Off Topic Thread 4.0

troyzer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The NTMA have upped their bonds funding range from 11 billion to 24, which mostly will be pumped back into the exchequer which will be a huge boost considering the central bank have forecast an 8 billion fallout due to the coronavirus.

You'd be surprised at the portfolio of assets the NTMA and the Central Bank have held since the 2008 collapse, as a country we're in a pretty strong place regarding debt security and sovereign credit rating.

Bond issues are massively oversubscribed as well. We're in the German territory of negative bond rates, which is nice.

But I think this is bigger than Ireland. The commission and the ECB need to lead this.

A lot of people have been looking on the bright side and how this major disruption can lead to positive change such as a proper one tier health system, a global rugby calendar etc.

But the biggest positive in my book would be if the Dutch finally woke up and realised that the Euro is ****ed without a fiscal union and much deeper integration of Eurozone debt and spending.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

Every citizen should just be given €1000 to spend as they wish.

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

errlloyd

troyzer wrote: »

how this major disruption can lead to positive change such as a proper one tier health system, a global rugby calendar etc.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Fingers crossed!

I think it will be a good move commercially for them but I'm doubtful as to how much success they're going to have. I'm not sure how compatible a middle aged, declining Brady is going to be with their offence and what we've seen in recent seasons.

Brady is also going to get hit a lot more. They're using their space on guys like Gronk when they were in the bottom 10 in the league for sacks allowed last season and that was with a 26 year old, 105kg QB. Brady isn't going to be able to get out of those situations. I don't know how he's going to be able to prolong his plays to find his receivers unless they're going to play a lot more conservatively and use Gronk as a blocker on a lot of snaps.

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

The counter argument is that Brady is less able to evade sacks if and when the offensive line does break down.

All QBs crumble under repeated sacks but Brady more than most because of his awful mobility. Some of my most enjoyable NFL viewing was seeing my beloved Broncos completely batter him.

They're the only team he has a losing ratio against.

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

The only way McWilliams' proposal is feasible is if you introduce some sort of promissory note system that means it can be spent in retail stores etc and redeemable by the business from the government.

But the counter argument from a monetary policy point of view would be that income supplements are an alternative to that proposal, as you try to bring people's income back up and give them that breathing space.

Be interesting to see the longer term plans for self-employed though. I'm not really up to speed on that aspect of things, but I'd imagine it's a hell of a lot more daunting for anyone in those shoes, especially if you're reduced down to the 350 a week as a sole earner.

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

I think it was Singapore (open to correction) that issued vouchers during the last economic crisis in order to stimulate spending. The vouchers were valid for a 6-12 month period and couldn't be converted to cash so you had to use/spend them in the local economy and were unable to stash them in an account.

swiwi_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

David McWilliams is heavily pushing for that saying if deflation starts, we'll have a depression on our hands

Can’t stand that guy. One of those people who never has to practice what he preaches.

Squidgy Black

swiwi_ wrote: »

Can’t stand that guy. One of those people who never has to practice what he preaches.

He's still living off of the self-given credit of predicting the crash in 2008.

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

Tarik Cohen is wasted at the Bears. They're idiots so they'll trade him to you for peanuts. He's the type of receiving RB that Brady played with for years.

swiwi_

Squidgy Black wrote: »

He's still living off of the self-given credit of predicting the crash in 2008.

Basically Shane Ross, but younger and with better dentition.

Ross yapped away in his newspaper column, once elected he wasn't too great nor a genius.

I'd predict the same thing if McWilliams was made minister of finance.

Without mentioning that guy who was elected to parliament on a wave of popular support as some sort of economic guru, then resigned shortly after (can't remember his name)

It'd be the same thing if Franno was made coach of the irish rugby team.

Hot air with no substance.

Squidgy Black

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

Apparently Jameis finally opted to get Lasik done this off-season, and was near-sighted, meaning he was struggling to see receivers open down the field. Which is mental when you think about it for a QB

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

Has that happened in any of the real world examples where it’s been implemented?

Was the Australian approach not largely considered a big success when they did it? I can’t remember. Surely it’s been tried enough times now that we’d have a fairly good idea of what consumer behaviour actually would be

Stheno

swiwi_ wrote: »

Basically Shane Ross, but younger and with better dentition.

