Devalue pound to boost economy, says JML founder Entrepreneur John Mills fears Britai

iltisman

Lest hope this is Mr Mills Ratner moment then he will have less cash to give to Balls and co.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

...Is this suggestion as much use as the products he markets?

Yes.

If devaluation solved the problems of the British Economy, the UK would have one of the strongest trade balances in the global economy .... the depreciation of sterling in 2008 did not lead to a significant improvement in the balance of payments.

http://www.thesaturdayeconomist.com/the-great-devaluation-myth--uk-and-sterling.html

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

Yes.

If devaluation solved the problems of the British Economy, the UK would have one of the strongest trade balances in the global economy .... the depreciation of sterling in 2008 did not lead to a significant improvement in the balance of payments.

http://www.thesaturdayeconomist.com/the-great-devaluation-myth--uk-and-sterling.html

No doubt the trickle down effect would do the rest....

GeorgeHowell

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Spare capacity in the economy. Wage inflation will be remain low. Compared to much of Europe the UK is a high wage economy. Even Germany does not not have a minimum wage. So the downward pressure will be maintained from a number of directions. That's without factoring in that the labour is global in terms of where companies can base themselves.

I shudder when anyone talks about loosening the money supply, let alone printing it, and dismissing the inflation risk. We seem to have got away with the QE, in exceptional circumstances, and I don't want to see that risked again. Governments who allow inflation to get out of control always pay a heavy price. and hopefully this one, and its successor, have learned that lesson.

purch

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We seem to have got away with the QE,

You're probably at least 5 years premature to think that.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So Gen do you think that post war UK economic policy requires a major rethink. Given the position the UK finds itself in.

Personally yes.

The Government does way more than it should in the economic realm. Many, many services are provided to people that are perfectly capable of paying for them themselves and a culture, deliberately in my opinion, has been created by the biggest 5 political parties on the mainland of Britain (I don't know much about Northern Irish politics) to ensure that people are made as dependent on the Government.

Communities should be expected to provide far more for themselves. If the local school needs painting then the local council should use its buying power to get paint cheaply or better still get a local DIY store to provide the paint and the parents and teachers should paint the walls. If the streets are covered in litter then residents should pick it up, preferably returning it to whence it came.

When there's a problem in the UK the first question shouldn't be, "What is the Government going to do about it?" it should instead be, "What should we all be doing about it?".

For those fit and able to work, welfare should be a last rather than a first resort. IMHO it should be much more generous but also time limited to perhaps 2 years across your working life or maybe a year per decade. The welfare system is simply another way of making more people dependent on the state.

The tax system should be vastly simplified to remove rent seeking. No more ISAs etc. The pension system is perfectly able to provide a vehicle for long-term savings. No tax breaks or subsidies for particular industries. An international forum should be set up with the specific aim of setting a common set of tax rules. Rates should be set by countries but broadly speaking the rules should be common across countries.

Corporation tax should be scrapped altogether and VAT increased to make up the difference. Try exporting a skinny latte to the Caymans to get around tax. Paying cash to evade VAT should be a crime for both parties to the transaction. If you pay cash and do not receive a tax invoice that should be a criminal act for both parties.

Income taxes should also be greatly reduced and replaced by taxes on consumption be they VAT or perhaps a return to a luxury rate of VAT. Taxes on alcohol should be increased substantially and recreational drugs legalised.

Get rid of stamp duty and SDLT. Capital Gains should be treated as income. Incorporate employees NI into income tax.

Put a time limit on all economic laws so they have to be voted back in perhaps every 5-10 years to stop the creep of every more complex red tape.

Reduce the number of statistics produced nationally and locally. Honest, how cares how many binmen in Hackney are of Iranian-Welsh decent or Salfordian bankers are women. We have strong anti-discrimination in place.

Strengthen anti-monopoly laws, make banks only able to have customers in a single county to get rid of systemic risk and make the NHS the health provider of last resort not the first. Introduce charging, even if it's only a quid, to see a GP. Expect people earning a decent (e.g. average or above) to have health insurance. The tax savings would pay for the insurance. Make child care payable out of untaxed income.

That's the short version and is why I would never be elected to run the UK. I think if those laws were enacted the vat majority of people in the UK would be much richer, most especially the poorest.

GeorgeHowell

purch wrote: »

You're probably at least 5 years premature to think that.

---

How so ?

purch

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

---

How so ?

Nobody knows the eventual outcome, but it would be naive to think that you can inject billions of ££ or $$ into the economy and there to be no effects in the medium to long term.

QE has helped solve an initial problem, but it is unlikely not to have sown the seeds of a different problem we might face later on.

So we certainly haven't "got away" with it yet.

Generali

purch wrote: »

Nobody knows the eventual outcome, but it would be naive to think that you can inject billions of ££ or $$ into the economy and there to be no effects in the medium to long term.

QE has helped solve an initial problem, but it is unlikely not to have sown the seeds of a different problem we might face later on.

So we certainly haven't "got away" with it yet.

For a start we've seen the end of moral hazard. Want to stick your money in some dodgy bank with liabilities many times the assets of the country underwriting it? No problem, your own Government will bail you out.

Wanna fix interest rates or FX rates or sell dodgy shares to pension funds? No worries, the shareholders will bail you out.

Citibank and Goldman Sachs were basically boileroom operations for 20 years and 1 person went to prison.

QE has raised the serious possibility that Central Banks will be insolvent. Who cares? They just bail themselves out.

Banks don't fancy repaying bond holders because the boss is too coked up to run the company properly. Never mind, here's a couple of mil to get you over it.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

For a start we've seen the end of moral hazard. Want to stick your money in some dodgy bank with liabilities many times the assets of the country underwriting it? No problem, your own Government will bail you out.

Wanna fix interest rates or FX rates or sell dodgy shares to pension funds? No worries, the shareholders will bail you out.

Citibank and Goldman Sachs were basically boileroom operations for 20 years and 1 person went to prison.

QE has raised the serious possibility that Central Banks will be insolvent. Who cares? They just bail themselves out.

Banks don't fancy repaying bond holders because the boss is too coked up to run the company properly. Never mind, here's a couple of mil to get you over it.

and the alternative was?