We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Feb 17
21:02
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Supposedly they realized that quantitative easing wasn't working because all the money quickly rushes to the top, and just stays there. Not circulating in the system.
They were talking about giving everyone a lump sum, like the time we got shares on BT,Gas, Electic etc.
That this might promote small businessess, startups etc. Buying local goods. make the economy run better.
But all they are talking about now is inflation on the rise.
Give me my lump sum. I need fish suppers.
They were talking about giving everyone a lump sum, like the time we got shares on BT,Gas, Electic etc.
That this might promote small businessess, startups etc. Buying local goods. make the economy run better.
But all they are talking about now is inflation on the rise.
Give me my lump sum. I need fish suppers.
Show More
Quantitative easing was money injected into the economy to keep things moving.
Unfortunately the money was given to the banks who promised to lend it to small business and keep the economy moving.
They didn't.
So the chancellor did it again.
So did the banks.
Many economists - and many ordinary people with brains could see that giving the money to PEOPLE would be a good idea, I believe it was called a "helicopter payment" and might have been in the area of £1000 each!
Of course it would do what you suggest. PEOPLE would spend it on fish suppers, Tax, things generally.
Small business would benefit, the majority would benefit.
Except the ones who keep adding the money to the huge amounts they already have and cannot possibly spend. But then they are among those who gain least from the PEOPLE having the money, they are also the ones doing the quantitative easing!
However it was just an idea and the chancellor, ever keen on the austerity route shunned the opportunity in favour of giving it to the banks again!
As for it being given in shares; BT, Gas, Electric, etc. This was the root of many of our current problems. The government sold the companies people already owned and bribed us to do it. Which meant we didn't own them any more and the people who did cut staff numbers and increased prices so they could make a profit (which hadn't been necessary before) thus adding to jobless and giving everyone less money to spend on other things. So not exactly the same as quantitative easing.
I'd probably spend mine on food too. I like food.
Unfortunately the money was given to the banks who promised to lend it to small business and keep the economy moving.
They didn't.
So the chancellor did it again.
So did the banks.
Many economists - and many ordinary people with brains could see that giving the money to PEOPLE would be a good idea, I believe it was called a "helicopter payment" and might have been in the area of £1000 each!
Of course it would do what you suggest. PEOPLE would spend it on fish suppers, Tax, things generally.
Small business would benefit, the majority would benefit.
Except the ones who keep adding the money to the huge amounts they already have and cannot possibly spend. But then they are among those who gain least from the PEOPLE having the money, they are also the ones doing the quantitative easing!
However it was just an idea and the chancellor, ever keen on the austerity route shunned the opportunity in favour of giving it to the banks again!
As for it being given in shares; BT, Gas, Electric, etc. This was the root of many of our current problems. The government sold the companies people already owned and bribed us to do it. Which meant we didn't own them any more and the people who did cut staff numbers and increased prices so they could make a profit (which hadn't been necessary before) thus adding to jobless and giving everyone less money to spend on other things. So not exactly the same as quantitative easing.
I'd probably spend mine on food too. I like food.
just mentioned the shares - because I think everyone knew it was really a give away of money. people were lining up to get registered to get a chance at it. free money.
it's what the tories did - sell off the family silver.
it's what the tories did - sell off the family silver.
The Swiss didn't 'roll' with it in a vote back in June 2016
'Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin on Sunday a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation.
Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 no matter how much they work would promote human dignity and public service.
Opponents, including the government, said it would cost too much and weaken the economy.
Projections by the GFS polling outfit for Swiss broadcaster SRF showed nearly four out of five voters opposed the bold social experiment launched by Basel cafe owner Daniel Haeni and allies in a vote under the Swiss system of direct democracy.'
'Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin on Sunday a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation.
Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 no matter how much they work would promote human dignity and public service.
Opponents, including the government, said it would cost too much and weaken the economy.
Projections by the GFS polling outfit for Swiss broadcaster SRF showed nearly four out of five voters opposed the bold social experiment launched by Basel cafe owner Daniel Haeni and allies in a vote under the Swiss system of direct democracy.'
Switzerland isn't like anywhere else I've been to, so it's possible it isn't a good model.
Also, as with marketing for votes campaigns in (possibly all) other countries, we don't know what the population was told would be the outcome of a supporting vote. Fear of personal inconvenience and selfishness usually plays a part in the way people cast their votes.
I remember as a kid, being told about a future of automation and computers and everyone only working 3 days a week etc etc.