Ross yapped away in his newspaper column, once elected he wasn't too great nor a genius.

I'd predict the same thing if McWilliams was made minister of finance.

Without mentioning that guy who was elected to parliament on a wave of popular support as some sort of economic guru, then resigned shortly after (can't remember his name)

.

George Lee?

Now known as Gloomy George due to the apparent delight he gets in catastrophising the daily news about Covid19 on the six o'clock news

He just about stops short of "We are all DOOMED, DOOMED I tells ya"

troyzer

Stheno wrote: »

George Lee?

Now known as Gloomy George due to the apparent delight he gets in catastrophising the daily news about Covid19 on the six o'clock news

He just about stops short of "We are all DOOMED, DOOMED I tells ya"

I think he's talking about Yannis Varoufakis.

Really interesting guy, there's a good reason why he resigned. His book called "Adults in the Room" is a fascinating insight into the Eurogroup negotiations over the Greek debt crisis.

Stheno

troyzer wrote: »

I think he's talking about Yannis Varoufakis.

Really interesting guy, there's a good reason why he resigned. His book called "Adults in the Room" is a fascinating insight into the Eurogroup negotiations over the Greek debt crisis.

Always struck me as being mad as a box of frogs tbh

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Has that happened in any of the real world examples where it’s been implemented?

Was the Australian approach not largely considered a big success when they did it? I can’t remember. Surely it’s been tried enough times now that we’d have a fairly good idea of what consumer behaviour actually would be

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

troyzer

Stheno wrote: »

Always struck me as being mad as a box of frogs tbh

I'm not usually one to **** on the media but Christ he was given a bad rap. They just focused on his leather jacket and motorbikes.

He's a serious economist with multiple tenured professorships. A really, really smart guy. Unfortunately, you need to read his books to see that.

His problem was ultimately his communication skills and how he allowed himself to be portrayed a dingbat rockstar trying to save the day instead of what he actually is: a well respected economist with radical views.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

I can’t imagine they would be proceeding with anything like this until the economy is opened up, specifically the hospitality industry. Until discretionary spending ticks back up it won’t happen I’d say, we’d see probably a massive surge in imports as everyone buys new tellys from Amazon

mfceiling

Well the scammers seem to be out in full swing with the covid going on.

Wife's email was somehow mildly hacked in work and a very convincing email was sent from "her" to finance looking for 2 grand to be paid to a certain account. She has a particular way of signing off emails and they had even signed it the same.
The girl in finance just happened to give her a bell asking what the money was to be registered against and then the scam became clear.

I got up this morning to an email from the car rental company that I used in Sicily last august who are "taking" €284 from my credit card with little to no wording as why. I opened the attached document (which handily was in Italian) and they had a few figures adding up to the sum.
Sent it to my brother in law who lives in Rome and is fluent and also handily a solicitor. He said it looks like they didn't charge you at the time for the car. Unfortunately my credit card said differently so he said notify the bank just in case.

Feckers.

prawnsambo

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

she didn't lock her screen when she left her pc. sounds like mfceiling wanted a few quid sent to his dodgy offshore account.

prawnsambo

Addison Yummy Fashion wrote: »

she didn't lock her screen when she left her pc. sounds like mfceiling wanted a few quid sent to his dodgy offshore account.

Ah yes "somehow".

mfceiling

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

Ha badly phrased. It seems like it wasn't a full in house security breach but just her email account in work. She's working from home but according to the IT dept it was cleverly done (my expertise ranges from "turn it off then on again").
Not sure how they would have gotten away with it but the way they worded and signed off the mail made it look exactly like herself had sent it.

jacothelad

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

You could always donate it to poor pensioner with a serious Fender, Gretsch, Martin, Taylor addiction to maintain. I can help you out if that predicament should arrive.....:D:D:D:D:D

Neil3030

Don't just give people money, give them a loan, with forgiveness based on this year's taxes.

Tweak it so that if you pay little income tax this year (lower income), you don't pay it back, or pay back very little. While if you pay a lot of income tax (higher income) you pay most or all of it back.

Not perfect, but gets the money out immediately to people who will need to spend it. While those who can afford to save it must give it back in the relatively short term.

mfceiling

Turns out the rental company are legit and after checking my credit card online, they forgot to charge me for the rental and only the insurance!!

