Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 3)

[Mapper]

8 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

A distribution cycle in the simplest terms is where assets needs to be sold to keep a level standard of living.The reason is the economy cant produce enough for the demands on it.Over the cycle this capital from assets being sold goes to pay for the inflation and that then sends price signals for companies to invest.DH is right,but only very simplistic.The macro is those assets being sold down are seeing the capital being moved to a much smaller band of companies,ones who can leverage inflation,not leverage dis-inflation like the last 40 years.

If you cross marker the macro on it you then see all the affects.For instance the pensioner paying more for their food having to run down assets more,they are distributing their savings to the shop worker,warehouse worker,farm labourer,farmer etc,but mostly to the potash company and energy company.Capital sat with savers is consumed by the whole chain,some more than others.Given most peoples capital is housing equity,its likely that will see the biggest distribution,that and 40/60 type pensions,even more so ones in drawdown.

 

DB thanks a lot for the explanation!

My very basic take away: 

The economy cannot meet the demands made on it -> Assets sold to maintain living standards -> Capital distributed along the supply chain -> The benefits are seen more with companies that can leverage inflation.

[macca]

9 hours ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Anyone got ideas on the best ways to invest in private healthcare? I see this as an expanding sector as the NHS falls apart and some services can be cheaply undertaken online (counter arguments to this also welcome). BUPA appears to be investable. I guess insurance companies will grow but this isn't going to leverage the sector. Otherwise it might all get gobbled up by private businesses.

The NHS is not falling apart.. Its being blown up by rhe greedy, corrupt, Tory CUNTS.

 

12 years of Tories 

40'000 less nurses 

50'000 less doctors 

Less GPs

500% increase in privatisation

Destroying adult social care.

Hospital was turned into flats where I live.

I fucking hate the Tories. 

[JimmyTheBruce]

4 hours ago, macca said:

The NHS is not falling apart.. Its being blown up by rhe greedy, corrupt, Tory CUNTS.

 

12 years of Tories 

40'000 less nurses 

50'000 less doctors 

Less GPs

500% increase in privatisation

Destroying adult social care.

Hospital was turned into flats where I live.

I fucking hate the Tories. 

Probably been said before, but your hate is better directed at the entire political class.  They are all the same.

[M S E Refugee]

9 minutes ago, JimmyTheBruce said:

Probably been said before, but your hate is better directed at the entire political class.  They are all the same.

I can't convince one of my Socialist colleagues that Labour and the Conservatives are the same Party.

[jamtomorrow]

Fresh meat from Dr. Tim. The increasing resonance with some of the major themes of this thread is striking.

I'm still somewhat confused by Dr. Tim's position on stagflation - he seems to say we're not heading for stagflation, but then goes on to describe rising prices and falling consumption. That makes sense to me for the initial phase of the inflation we've entered. Discretionary/non-essential consumption levels are unprecedented for this point in the cycle, and can fall much further compared to previous cycles. Which would suggest an unusually protracted stagflationary phase - if it is indeed just a phase (the SEEDs perspective suggests discretionary demand destruction is permanent, unless we see ECoE/ERoEI technology breakthroughs, or if ERoEI in O&G isn't declining like Dr. Tim thinks).

The interaction between monetary policy and declining ERoEI seems key to me. Declining ERoEI means monetary policy must be pushed to greater extremes to create the artificial demand to drag energy kicking and screaming from primary sources to achieve the economic activity levels to perpetuate the prosperity we've become accustomed to.

All of which has me wishing for a slow decline beginning *now*, because the sudden economic hangover from a further artifically-stimulated ERoEI depletion is rather terrifying.

Enough of my waffle, here's the article:

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2022/01/01/219-the-unravelling-begins/

THE REALITY OF SCARCITY, THE SCARCITY OF REALITY

In nineteenth-century England, pictures of great events and famous personages could be purchased “penny-plain or tuppence-coloured”.

Where the world economy is concerned, the price of flattering colouration has soared into the trillions, but the value of a “penny-plain” view has never been higher.