I wonder how much politicians and governments - everywhere - really understand "costs and weakened economies" and how many are actually thinking of their own personal future well being?
Funny how, everywhere, governments pay themselves bundles yet don't want the people for whom they work to earn a reasonable amount too, isn't it?
As mentioned earlier, if everyone had money, they'd spend it!!
Which would be good for the whole economy.
Also, as with marketing for votes campaigns in (possibly all) other countries, we don't know what the population was told would be the outcome of a supporting vote. Fear of personal inconvenience and selfishness usually plays a part in the way people cast their votes.
I remember as a kid, being told about a future of automation and computers and everyone only working 3 days a week etc etc.
I wonder how much politicians and governments - everywhere - really understand "costs and weakened economies" and how many are actually thinking of their own personal future well being?
Funny how, everywhere, governments pay themselves bundles yet don't want the people for whom they work to earn a reasonable amount too, isn't it?
As mentioned earlier, if everyone had money, they'd spend it!!
Which would be good for the whole economy.
Giving people money for not working very much sounds a bit like working tax credit/child tax credit.
Working Tax Credit doesn't sound a bit like not working very much.
Why would you say it does?
It means not EARNING very much.
Plenty of people slog their guts out and work very hard and earn hardly anything.
Why would you say it does?
It means not EARNING very much.
Plenty of people slog their guts out and work very hard and earn hardly anything.
The only 'jobs growth' for the ordinary joe and josephine slash svetlana/mohammad/kim jong chow are in call centres, care work and distribution work.
Call centres could be automated soon.
So basically whats left is someone to wipe Grand Dads ar$e on a regular basis and somone deliver on-line purchases and get a signed receipt.
So giving every one cash to keep this false economy going sounds like desperation to me.
Call centres could be automated soon.
So basically whats left is someone to wipe Grand Dads ar$e on a regular basis and somone deliver on-line purchases and get a signed receipt.
So giving every one cash to keep this false economy going sounds like desperation to me.
I can't see why.
Giving it to people who spend it must be more sensible than giving it to people who keep it.
If things are sold they then need replacing. So it's good for manufacturing, distribution, retail and all the associated business.
Distribution of wealth is surely what keeps any economy buoyant, isn't it?
Giving it to people who spend it must be more sensible than giving it to people who keep it.
If things are sold they then need replacing. So it's good for manufacturing, distribution, retail and all the associated business.
Distribution of wealth is surely what keeps any economy buoyant, isn't it?
Giving it to people who spend it on drink and drugs is whats happening today, putting more strain on the health services, social services.
If there is more cash around prices increase.
Pensioners get free money ( well, money back that they invested over the years ), is there any evidence that they spend more then the average working person.? How can you get people to work then if they are getting free money for not working, wages would have to nearly triple to make going to work attractive, what employer is going to agree to that.?
If there is more cash around prices increase.
Pensioners get free money ( well, money back that they invested over the years ), is there any evidence that they spend more then the average working person.? How can you get people to work then if they are getting free money for not working, wages would have to nearly triple to make going to work attractive, what employer is going to agree to that.?
Just so I understand and before continuing any form of sensible conversation....
You think that giving the 65 odd million people of this country a notional £1000 each is a bad idea because they'll all spend it on drink or drugs, except pensioners who won't spend it at all because they already get free money?
£1000 isn't going to change anything substantial, merely put money through the economy the simplest way possible.
If there's more cash around prices increase - Really? Why?
Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any employers agreeing to anything.
£65 billion, (65 x £1000) would be from the government as a form of quantitative easing.
Which is a lot less than billions they gave to the banks, who simply kept it.
In any case, assuming it doesn't end up with the big corporations and mega rich and others who don't pay any, Tax would be paid along the way of the spending of the £65 billion as it travels through the economy.
If you want to see what quantitative easing does Just read the 1st paragraph of this link.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bank-england-fueling-house-price-rises-making-uk-wealth-inequality-worse-says-sp-1543037
The only thing you might be right about is that pensioners don't spend much. This is definitely true of pensioners with plenty of money, who bought their house when houses cost about 1 year's wage and not 20 years like they do now and whose outgoings are merely something to complain about. There are still plenty of poor pensioners.
The strain on health services stems from the cuts and selling off of the NHS.
Incidentally, and you can freely check this, there were 361,000 hospital beds available in 1979. There are 140,000 in 2017.
Nursing homes have been closed, psychiatric and old peoples homes have all been closed en masse.
