Politics Thread!

[snaff]

So we'll ignore that you're showing a 5 day price graph..

Now explain to me, in words someone who worked in the city for 5 years and knows how gilts are priced would understand, how that shows what you're claiming.

Labour's term is 5 years.

>>> 1*1.043**5
1.2343023110134426

[PFVA]

Around here a major crisis replacing everything else, even the 9 cars burnt tonight in the capital.
The Manchester something, not sure if the United or the City is hiring the excellent coach of one of the Lisbon's teams.
Every time the teams find good players or good coaches the English teams show up and invite them to immigrate to England.
Among some people yesterday claiming it's treason to leave the club here, a fan explained it quite well. If he said "if the coach was his son and got offered a better paid job with more possibilities of advancement he would advise him to take the offer and go".

[tufty]

So we'll ignore that you're showing a 5 day price graph..

Now explain to me, in words someone who worked in the city for 5 years and knows how gilts are priced would understand, how that shows what you're claiming.

Labour's term is 5 years.

>>> 1*1.043**5
1.2343023110134426

No, that is just a bunch of numbers, which do not show up in your snapshot of some random 5 day graph of gilt pricing. First, you have to show me that you know how gilts are priced. Then you have to show how that relates to inflation, and how trends in gilt pricing might be an indicator of future inflation as viewed by the market. And then you have to show how the current largely flat line of gilt pricing for the last 18 months ties in with that.

Twat.

[snaff]

So we'll ignore that you're showing a 5 day price graph..

Now explain to me, in words someone who worked in the city for 5 years and knows how gilts are priced would understand, how that shows what you're claiming.

Labour's term is 5 years.

>>> 1*1.043**5
1.2343023110134426

No, that is just a bunch of numbers, which do not show up in your snapshot of some random 5 day graph of gilt pricing. First, you have to show me that you know how gilts are priced. Then you have to show how that relates to inflation, and how trends in gilt pricing might be an indicator of future inflation as viewed by the market. And then you have to show how the current largely flat line of gilt pricing for the last 18 months ties in with that.

Twat.

Gilts are risk-free return of capital. The yield only needs to reflect inflation to return the value invested. Investors are willing to trade at prices where the yield reflects their inflation expectations. The yield at each moment is the only time relevant to forward inflation expectations at that moment. The yield on that day was ~4.3% per annum. The market therefore needing £1*1.043 one year from now to return the value of each £1 today. For an investor buying gilts for the 5 years of this Labour term that compounds to £1*1.043**5=~£1.234 needed to get their value back.

[venusian]

@ snaff

[Harlequin]

I at first considered tufty's intervention likely to achieve nothing beyond satisfying snaff's hunger for attention. I must confess, though, that the results have proved quite entertaining.

[tufty]

I at first considered tufty's intervention likely to achieve nothing beyond satisfying snaff's hunger for attention. I must confess, though, that the results have proved quite entertaining.

So did I, but it's turned out to be quite good.

Gilts are risk-free return of capital.

No, they are not. They are very low risk, which is reflected in the returns one can expect from them.

Here's how gilts work. They are fixed term bonds which return a fixed coupon rate at a regular interval, typically every 6 months The coupon rate is set at gilt issue, and is usually very close to the *actual* market interest rate at that point. At expiry, the purchaser receives the last coupon payment along with the capital. This is not risk free; although the government has yet to actually default on the coupon payments, it could, and the holder would be SOL. But, y'know, very very low risk, I think the first ones were issued to fund the 100 year war. The main risk is that a gilt will underperform relative to simply sticking the money in the bank and collecting interest on that.

Gilts are relatively decoupled from movements in the stock market, which is why they are a pretty good hedging strategy.

Oh, and you know what they aren't* linked to? It's a word that begins with "I"

*generally, at least. Some are, but not the one in your graph.

[venusian]

It's with a look at gilt rates over the last 25 years to see when else the market has "priced in inflation at 25%". Overlaying it with actual inflation rates too...

[tufty]

Don't be daft. 5 days of one gilt is more than enough. Duh.

[KlaxonCow]

Then look where the money goes: govt bennies -> rent -> landlord. Landlords couldn't make it in a private marketplace. House prices would fall, good for everyone except govt and the comfy public sector pension BTL boomers.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, I guess.

But this is weird. Because, if you acknowledge that the issue is really this neo-feudal "Landlordism" that's developed - latter day Robber Barons - then why the hell are you blaming the tenants - the victims - for the tyranny they're subjected to?

And, of course, let's acknowledge that it was Maggie who set these wheels in motion in the first place. "Right to buy"... up all the social housing and then sell it back to the poor at extortionate rates.

So I do wonder. Do you really believe that "illiterate gangs who can't speak English" really have a greater wage-suppressing power than, you know, Uber? Or Amazon? Or McDonald's? A handful of people traffickers have more economic power than the FTSE 100?

Like, have you thought this through and do you really think that's at all realistic or plausible?

[snaff]

I at first considered tufty's intervention likely to achieve nothing beyond satisfying snaff's hunger for attention. I must confess, though, that the results have proved quite entertaining.

So did I, but it's turned out to be quite good.

Gilts are risk-free return of capital.

No, they are not. They are very low risk, which is reflected in the returns one can expect from them.