The penny-plain picture now, of course, is that a vast gap has opened up between the consensus expectation of continuity and the hard reality of a post-growth economy. This gap is the counterpart of the chasm that exists between the ‘real’ economy of goods and services and the ‘financial’ economy of money and credit.

Our understanding of these dissonances sets an outline programme for ongoing analysis. The best routes to effective interpretation are those which (a) compare reality with perception, and (b) calibrate the relationships between the ‘two economies’ of money and energy. In the coming months, the aim here will be to add interpretive and statistical detail to the picture that is emerging as the aquatint wash of delusion fades away.

The divergence between expectation and reality isn’t – in itself – a new development. Many of us have long known that, over a very extended period, most economic “growth” has been a cosmetic product of breakneck and hazardous monetary expansion, that the underlying economy has been faltering, and that the confidence placed in ‘continuity’ lacks a basis in fact.

We can go further, recognizing that even the simulacrum of “growth” can’t last much longer, that the real prices of assets are destined to fall sharply in a context of broader financial distress, and that the balance of political power might be poised to shift, perhaps in a direction that, once upon a time, used to be called “left”.

What IS different now is that a process of fundamental change is already underway. The consensus case for continuity is crumbling, and is being exposed as a product of self-deception, wishful-thinking and economic incomprehension, spiced with absurd amounts of techno-utopianism.

The outcome mightn’t – and needn’t – be the wholesale “collapse” predicted by doomsayers.

But the game is up for what we might call the ‘continuity consensus’.

Of price and value

The single most obvious symptom of change is inflation. The Fed might – belatedly – have stopped calling this “transitory”, but the consensus view remains that this isn’t the start of a “stagflationary” trauma of the kind last experienced in the 1970s.

It’s widely argued that the take-off in inflation is a short-term product of the shortages and supply-chain fractures created by the coronavirus pandemic and, perhaps, of the gargantuan amounts of money injected to cope with the crisis. It’s further contended that labour lacks the pricing power to create a price and wage inflationary spiral. 

Before buying this comforting narrative, it makes sense to look at the fundamentals. Prices are the point at which monetary demand meets material supply. Put another way, prices are where the ‘financial’ economy of money and credit intersects with the ‘real’ economy of goods and services.

Conventional theory states that the price mechanism enables strong financial demand to prompt corresponding rises in physical supply, because rising prices give producers an incentive to increase supply to the market.

This logic, though, holds true only under conditions of infinite capability. No rise in prices, or increase in financial demand, can prompt the delivery of products which do not exist in nature. If physical constraints exist, the theory that ‘demand creates supply under all circumstances’ is exposed as a fallacy.

This is particularly pertinent to the supply of energy. Surging European natural gas prices are a case in point. Conventional theory dictates that spectacular rises in prices ought to have brought new supply gushing into the market for gas. The reality is that no such new supply exists. To be sure, price differentials can divert supplies between competing markets, but they cannot increase the aggregate availability of gas. The same applies to other forms of traded energy, including oil and coal.

This brings us to the fundamental point about scarcity. Conventional economics, with its insistence that ‘demand creates supply’, dismisses the very concept of material constraint. Hard fact, on the other hand, decrees that the supply of fossil fuel energy at an affordable cost is constrained by the limits of resources.

Two observations are necessary here. The first is that the process of depletion has created sharp rises in the ECoEs – the Energy Costs of Energy – of oil, gas and coal. The second is that nothing that has any economic utility at all can be supplied without the use of energy.

Accordingly, rises in the ECoE-costs of energy must force up the cost of everything else, imposing changes in allocations, priorities and distribution. This is particularly applicable to resources such as food, water, minerals, metals and plastics, all of which are supplied through energy-intensive processes.

We can’t conjure them out of the ether by pouring money into the system.

Supply constraint and the implications for demand

Of course, conventional economic theory doesn’t limit its concept of the price mechanism to the assertion that rising prices must increase supply.

It states, also, that rising prices depress demand.

If we superimpose resource constraint onto this ‘equilibrium-through-price’ equation, what we’re left with is a process whereby supply isn’t increased – but demand IS depressed – by rising prices.

