) i.e borrowing more to invest in infrastructure and as a by product increased employment and productivity. Nearly all economists (apart from those that work in the city) agree that austerity doesn't work.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Really?
Yes, which bit don't you agree with
steeeve
Well-Known Member
That's why I said except city economists as they have invested interests
ETA - I misunderstood your response probably should have said apart from some city economists
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
For starters, as you point out, it's not Lambeth's bank. The bank of England cannot be expected to think too carefully about Lambeth's specific needs when setting rates. Low rates do not suit everyone.
If all you have to do is print more money, what are your constraints? Nothing. So you keep printing it and it devalues until it becomes practically worthless.
Quantitative easing is fine in limited releases whilst money flow is blocked along the line. But as a general policy?
If all you have to do is print more money, what are your constraints? Nothing. So you keep printing it and it devalues until it becomes practically worthless.
Quantitative easing is fine in limited releases whilst money flow is blocked along the line. But as a general policy?
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Yes I went a bit off topic with Lambeth/UK thing but my other points stand. You can't QE for ever but you can and should do it until the economy recovers, however long it might be, this article puts it better than I can
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
The vast majority of economists also failed to spot the Great Recession.
Nor did they warn of the problems with a single currency.
They might well be right in terms of austerity but I would not bet on it.
ETA: QE has had the undesirable effect of making the rich much richer by inflating their assets, potentially creating another dangerous bubble. (see London house prices)
Nor did they warn of the problems with a single currency.
They might well be right in terms of austerity but I would not bet on it.
ETA: QE has had the undesirable effect of making the rich much richer by inflating their assets, potentially creating another dangerous bubble. (see London house prices)
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
The problem is that parts of the economy are already motoring. Yes I know that's not apparent everywhere. But prices for services such as construction, for instance, are going up because we don't have the organised skills base/capacity to meet construction demand. There have been brick and other supply shortages for the same reasons. So if you keep printing oodles of cash it does not make these services more available. It just makes them cost more leading to inflation.
With QE you need to put the breaks on when you see the amber light. Not slam them on when you are about to zoom through a red.
To borrow from Leanderman, I guess recognising the amber light is possibly as much a mysterious art as a science.
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Construction in London is booming yes, not elsewhere. I agree with your traffic lights but I'm don't think we can even see the junction yet - we weren't even in the car in 2010. A big reason trades are currently expensive is because of how much the industry has contracted. If sensible fiscal stimulus was applied when it was needed, big public funded projects for example this wouldn't have happened.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I agree that the trades have contracted. It will take time build those up as we have 8 yrs of not training anyone to catch up on. The thing which annoys me is that fiscal stimulus in the form of QE was supplied when it was needed. But it was handed to the banks to distribute and they just sat on it.
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Yep I suppose - gone a bit off topic, my original point was that the sort of negative reporting does my head in. It's false at best and damaging at worst. Back to Brixton!
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Indeed!
- Status
