Inflation, Inflation, Inflation...

Nick_C

antrobus wrote: »

Sterling was trading at over 4 dollars before WWII.

Indeed. Hence the Half Crown being known colloquially as half a dollar. (My favourite Bingo call was always - "two and six, was she worth it?" Slightly off topic, but another illustration of inflation!)

The_Last_Username

Since you are discussing historical exchange rates, consider if you would the war loans taken on by Britain for WWII.

By the end of WW2 Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion. Much of this was held in foreign hands, with around £3.4 billion being owed overseas (mainly to creditors in the United States), a sum which represented around one third of annual GDP

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt

On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) and thereby discharged the last of its war loans from the US.

Now just a thought but if maybe we had made (just for example, mind) the losing nations of WWII repay that debt instead (since without them there would have been no war IYSWIM) would such a shift in exchange rates have happened in the first place?

As antrobus wonders above, "We might have been even more better off than had we managed to keep the rate at 4, or even the 2.80 it was before Wilson's devaluation."
Also the defecit would perhaps not have existed were we not repaying debts from war meaning (perhaps) that the exchange rate may still have been similar today; $4 to £1.
How would that have affected inflation?
Who can say with certainty?

Like much discussed in this thread though, that is history and speculation.
For now, the latest confirmed figures show inflation at 0.9%.
The BOE forecasts "inflation would exceed its 2 per cent target by spring next year, peak at 2.8 per cent in early 2018 and stay above 2.5 per cent well into 2019 before returning to target only in 2020. "
https://www.ft.com/content/0104e5a2-a1bb-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f
The BOE have not exactly been great at forecasting of late though, for example recently having to hike growth estimates for this year.

So rather than scream "panic" now, I think I will just wait and see if inflation does increase significantly.

Nick_C

Making Europe pay for our WWII war effort would have been as likely as Mexico paying for Trump's Wall.

As it is, the French have never forgiven us for liberating them.

wotsthat

Making Germany pay for the WW1 effort is one of the reasons why we needed a WW2 effort.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Making Germany pay for the WW1 effort is one of the reasons why we needed a WW2 effort.

no, not maintaining a large allied army there and ensuring Germany didn't re-arm, was the reason for the WW2
Germany had been a rising militaristic power that had used its military might for aggressive expansion: there was no reason to think its plans for empire had lapsed.

After WW2 we did maintain a large army on German soil with a little help from the USSR.

I do believe that trade and wealth are important and do sometimes reduce conflict : one reason why the willful and deliberate harm the EU do to developing nations, is so despicable.

steampowered

The Axis powers were devastated at the end of WW2. Germany lay in ruins. Even with the money received from the Americans via the Marshall plan. I'm not sure they would have had enough money to pay off the war debts.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, not maintaining a large allied army there and ensuring Germany didn't re-arm, was the reason for the WW2
Germany had been a rising militaristic power that had used its military might for aggressive expansion: there was no reason to think its plans for empire had lapsed.

After WW2 we did maintain a large army on German soil with a little help from the USSR.

I do believe that trade and wealth are important and do sometimes reduce conflict : one reason why the willful and deliberate harm the EU do to developing nations, is so despicable.

A touch binary don't you think? The one and only reason for WW2?

The German people being deliberately impoverished after WW1 as punishment neither here nor there?

After WW2 there was a large military presence maintained but other lessons had been learnt hence actions like the Berlin airlift and attempts by the Allies to rebuild German industry.

I do think one of the benefits of the EU has been to reduce the risks of European conflict. It's more difficult for madmen to try and scapegoat 'them' as despicable because many of us trade with 'them' day to day and have discovered most people are actually quite nice and aren't dissimilar to 'us'.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

A touch binary don't you think? The one and only reason for WW2?

I think there is no doubt whatsoever that if a large armed force had been maintained in German after WW1 and their armed forced prevented from growing then the NAZI would no have launched WW2.

The German people being deliberately impoverished after WW1 as punishment neither here nor there?

Germany had done enormous damage to the neighbouring countries.

After WW2 there was a large military presence maintained but other lessons had been learnt hence actions like the Berlin airlift and attempts by the Allies to rebuild German industry.

I do think one of the benefits of the EU has been to reduce the risks of European conflict. It's more difficult for madmen to try and scapegoat 'them' as despicable because many of us trade with 'them' day to day and have discovered most people are actually quite nice and aren't dissimilar to 'us'.

I don't think that WW2 broke out because the Nazi weren't 'quite nice' people; if was their policies of invading their neighbours and exterminating Jews, Roma etc that made them a little unwelcome.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I think there is no doubt whatsoever that if a large armed force had been maintained in German after WW1 and their armed forced prevented from growing then the NAZI would no have launched WW2.

Hmm. Yes, the course of history would've been changed but you don't know whether for better or worse or what the other unintended consequences may have been. I can't imagine impoverishing the Germans and getting foreign troops (Rhine Army) to oversee it did anything other than cause resentment.

Not sure how you'd take to the Germans invading in WW2 and staying until our views aligned with theirs.

Armies can be used to enforce foreign policy but ultimately it ends in destruction because there's always someone somewhere who is bigger, stronger and more determined. Germany found this out.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Germany had done enormous damage to the neighbouring countries.

Eye for an eye? Different side of the same coin by the sounds of it.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't think that WW2 broke out because the Nazi weren't 'quite nice' people; if was their policies of invading their neighbours and exterminating Jews, Roma etc that made them a little unwelcome.

The Nazi's didn't arrive fully formed from nowhere. There were plenty of opportunities to do things differently. Some of them might have involved sticks and some carrots. You're a stick kind of guy.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

The Nazi's didn't arrive fully formed from nowhere. There were plenty of opportunities to do things differently. Some of them might have involved sticks and some carrots. You're a stick kind of guy.

The Nazi military nationalism ' arrived' from about 80 years of German expansionism and war mongering.

But I do believe that mutually beneficial trade make sbetter neighbours, which I why I have previously lamented the EUs refusal to allow profitable trade with developing argicultural countries.
Of course they are no direct threat to us nor are they white, christian european countries so doubt count in your book.

I'm not sure why you call some-one that believes we should trade with all countries of the world on an equal footing is a 'stick kind of guy' but it says a lot about your value system.