Put another way, the introduction of material scarcity into the pricing equation tells us that supply constraints will, through the mechanism of rising prices, reduce demand.

This is the point at which two realities have to be factored in. The first is that consumer purchases are divided, in order of priority, between essentials (things that the consumer must have) and discretionaries (things that he or she may want, but doesn’t need).

The second is that there is extraordinary sectoral and popular resistance to the idea that discretionary consumption might be trending downwards.

We can see these factors in operation right now. Because of resource scarcity in general – and energy scarcity in particular – the cost of essentials is rising markedly. We can see this, most obviously, in the rising costs of food, fuel and domestic energy, but we can be sure that this process is going to extend into other necessities.

It’s noteworthy that the Resolution Foundation, a British think-tank, is forecasting that 2022 will be a “year of the squeeze”. This description can be applied globally, differing only in pace and magnitude between countries and regions. The cost of everything from gas and electricity to fuel, travel fares, food, clothing and even water is going to rise.

The brunt of this pressure is felt initially by the poorest households, who spend the largest proportion of their incomes on necessities. But there need be no doubt that the rising tide of costs will move steadily up the gradient of household incomes.

For suppliers of discretionary goods and services, this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, consumers whose living costs are rising have less to spend on non-essential purchases. On the other, the costs of supplying discretionaries are rising. Credit-funded discretionary spending, long the prop of non-essential sectors, is in the process of being undermined by inflation or, more specifically, by the monetary implications of the rising cost of necessities.

Behind the brittle optimism presented by every sector from travel and hospitality to ‘tech’ and the supply of consumer goods lies a reality shaped by rising costs, decreasing consumer resources, and an eroding capability to bridge the gap using cheap and abundant credit.      

Prices as interface           

In order to interpret the role of inflation correctly, we need to understand the conceptual distinction between the ‘two economies’ – the ‘financial’ or proxy economy of money and credit, and the ‘real’ or material economy of energy and resources.

What this distinction tells us is that money has no intrinsic worth, but commands value only as a ‘claim’ on the goods and services supplied by the real economy. If we wanted to be high-falutin’ about it, we could say that money is an artefact ‘validated only by exchange’.

What this really means is that inflation is a process governed by changes in the relationship between the availability of money and the supply of goods and services.

Over an extended period, we’ve been pouring enormous quantities of financial demand into the system, at the same time that material supply has become ever more constrained.

In this sense, inflation isn’t even a new phenomenon. Rather, price escalation has, hitherto, been channelled into asset prices, whose movements are – conventionally, but mistakenly – excluded from the measurement of inflation.

If we had, all along, been using a comprehensive, RRCI-type measure of inflation, we would have been far better prepared for, and much less surprised by, what is happening now.  

Since there are no ‘fixes’ for material constraints, the only way in which inflation can be tamed is by pushing monetary demand back downwards into alignment with material capability.

This understanding re-frames what we know about monetary policy. As things stand, the real (ex-inflation) cost of money has fallen to unprecedentedly negative levels. Since we can’t create physical resources out of nothing, the only policy fix for the gap between the real and the financial economies is the elimination of the subsidy of deeply negative real rates. The scale of past recklessness has ensured that any such process would be extraordinarily disruptive. 

This means that raising rates by enough to tame inflation would have two effects, not one. The first would be to temper the rate at which the supply of credit expands. The second would be to start unwinding past expansion in the quantity of credit.

It would be futile to suppose that we can have one of these effects without the other. We cannot restrain inflation simply by raising rates by just enough to deter new borrowing, without affecting either the servicing cost or the collateral backing of existing credit.

In any case, the current system depends on a continuity of increasing credit. 

To be effective, then, rate rises would have to be big enough to trigger credit defaults, asset price slumps and a re-pricing of the financial system back into equilibrium with the constrained character of the underlying economy.

The paralysis of predicament

In practical terms, this means that positive real rates won’t be reinstated voluntarily, and this leaves us looking for pressures that might force us to act realistically.

The most obvious such pressure will come from households, which might accept the impairment of the scope for discretionary consumption, but won’t – and can’t – tolerate relentless increases in the cost of essentials.