Giving the population a few quid to spend won't add to health shortfalls
If you're just going to reply with blaming immigrants for everything, don't bother.
You think that giving the 65 odd million people of this country a notional £1000 each is a bad idea because they'll all spend it on drink or drugs, except pensioners who won't spend it at all because they already get free money?
£1000 isn't going to change anything substantial, merely put money through the economy the simplest way possible.
If there's more cash around prices increase - Really? Why?
Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any employers agreeing to anything.
£65 billion, (65 x £1000) would be from the government as a form of quantitative easing.
Which is a lot less than billions they gave to the banks, who simply kept it.
In any case, assuming it doesn't end up with the big corporations and mega rich and others who don't pay any, Tax would be paid along the way of the spending of the £65 billion as it travels through the economy.
If you want to see what quantitative easing does Just read the 1st paragraph of this link.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bank-england-fueling-house-price-rises-making-uk-wealth-inequality-worse-says-sp-1543037
The only thing you might be right about is that pensioners don't spend much. This is definitely true of pensioners with plenty of money, who bought their house when houses cost about 1 year's wage and not 20 years like they do now and whose outgoings are merely something to complain about. There are still plenty of poor pensioners.
The strain on health services stems from the cuts and selling off of the NHS.
Incidentally, and you can freely check this, there were 361,000 hospital beds available in 1979. There are 140,000 in 2017.
Nursing homes have been closed, psychiatric and old peoples homes have all been closed en masse.
Giving the population a few quid to spend won't add to health shortfalls
If you're just going to reply with blaming immigrants for everything, don't bother.
I think we are getting our lines crossed, your saying a one off payment of £1000.
I understood you to mean a weekly payment to everyone which the Swiss were suggesting.
If so I still think a one off payment of £1000 wouldn't improve anything in the long term.
PS. where did I blame migrants ffs ?
I understood you to mean a weekly payment to everyone which the Swiss were suggesting.
If so I still think a one off payment of £1000 wouldn't improve anything in the long term.
PS. where did I blame migrants ffs ?
Yes, a one off "helicopter payment" as mentioned in the opening post, and my 1st reply.
I don't imagine as a nation we could stand £1000 a week each for very long, (unless MPs took a cut in salary).
I'm not saying you were blaming migrants, but so many on here do and your earlier line of:
The only 'jobs growth' for the ordinary joe and josephine slash svetlana/mohammad/kim jong chow are in call centres, care work and distribution work.
led me to believe you considered it a potential issue.
I don't imagine as a nation we could stand £1000 a week each for very long, (unless MPs took a cut in salary).
I'm not saying you were blaming migrants, but so many on here do and your earlier line of:
The only 'jobs growth' for the ordinary joe and josephine slash svetlana/mohammad/kim jong chow are in call centres, care work and distribution work.
led me to believe you considered it a potential issue.
The only 'jobs growth' for the ordinary joe and josephine slash svetlana/mohammad/kim jong chow are in call centres, care work and distribution work.
Not an issue at all, just a reality today.
£1000 a week ur 'avn a laff.
£1000 a 'month' was the proposal in Switzerland.
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Final results from Sunday's referendum showed that nearly 77% opposed the plan, with only 23% backing it.
The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.
The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.
The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland. It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.
The supporters had also argued that since work was increasingly automated, fewer jobs were available for workers.
Switzerland is the first country to hold such a vote.
Not an issue at all, just a reality today.
£1000 a week ur 'avn a laff.
£1000 a 'month' was the proposal in Switzerland.
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Final results from Sunday's referendum showed that nearly 77% opposed the plan, with only 23% backing it.
The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.
The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.
The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland. It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.
The supporters had also argued that since work was increasingly automated, fewer jobs were available for workers.
Switzerland is the first country to hold such a vote.
they were talking about billions. Probably around ten grand for everyone in the UK.
1 billion = 1000 million
375 billion - 375,000 million. /70 million people = 5,357 per person.
Five grand for every person in the UK, given to the banks. How did you prosper from that?
was that the first or second tranche?
http://positivemoney.org/2014/06/waste-375-billion-failure-quantitative-easing-video/
1 billion = 1000 million
375 billion - 375,000 million. /70 million people = 5,357 per person.
Five grand for every person in the UK, given to the banks. How did you prosper from that?
was that the first or second tranche?
http://positivemoney.org/2014/06/waste-375-billion-failure-quantitative-easing-video/
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539