My fault I suppose for not checking at the time but it was midnight and I had a 2 and a half hour drive ahead of me and couldn't get out of there quick enough.

Stheno

mfceiling wrote: »

Turns out the rental company are legit and after checking my credit card online, they forgot to charge me for the rental and only the insurance!!

My fault I suppose for not checking at the time but it was midnight and I had a 2 and a half hour drive ahead of me and couldn't get out of there quick enough.

Why'd it take them so long to cop it?

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Why'd it take them so long to cop it?

Every business in the world is staring pretty hard at their finance spreadsheets right now.

mfceiling

Stheno wrote: »

Why'd it take them so long to cop it?

Not sure but I'm pìssed to say the least. Sent them a rather snotty email but they're Italian so it'll be a shrug of the shoulders and carry on as usual.

Neil3030

mfceiling wrote: »

Not sure but I'm pìssed to say the least. Sent them a rather snotty email but they're Italian so it'll be a shrug of the shoulders and carry on as usual.

Sicilian, right?

Call them a bunch of "terroni"

Derogatory term for southern Italians, used by pompous northerners. They'll love that.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

I'm not usually one to **** on the media but Christ he was given a bad rap. They just focused on his leather jacket and motorbikes.

He's a serious economist with multiple tenured professorships. A really, really smart guy. Unfortunately, you need to read his books to see that.

His problem was ultimately his communication skills and how he allowed himself to be portrayed a dingbat rockstar trying to save the day instead of what he actually is: a well respected economist with radical views.

I wouldn't necessarily describe him as well respected when it comes to the views of other economists in Europe, well specifically their views on his ability to plan and control a fiscal regime (rather than his actual area of expertise). Not sure about the multiple tenured professorships either, I think its just Athens? I think the rest were lecturing/honorary positions?

I never worked in economics but I did study it in Uni and made a few good friends there who went on to work in treasuries, finance ministries across Europe and I don't think there'd be one of them who'd take him particularly seriously in that field. I'm sure his work and research with Valve was excellent because he is considered to be a thought leader in that field.

Rather than a brilliant macro-economist elevated in crisis to a position where he was undone by his enigmatic personality, I'd see him more as someone whose enigmatic personality raised him in crisis to a position where he was let down by his approach to fiscal policy.

I think he makes for brilliant TV though. If he's on Question Time, I'm watching. And he writes extremely digestible books which is badly needed in economics for dopey tech-heads like me. I just wish he was more into aggregate demand and less into inventing magical crypto-currency clearing mechanisms

mfceiling

Right the plot thickens. I checked my credit card statements online and I turns out I prepaid the entire sum for the car when I made the initial booking back in May!!
Time to put a block on this.

Podge_irl

I see Starmer appears to not be utterly and completely useless, unlike his predecessor. Bodes well for the UK in general I should think to have a functioning opposition again.

prawnsambo

mfceiling wrote: »

Right the plot thickens. I checked my credit card statements online and I turns out I prepaid the entire sum for the car when I made the initial booking back in May!!
Time to put a block on this.

Did you book direct with the car hire company or with one of those aggregator sites?

mfceiling

prawnsambo wrote: »

Did you book direct with the car hire company or with one of those aggregator sites?

Probably an aggregator site as the credit card gives the name as "Car Target Group" and the rental company were "B Rent"

Former Former

Podge_irl wrote: »

I see Starmer appears to not be utterly and completely useless, unlike his predecessor. Bodes well for the UK in general I should think to have a functioning opposition again.

Good. The worst thing to happen British politics in the last 20 years wasn't Farage, Brexit or Boris, it was Corbyn.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

Good. The worst thing to happen British politics in the last 20 years wasn't Farage, Brexit or Boris, it was Corbyn.

I can understand where you are coming from but I think Corbyn quite clearly never had a chance despite having generally very popular policies.

Half his own party were working as hard as the Tories to oppose him and he was grotesquely smeared by an overwhelming majority of the media. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the man, but there is a staggering amount of misrepresentation that rendered him undetectable.

The worst thing to happen to British politics in the last 20 years has been the complete abandonment of accountability. It's taken a mass pandemic for there to be enough scrutiny of the government to show just how worryingly incapable they are and I still feel that the media are going far easier on a group of Ministers who may turn out to have thousands of deaths on their hands but rendered a life long pacifist less popular than a paedophile in the public's eyes.