This is where forecasting processes need to be reinvented, meaning rebased away from the fallacious assumption of ‘growth in perpetuity’.

By calibrating both prosperity and the trend in the real cost of essentials, we can make sense of a dynamic whose consequences will include widespread defaults, sharp falls in real asset prices and a fundamental shift in the political climate.

At the same time, our recognition of the relationship between the ‘real’ and the ‘financial’ economies should give us steadily-improving visibility on the economic, financial and broader outlook.

None of this necessarily spells “collapse”, but it does establish a relationship between systemic risk and the prevalence of self-deception.

In this sense, our best hopes for a manageable future rest on an orderly assertion of reality, and the retreat of delusion.

[MrXxxx]

10 hours ago, WICAO said:

Are you a renter or an owner occupier?

Reason I ask is that you have to live somewhere and as a renter the experience is not always pleasant.  For example I am so looking forward to not having to do the annual rental increase negotiation bullsh*t.  It'll be great to just fix something when it's broken.

Hi WICAO,

been both, can agree with your sentiments, and ideally I would prefer to be a buyer because you have security of tenure. It really is a worry/depressing knowing that your landlord can upend your life with just 1 [2] months notice in the UK, but the price you have to 'pay' for that security is as I pointed out in my last post; rented in Germany [where the majority rent through choice] and it really is a different game there with a lot more security.

[Calcutta]

Getting past the 'evil Tories' thing and realising that the entire political game is rigged against you should be mandatory for accessing the thread. It should've been mandatory for accessing TOS in the first place. 

 

Sir Tony? 

[Red Debt Redemption]

1 hour ago, M S E Refugee said:

I can't convince one of my Socialist colleagues that Labour and the Conservatives are the same Party.

Got to the stage of yea maybe it is now but it was definitely different way back when I deffo remember when voting caused change.

 

Sure it was.. 

[MrXxxx]

17 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

that and 40/60 type pensions,even more so ones in drawdown

..so in a distribution/inflation cycle those with 40/60 are in common with just shareholders losing capital due to a loss in the shares  prices BUT are also losing capital at a greater rate in their bonds due to the negative real rates...as a result their bond capital is being redistributed in to paying inflation effects i.e. increased wages, but also government debt interest payments?

[AWW]

47 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

It really is a worry/depressing knowing that your landlord can upend your life with just 1 [2] months notice in the UK

They can only do this if you accept it. My current landlord threatened to evict me if I didn't sign a 1-year contract extension (we're not planning on staying for a full year).  I refused and said I'll continue to pay the rent and will give 2 months notice before leaving, take me to court if you want me out; no judge is going to evict a family from a place they've lived in for yonks, always paid the rent, "have nowhere else to go", because the LL wants to lock them into a new contract.

UK renters have a lot more power than most of them realise. It might not be enshrined in your contract, but you could cause your landlord a lot of grief if you were that way inclined.

[AWW]

24 minutes ago, Red Debt Redemption said:

Got to the stage of yea maybe it is now but it was definitely different way back when I deffo remember when voting caused change.

Effecting change by voting for a different party is another thing that Blair chucked in the bin.

The only vote that has mattered in the last 25 years was the Brexit vote, and the slime currently residing in the Commons and Lords did their best to ensure that it was ignored.

[AWW]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but my energy supplier (Octopus) offers a tariff that exposes you entirely to the wholesale electricity market. They even pay you to use the stuff during periods of low demand. I switched away from it in May onto their fixed price deal, thanks to this thread. But I digress - the price charts make for interesting viewing, as they effectively show the live consumer price - and really highlight what a joke the price cap is.

https://www.energy-stats.uk/octopus-agile/

Seems you'd only want to be on this tariff nowadays if you heavily use an electric car and charge it overnight at home (or if you can charge a battery overnight - I will do the sums on this when I get round to it)

[AWW]

.

[macca]

3 hours ago, JimmyTheBruce said:

Probably been said before, but your hate is better directed at the entire political class.  They are all the same.