Here's how gilts work. They are fixed term bonds which return a fixed coupon rate at a regular interval, typically every 6 months The coupon rate is set at gilt issue, and is usually very close to the *actual* market interest rate at that point. At expiry, the purchaser receives the last coupon payment along with the capital. This is not risk free; although the government has yet to actually default on the coupon payments, it could, and the holder would be SOL. But, y'know, very very low risk, I think the first ones were issued to fund the 100 year war. The main risk is that a gilt will underperform relative to simply sticking the money in the bank and collecting interest on that.

Gilts are relatively decoupled from movements in the stock market, which is why they are a pretty good hedging strategy.

Oh, and you know what they aren't* linked to? It's a word that begins with "I"

*generally, at least. Some are, but not the one in your graph.

That's just the mechanism of issue and redemption. Once on the secondary market the price floats according to the yield demanded by buyers. The yield captures and signals inflation expectations. Not sure what I've said that anybody disagrees with.

[snaff]

It's with a look at gilt rates over the last 25 years to see when else the market has "priced in inflation at 25%". Overlaying it with actual inflation rates too...

Inflation over the last five years has been 22%. I don't see why it's such an outrageous expectation for the next five years. The bond market in 2019 did not price it in at the time because it was not expecting COVID, Russia war/sanctions and the end of a disinflationary era.

[KlaxonCow]

My questions were not rhetorical, by the way.

Because, if you acknowledge that the issue is really this neo-feudal "Landlordism" that's developed [...] then why the hell are you blaming the tenants - the victims - for the tyranny they're subjected to?

Do you really believe that "illiterate gangs who can't speak English" really have a greater wage-suppressing power than, you know, Uber? Or Amazon? Or McDonald's? A handful of people traffickers have more economic power than the FTSE 100?

This is a hallmark of conspiracy theories.

The cognitive dissonance that the government or "deep state" or lizard people or whoever it is are simultaneously god-like in their power and competence - as they've apparently been perfectly controlling all global events flawlessly, with no whistle blowers whatsoever, for almost a century - but are also incompetent morons, easily defeated by a redneck with a shotgun, as long as he believes in Jesus.

We watch politicians spout complete nonsense and fall over their own shoelaces for sheer incompetence... but then charge that these same people orchestrated every global event for the last century flawlessly as "false flags" to their deep state agenda, with not a single mistake nor whistle blower or anything. Ever.

It makes no sense.

But what makes sense - and completely complies with Occam's Razor - is that large corporations have been suppressing wages and landlords have been living on "Corporate Welfare" because, yes, the benefits that people get largely go straight to landlords. Like, literally so, as they actually have schemes in places that delivers it straight to the landlord directly, without ever touching the benefit recipient's bank account - do not pass "go", definitely collect your £200.

But they've got the most obvious and ancient way of getting away with it. They say it's the black folk and the foreigners - divide and conquer - so that little part inside everyone that's slightly racist is incensed at all these blacks.

Missing the very fucking obvious thing that it's employers suppressing wages and landlords who are actually living off benefits.

There are working families - both parents out to work - who still have to claim things like housing benefits. And this is straight up "Corporate Welfare" because we've already acknowledged that the true recipient of all that taxpayer money are boomer landlords. And because the taxpayer is covering that, not this hard-working couple's wages, then their employers are getting the "Corporate Welfare" of essentially free taxpayer-funded labour, as they can keep suppressing wages, while the taxpayer is there to fill the gap for them.

And the thing about my "conspiracy theory" here is that all of this is wide open. We all know that this is what's going on. It's not a secret conspiracy plotted in an underground bunker. It's just open corruption right in front of our faces - no hiding it, no denial - because they've got all the politicians they need to maintain this status quo in their pockets. They don't have to hide it.

So, really, do these "illiterate gangs who can't speak English" really genuinely hold more economic control than all the multinationals combined?

And why are you blaming the victims?

Because you say it's landlords, but then attack their tenant victims. Because you say it's illiterate gangs, but then attack their exploited victims.

It's really quite bizarre. You tell us that it's Neil's fault, but then go and beat up Steve instead, even though Steve is a fellow victim of Neil's evil.

[snaff]

My questions were not rhetorical, by the way.

Because, if you acknowledge that the issue is really this neo-feudal "Landlordism" that's developed [...] then why the hell are you blaming the tenants - the victims - for the tyranny they're subjected to?

Do you really believe that "illiterate gangs who can't speak English" really have a greater wage-suppressing power than, you know, Uber? Or Amazon? Or McDonald's? A handful of people traffickers have more economic power than the FTSE 100?

No, I agree with you that mass immigration is driven by large corporate interests among those of other political groups.

I don't have a problem with any individual immigrant. I have a problem with the overwhelming quantity and the lack of vetting that goes along with that.

The conflation of immigration concerns with racism is a deliberate tactic designed to stifle debate.

[tufty]

The yield captures and signals inflation expectations. Not sure what I've said that anybody disagrees with.

That's the bit, just before your question. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what gilt yields represent. It is, in fact, utter bollocks. Remember, gilt coupons do not change over the lifetime of the gilt.

There's also your "unintentional" misstatement of inflation rates.

Inflation over the last five years has been 22%.

Whilst you do say "over the last five years", making your statement technically true, that's not how inflation is measured; if I was an unkind man I'd perhaps suggest you were being disingenuous.
"Inflation" in UK terms is generally taken to refer to the annual inflation rate, which, apart from a spike to 9% in 2022, has pretty much held around 3% ±2% for the past 30 years or so. Indeed, the forecast rate out to 2029 is 2%. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/270 ... d-kingdom/