Yes it's bad that Britain has had no opposition over the last 5 years, but quite a lot of wealth and influence has been behind ensuring that - less so Jeremy Corbyn.

I watched Today's PMQ's and Boris should be concerned. Raab was clearly prepared and was a city lawyer. As much as he tried to pivot to the type of jingoism this cabinet loves, Starmer refused to allow him move away from a series of facts which are highly damaging to this government that he couldn't explain or justify. Boris won't be prepared and doesn't communicate well on serious topics. He's going to have a fridge installed in the commons.

prawnsambo

mfceiling wrote: »

Probably an aggregator site as the credit card gives the name as "Car Target Group" and the rental company were "B Rent"

That's where the problem could arise. Aggregator has your money and only pays the car hire firm a discounted amount or may have been even holding back some.

I have stayed away from them for a long time now and only go to locals. Always get very good deals and no messing about with huge insurance waivers on the CC or big premiums.

Dave_The_Sheep

I'm not blind to the point that is being made regarding a weak opposition, particularly during a time of collective monumental stupidity ... also called Brexit. However saying that the leader of the opposition (regardless of how poorly he has performed) is worse than the people in power who put Brexit on the table, lied to and mislead the people into voting for it, then cheerlead it through parliment and are now pushing ahead with it regardless ... is simply bizarre. He could and should have done better, but he wasn't the one in power and wasn't the primary problem.

Corbyn deserves criticism for his stance and his general apathy when it comes to stopping Brexit and for plenty of other things. I somewhat admire the man personally, but he's clearly not electable by the British public (for a host of reasons, not all his own fault as Venjur notes above) and I wish that had been recognised far sooner. As unfortunate as that is, it's the way things are. Hopefully Starmer can do better (won't be overly hard).

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from but I think Corbyn quite clearly never had a chance despite having generally very popular policies.

Half his own party were working as hard as the Tories to oppose him and he was grotesquely smeared by an overwhelming majority of the media. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the man, but there is a staggering amount of misrepresentation that rendered him undetectable.

I think one of the most telling comments on Corbyn was that the only Labour party leader he didn't oppose was himself. I dug into some of the anti-semitism stuff and there's certainly a case to be made that he was (at best) loathe to stamp it out because he seemed afraid to look as though he was pro the Israeli government. And that gave carte blanche to those in the party who had anti-semitic leanings.

He was also an idealogue and they don't generally succeed in politics.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think one of the most telling comments on Corbyn was that the only Labour party leader he didn't oppose was himself. I dug into some of the anti-semitism stuff and there's certainly a case to be made that he was (at best) loathe to stamp it out because he seemed afraid to look as though he was pro the Israeli government. And that gave carte blanche to those in the party who had anti-semitic leanings.

I would generally be sympathetic to Corbyn's politics but his willingness to oppose his own party should be celebrated. He opposed Iraq and despite very serious internal backstabbing he never engaged in the type of cull Boris performed as soon as he took power.

Corbyn isn't anti-Semitic, it would run contrary to his entire and well established ideology and he has been consistent on his positions for long enough that you can take that at face value. He clearly loathes the state of Israel's actions both historical and ongoing but the rate of anti-semitism in labour mirrors that of the wider public and I think a large part of his reluctance to tackle the 'problem' was that he didn't agree it was a serious problem.

stephen_n

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The only way McWilliams' proposal is feasible is if you introduce some sort of promissory note system that means it can be spent in retail stores etc and redeemable by the business from the government.

But the counter argument from a monetary policy point of view would be that income supplements are an alternative to that proposal, as you try to bring people's income back up and give them that breathing space.

Be interesting to see the longer term plans for self-employed though. I'm not really up to speed on that aspect of things, but I'd imagine it's a hell of a lot more daunting for anyone in those shoes, especially if you're reduced down to the 350 a week as a sole earner.

One 4 all cards for everyone

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from but I think Corbyn quite clearly never had a chance despite having generally very popular policies.

Half his own party were working as hard as the Tories to oppose him and he was grotesquely smeared by an overwhelming majority of the media. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the man, but there is a staggering amount of misrepresentation that rendered him undetectable.