Zara Sultana 

Corbyn 

Follow them on social media.. There are a few good MPs. Saying ALL of them are the same is a false narrative that does not help. Its something that people say to me just before they vote Tory

I think the many of them are corrupt would sound better.. But not all..

If Corbyn had won the last election it would be the rich being made to pay tax, not the workers.

The NHS would be heading to re nationalisation.. Not Richie Sunak selling it to American corperations.

So saying they are all the same. It's a dangerous narrative to peddle and always leads to the Fucking Tory cunts. 

They have stollen about 1.5 trillion.. We are heading to collapse.. 

[M S E Refugee]

2 minutes ago, macca said:

Zara Sultana 

Corbyn 

Follow them on social media.. There are a few good MPs. Saying ALL of them are the same is a false narrative that does not help. Its something that people say to me just before they vote Tory

I think the many of them are corrupt would sound better.. But not all..

If Corbyn had won the last election it would be the rich being made to pay tax, not the workers.

The NHS would be heading to re nationalisation.. Not Richie Sunak selling it to American corperations.

So saying they are all the same. It's a dangerous narrative to peddle and always leads to the Fucking Tory cunts. 

They have stollen about 1.5 trillion.. We are heading to collapse.. 

All of this has been enabled by the Labour Party who continue to back the Tories to the Hilt.

[spygirl]

Poland’s inflation surge takes shine off economy

Rising prices threaten to undermine ruling party’s appeal for voters

https://www.ft.com/content/2750a82a-3304-41fa-a1ae-ee5c5c3fbc91#comments-anchor

Can embed the image - must be drawn.

8% inflation.

However, barring an intensification of the pandemic, economists doubt inflation will return to the 2.5 per cent targeted by Poland’s central bank soon. “Core inflation is above 4 per cent and strong, so you have to expect that inflation will remain above 7 per cent next year,” Cichy said. “It is very unlikely that it will return to the central bank’s target in 2023.”

[Hardhat]

Interesting for baccy stocks:

The number of 18- to 34-year-olds who smoke increased by 25% in England during the first lockdown, according to a new study led by UCL researchers.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/aug/surge-smoking-among-young-adults-during-lockdown

There were increases in the number of existing smokers quitting successfully, and overall levels of smoking in adults remains stable. However, the increased number of young adults who smoke means that, for the Government to deliver its goal for England to become smoke-free by 2030, smokers would need to quit at a rate of around 40% faster than predicted.  

[spygirl]

29 minutes ago, macca said:

Zara Sultana 

Corbyn 

Follow them on social media.. There are a few good MPs. Saying ALL of them are the same is a false narrative that does not help. Its something that people say to me just before they vote Tory

I think the many of them are corrupt would sound better.. But not all..

If Corbyn had won the last election it would be the rich being made to pay tax, not the workers.

The NHS would be heading to re nationalisation.. Not Richie Sunak selling it to American corperations.

So saying they are all the same. It's a dangerous narrative to peddle and always leads to the Fucking Tory cunts. 

They have stollen about 1.5 trillion.. We are heading to collapse.. 

No.

It would have been working people, made to pay for bunch of South American Leninists fuckwitted policies.

If you want o look at a Corbynista economy/scoiety then look at Venezuela.

Literally, where Corbyn took his gormless fuckwittery from.

 

 

[MrXxxx]

2 hours ago, AWW said:

They can only do this if you accept it. My current landlord threatened to evict me if I didn't sign a 1-year contract extension (we're not planning on staying for a full year).  I refused and said I'll continue to pay the rent and will give 2 months notice before leaving, take me to court if you want me out; no judge is going to evict a family from a place they've lived in for yonks, always paid the rent, "have nowhere else to go", because the LL wants to lock them into a new contract.

UK renters have a lot more power than most of them realise. It might not be enshrined in your contract, but you could cause your landlord a lot of grief if you were that way inclined.

Yes and No....your landlord didn't 'follow through' as he/she wanted the income HOWEVER despite what a Judge might think their role is not to 'give their opinion' but to 'apply the law'.

