If "It's the economy, stupid"....Trump wins?

westernpromise

The FTSE and other indexes are just where central bank injected money ends up, nothing to do with the real economy

What's the transmission mechanism for that?

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

The FTSE and other indexes are just where central bank injected money ends up, nothing to do with the real economy

What's the transmission mechanism for that?

London property and your BTL loans? :rotfl:

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Early indications are that mortgage rates will start to tick up, are you seeing that on your investment radar? Also if he attempts to "re-structure" US debt all hell will break loose in the credit markets. The FTSE and other indexes are just where central bank injected money ends up, nothing to do with the real economy, if Trump moves towards easing back on QE etc. I will buy one tracker, maybe two on the long term bet that new technology will produce future growth spurts. IMO individual companies well researched would be the best bet if you want to replicate rental income streams.

Mortgage rates don't really affect us that much crashy, although we do enjoy having very low margin tracker mortgages, we only have mortgages of about 13% overall LTV (this must be about the 5th or 6th time that I have had to explain this to you, but thanks for your concern). If mortgage rates do rise, we have at least 3 times the value of our mortgages invested in liquid assets anyway, so it really wouldn't be a problem (again I'm quite sure that I have explained this before, but thanks for your concern).

By the way, we have a draft exchange date of 28 Nov on the property that we (my wife) is selling, that you seem so interested in.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue isn't whether I approve or disapprove but whether I would wish to ban it / imprison the editor or close down the paper.
I won't.

No that isn't the issue.

I'm going to help you out here in case you argue your 'Putin's Russia' or 'freedom of the press' points with a non-internet human and make yourself look daft.

First thing. Saying it wouldn't be allowed in Russia as if that informs the debate is a sign of someone losing perspective.

Secondly, where I have the issue isn't that the press shouldn't be able to report, investigate, report biases, apply editorial etc but that the article was, IMO, intended to incite something on the hatred end of the indignation scale and to intimidate.

I don't think we need special measures to deal with this. There's already a code of practice and a complaints procedure. I don't believe the article met the code of practice as it wasn't accurate (the judges are the enemy of the people - really?), it was discriminatory (it drew special inference to one of the judges being openly gay - now removed), and it was harassing based on the possible intent to intimidate.

I think the reality is nothing more than a newspaper trying to sell a tatty rag and betting no action would be taken against them. One of the exclusions as a cause for complaint is 'Legal or contractual matters or on anything which is already the subject of legal proceedings'.

Talking about freedom of the press as if they can say anything they like without redress shows a woeful misunderstanding of the standards they've agree to uphold. In this case I don't think the Mail met those standards and shouldn't have run the article in the manner in which they did.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Early indications are that mortgage rates will start to tick up, are you seeing that on your investment radar? Also if he attempts to "re-structure" US debt all hell will break loose in the credit markets. The FTSE and other indexes are just where central bank injected money ends up, nothing to do with the real economy, if Trump moves towards easing back on QE etc. I will buy one tracker, maybe two on the long term bet that new technology will produce future growth spurts. IMO individual companies well researched would be the best bet if you want to replicate rental income streams.

Isn't Trump a bit like Brexit? There's going to be a period of uncertainty which will be unpredictable and potentially negative in the short to medium term but in the long run things carry on pretty much as they are?

The same people that are getting the shaft now will still be getting it in 10 years time and vice versa.

System

They must be the same early indications we've been hearing about for 7 years.

mwpt

westernpromise wrote: »

The FTSE and other indexes are just where central bank injected money ends up, nothing to do with the real economy

What's the transmission mechanism for that?

If there were no transmission mechanism (indirectly) for it then QE would literally not be doing its job.

Don't take my word for it, listen to the BoE:
https://youtu.be/J9wRq6C2fgo?list=PLslyOrpjJ0z2duArbcMKan_xjl4lt07WW&t=68

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

No that isn't the issue.

I'm going to help you out here in case you argue your 'Putin's Russia' or 'freedom of the press' points with a non-internet human and make yourself look daft.

First thing. Saying it wouldn't be allowed in Russia as if that informs the debate is a sign of someone losing perspective.

Secondly, where I have the issue isn't that the press shouldn't be able to report, investigate, report biases, apply editorial etc but that the article was, IMO, intended to incite something on the hatred end of the indignation scale and to intimidate.

I don't think we need special measures to deal with this. There's already a code of practice and a complaints procedure. I don't believe the article met the code of practice as it wasn't accurate (the judges are the enemy of the people - really?), it was discriminatory (it drew special inference to one of the judges being openly gay - now removed), and it was harassing based on the possible intent to intimidate.

I think the reality is nothing more than a newspaper trying to sell a tatty rag and betting no action would be taken against them. One of the exclusions as a cause for complaint is 'Legal or contractual matters or on anything which is already the subject of legal proceedings'.

Talking about freedom of the press as if they can say anything they like without redress shows a woeful misunderstanding of the standards they've agree to uphold. In this case I don't think the Mail met those standards and shouldn't have run the article in the manner in which they did.

I prefer to remember the occasions when the judges really were the enemies of the people : birmingham 6 & tottenham 3, over-riding parliament on expelling foreigners, making up entirely new law etc etc so if they are (maybe) occasionally wrongly accused then so beit.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I prefer to remember the occasions when the judges really were the enemies of the people : birmingham 6 & tottenham 3, over-riding parliament on expelling foreigners, making up entirely new law etc etc so if they are (maybe) occasionally wrongly accused then so beit.

Humans, including judges and maybe even yourself are fallible.

This is nothing to do with whether judgements are right or wrong but about whether the reporting of judgements meets agreed standards.

Keep pretending to miss the point though.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Humans, including judges and maybe even yourself are fallible.

This is nothing to do with whether judgements are right or wrong but about whether the reporting of judgements meets agreed standards.

Keep pretending to miss the point though.

Indeed : what are 'agreed standards'?
who agreed them?
did I get a vote via a referendum on them or were they in a political party manifesto?


does calling brexiters 'xenophobic ' or 'little englanders' or suggesting they will destroy Uk society etc meet your 'agreed' standards
or do they encourage hate and violence?