The worst thing to happen to British politics in the last 20 years has been the complete abandonment of accountability. It's taken a mass pandemic for there to be enough scrutiny of the government to show just how worryingly incapable they are and I still feel that the media are going far easier on a group of Ministers who may turn out to have thousands of deaths on their hands but rendered a life long pacifist less popular than a paedophile in the public's eyes.

Yes it's bad that Britain has had no opposition over the last 5 years, but quite a lot of wealth and influence has been behind ensuring that - less so Jeremy Corbyn.

I watched Today's PMQ's and Boris should be concerned. Raab was clearly prepared and was a city lawyer. As much as he tried to pivot to the type of jingoism this cabinet loves, Starmer refused to allow him move away from a series of facts which are highly damaging to this government that he couldn't explain or justify. Boris won't be prepared and doesn't communicate well on serious topics. He's going to have a fridge installed in the commons.

For all the so called popular policies, he wasn’t very popular with Voters. He came up against the most despised Tory government since Tatcher and was utterly ineffective. The only reason he got close to May was because they campaigned on the basis there was no way they could win. He was the pro brexit head of an anti Brexit party. By the time he realised he had to publicly back remain, the ship had long since sailed. His PMQ’s were completely shambolic, a 5 year old could have out maneuvered him there.

prawnsambo

stephen_n wrote: »

For all the so called popular policies, he wasn’t very popular with Voters. He came up against the most despised Tory government since Tatcher and was utterly ineffective. The only reason he got close to May was because they campaigned on the basis there was no way they could win. He was the pro brexit head of an anti Brexit party. By the time he realised he had to publicly back remain, the ship had long since sailed. His PMQ’s were completely shambolic, a 5 year old could have out maneuvered him there.

Yeah. Failed to land a punch on the weakest government the UK has ever seen until it was too late to have any effect. And at the end, meekly rolled over and gave Johnson the election he needed and ultimately his majority. The Tories own brexit, but Corbyn has a massive share in it. Right from the time of the campaign onwards. Completely inept and very poor at the actual graft and manoeuvring of politics.

awec

Everyone in the country must be painting the house during lockdown, I've been trying for ages to get paint and kit delivered and there place has either stopped taking orders due to stock problems or has a huge backlog.

Buer

awec wrote: »

Everyone in the country must be painting the house during lockdown, I've been trying for ages to get paint and kit delivered and there place has either stopped taking orders due to stock problems or has a huge backlog.

24 hour turnaround from Screwfix for paint this week for me.

Bazzo

Jesus that's a fairly embarrassing gaffe from Harris...

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Jesus that's a fairly embarrassing gaffe from Harris...

Shocker. He has done a relatively decent job overall. It hasn't been as good as many are reporting as we're simply obsessed with comparing ourselves to the UK but he's been solid enough. This will give his opponents plenty of ammunition to embarrass him though. Pretty cringey.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I would generally be sympathetic to Corbyn's politics but his willingness to oppose his own party should be celebrated. He opposed Iraq and despite very serious internal backstabbing he never engaged in the type of cull Boris performed as soon as he took power.

Corbyn isn't anti-Semitic, it would run contrary to his entire and well established ideology and he has been consistent on his positions for long enough that you can take that at face value. He clearly loathes the state of Israel's actions both historical and ongoing but the rate of anti-semitism in labour mirrors that of the wider public and I think a large part of his reluctance to tackle the 'problem' was that he didn't agree it was a serious problem.

There was definitely some pretty extreme anti-semitism among the grassroots lexiteer bunch who seeped into the party when Corbyn rose to prominence. When I worked in England I had a colleague who was a long, long term member of the labour party who resigned because of anti-semitism creeping into his local area. It was very sad to see, he'd spent so long working for the party there.

Anyone acting like it wasn't a problem is just completely fooling themselves. Multiple resignations of parliamentary party members, lots of departures at grass roots level of actual hard-working party members, it doesn't just happen because they felt the whim to resign for the craic.

All the comparisons to Michael Foot were correct. Corbyn left the Labour party in a far, far worse state than it was in after Miliband, as hard as that would have seemed at the time. I can only imagine what the state of their front bench would be if they did win the next election. Surely the weakest the Tories and Labour have both been at the same time.