The law regarding Assured Shorthold Tenancies allows either:

a) Section 21 notice [not an eviction] where the landlord has to serve two months 'notice to possess', you only have to give one months notice if your initial rental period hasn't been extended an so 'evolved' into Periodic Tenancy. As a 'no fault' possession the landlord doesn't need to state a reason, just give the required notice period. However, the government are discussing a repeal of S21 so that landlords could use an S8 mid tenancy using grounds for possession as a) occupancy by the landlord/his family, or b) sale. If a tenant fails to vacate then the landlord applies for a Section 8 eviction. Note, there are certain requirements to make a S21 valid i.e protected deposit, Gas certificates etc, and until these are met any S21 issued is invalid.

OR

b) Section 8 eviction issue mid-tenancy for breach of tenancy i.e. failure to pay, antisocial behaviour etc, where after showing the measures he/she has taken in helping you to resolve the situation you have failed to address these. If the landlord has followed this procedure correctly [see Housing Act 1988] then a S8 is issued. Following this if the S8 still applies [see note below] the judge has no choice but to order a 'notice to possess'/eviction via court baliffs by a specific date no less than two weeks away. Note, you must be two months in arrears at the time the S8 is served and at the subsequent hearing, IF you pay arrears after this point the order can still be processed.

As you quite rightly point out a Section 8 can be a lot of hassle if the tenant doesn't comply, and could involve further court action by the landlord and take longer than a Section 21. For this reason landlords usually avoid these and/or offer a financial 'encouragement' for difficult tenants to 'give notice'.

[Joxer]

10 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

Yes and No....your landlord didn't 'follow through' as he/she wanted the income HOWEVER despite what a Judge might think their role is not to 'give their opinion' but to 'apply the law'.

The law regarding Assured Shorthold Tenancies allows either:

a) Section 21 notice [not an eviction] where the landlord has to serve two months 'notice to possess', you only have to give one months notice if your initial rental period hasn't been extended an so 'evolved' into Periodic Tenancy. The grounds for possession would be for a) occupancy by the landlord/his family, or b) sale, and so are not open to appeal. If a tenant fails to vacate then the landlord applies for a Section 8 eviction.

OR

b) Section 8 eviction for breach of tenancy i.e. failure to pay, antisocial behaviour etc, where after showing the measures he/she has taken in helping you to resolve the situation you have failed to address these. If the landlord has followed this procedure correctly [see Housing Act 1988] then a S8 is issued. Following this if the S8 still applies [see note below] the judge has no choice but to order a 'notice to possess'/eviction via court baliffs by a specific date no less than two weeks away. Note, you must be two months in arrears at the time the S8 is served and at the subsequent hearing, IF you pay arrears after this point the order can still be processed.

As you quite rightly point out a Section 8 can be a lot of hassle if the tenant doesn't comply, and could involve further court action by the landlord and take longer than a Section 21. For this reason landlords usually avoid these and/or offer a financial 'encouragement' for difficult tenants to 'give notice'.

Can a landlord only be granted possession with a section 21 if they want to move in themselves or sell? 

I thought a landlord didn't need to give any reasons for possession when using section 21.

[feed]

1 hour ago, macca said:

Zara Sultana 

Corbyn 

Follow them on social media.. There are a few good MPs. Saying ALL of them are the same is a false narrative that does not help. Its something that people say to me just before they vote Tory

I think the many of them are corrupt would sound better.. But not all..

If Corbyn had won the last election it would be the rich being made to pay tax, not the workers.

The NHS would be heading to re nationalisation.. Not Richie Sunak selling it to American corperations.

So saying they are all the same. It's a dangerous narrative to peddle and always leads to the Fucking Tory cunts. 

They have stollen about 1.5 trillion.. We are heading to collapse.. 

You need to get past if Corbyn won.  He didn't, he lost. Twice.  Fielding him against Boris after losing to May was political suicide.  Holding on to corbyn was our savior is preventing the formation of an opposition party that can beat the conservatives.   

 

[MrXxxx]

20 minutes ago, Joxer said:

Can a landlord only be granted possession with a section 21 if they want to move in themselves or sell? 

I thought a landlord didn't need to give any reasons for possession when using section 21.

No sorry, I didn't explain that very clearly. As you say at the moment an S21 is a 'No fault' possession, and so no reason has to be given. That said, the government have been discussing a repeal of the S21, and so to allow a landlord to give notice mid-tenancy by citing these reasons under a S8 eviction.

[Axeman123]

3 hours ago, AWW said:

They can only do this if you accept it.

In practice evictions are taking around 2 years to go through the court system at the moment, so in a sense saying "I will just keep paying the old rent" would give you a huge grace period to move out. Even before "the bug" people were routinely getting 12+ months rent free by just waiting for the system to run it's course. Based on watching bailiff TV shows "Professional bad tennants" willing to poor sand in the gears of the system with vexatious claims of disrepair etc could stretch that even further. There has to be a moral component to one's conduct though, some landlords are regular people. Keeping them honest is fair enough, but some landlords on those TV shows actually had my sympathy (assuming they sold up as soon as they regained posession).

Ironically a landlord seeking eviction via the legal route would be well advised to do all repairs and have safety checks etc up to date, or risk jeopardising their case. For some of them this will be a novel experience!

2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Poland’s inflation surge takes shine off economy

Rising prices threaten to undermine ruling party’s appeal for voters

https://www.ft.com/content/2750a82a-3304-41fa-a1ae-ee5c5c3fbc91#comments-anchor

Can embed the image - must be drawn.

8% inflation.

However, barring an intensification of the pandemic, economists doubt inflation will return to the 2.5 per cent targeted by Poland’s central bank soon. “Core inflation is above 4 per cent and strong, so you have to expect that inflation will remain above 7 per cent next year,” Cichy said. “It is very unlikely that it will return to the central bank’s target in 2023.”

The Polish CB is 3 base rate rises deep, at 1.75%. If that isn't getting inflation under control (which it couldn't possibly), what chance does the BoE think it has with a single 0.15% rise? Of course they don't even expect it to...

[spygirl]

38 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

In practice evictions are taking around 2 years to go through the court system at the moment, so in a sense saying "I will just keep paying the old rent" would give you a huge grace period to move out. Even before "the bug" people were routinely getting 12+ months rent free by just waiting for the system to run it's course. Based on watching bailiff TV shows "Professional bad tennants" willing to poor sand in the gears of the system with vexatious claims of disrepair etc could stretch that even further. There has to be a moral component to one's conduct though, some landlords are regular people. Keeping them honest is fair enough, but some landlords on those TV shows actually had my sympathy (assuming they sold up as soon as they regained posession).

Ironically a landlord seeking eviction via the legal route would be well advised to do all repairs and have safety checks etc up to date, or risk jeopardising their case. For some of them this will be a novel experience!

The Polish CB is 3 base rate rises deep, at 1.75%. If that isn't getting inflation under control (which it couldn't possibly), what chance does the BoE think it has with a single 0.15% rise? Of course they don't even expect it to...

iirc Polands economy is growing at ~5%.

Taylor rule, only useful macro economics, says IR should be 10%, mainly as they they did not raise early and fast enough.

ECB must be shitting bricks for 2022, when the Fed gets going.

 

 

[JimmyTheBruce]

3 hours ago, macca said:

Zara Sultana 

Corbyn 

Follow them on social media.. There are a few good MPs. Saying ALL of them are the same is a false narrative that does not help. Its something that people say to me just before they vote Tory

I think the many of them are corrupt would sound better.. But not all..

If Corbyn had won the last election it would be the rich being made to pay tax, not the workers.

The NHS would be heading to re nationalisation.. Not Richie Sunak selling it to American corperations.

So saying they are all the same. It's a dangerous narrative to peddle and always leads to the Fucking Tory cunts. 

They have stollen about 1.5 trillion.. We are heading to collapse.. 

Don't really want to derail the thread, but this is Corbyn:

Who then led his party in a cross-party effort to remain part of the corrupt establishment that he so eloquently rubbished.

This will no doubt be put down to something along the lines of "political expediency" but that simply supports my point.  They are all politicians, therefore they are all lying, devious, self-serving arseholes. 

They are all the same.