Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Murdochvision... Oh please.

Watching it on Virgin. Unfortunately Sky has control of a lot of sports as well. The service is good value though.

Love you too Fred!

What exactly will Labour be talking about during the general election campaign? A private strategy document recently seen by the Telegraph revealed that its MPs had been advised against campaigning on immigration. Yesterday, one of its activists stood up at a Fabian conference and asked Ed Miliband if it was true – as he claimed to have been told by his regional party – that Labour would not be talking about the economy either, “as it’s not our strong point”. Mr Miliband denied that this was the case.


But Labour would have good cause to remain as quiet as possible about both issues. On immigration, voters have not forgotten the last government’s absurd underestimate of the likely number of Eastern Europeans who would take advantage of our open borders, or Gordon Brown’s dismissal of a legitimately concerned voter as a “bigoted woman”. And on economics, polls show that voters are justly concerned about Labour’s whole approach. It appears to consist of spending more, taxing more and borrowing more, while its policy on energy prices has melted away from a price freeze to a price cap.


Mr Miliband seems confused. Last year, Labour was copying Ukip’s language about immigration. Yesterday, in his speech to the Fabians, Mr Miliband declared: “Immigration makes us stronger, richer and more powerful as a nation.” A little while ago, he insisted that “Europe needs reform”. But speaking before this prominent Left-wing group, he praised Britain’s EU membership without qualification. Which is the real Mr Miliband? Most probably he is at his happiest talking to old‑guard socialists who think the state knows best and that economic facts are a mere inconvenience.


But facts are important to the voters and will no doubt damage Labour’s performance in May. And if anyone in the Labour high command does think that they can smooth over any policy inadequacies by not talking about them, then the list of the subjects they might have to ignore is long. Defence, education, health… If the television debates do go ahead, Ed Miliband might just have to stand there and smile.

Telegraph

Coronation Street's Anne Kirkbride - who played Deidre Barlow for 43 years - dies aged 60 just months after taking break from show
Kirkbride was in soap for 44 years and appeared in 1,439 episodes
Died in hospital in Manchester and is survived by husband David
William Roache pays tribute to 'such a loving and vibrant person'





R.I.P Anne

Surprise surprise ....



The wealth that failed to trickle down: The rich do get richer while poor stay poor, report suggests




The free-market right promised cutting taxes for the wealthy would make us all better off. But new research suggests that when the rich get richer, the poor stay poor


Ben Chu

Monday 19 January 2015



It started out as a joke: “Money was appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy,” quipped the American humorist, and one-time circus cowboy, Will Rogers, during the Great Depression. But in the 1980s, in the age of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, politicians began to take trickle-down seriously. Or at least they seemed to do so.



Trickle-down can be (very loosely) characterised as the idea that reducing the tax burden on the well-off is, in the end, good for everyone. A wealthy person’s taxes are reduced and his disposable income increases. The wealthy person spends the extra income on a new mansion, or luxury goods, or lavish holidays. The estate agent, the luxury manufacturer and the tourist resort’s profits increase. Those firms then invest the profits, expanding their capacity, creating new jobs in the process. That additional investment boosts income and employment.

The economy grows, bringing in more tax revenues (more, indeed, than were forgone through the initial tax cut). The size of the state is reduced, the freedom of the population grows and general prosperity is enlarged.

Can it be true? Not according to Larry Summers and Ed Balls. The former American Treasury Secretary and Labour’s shadow Chancellor, in a new report produced yesterday by the Centre for American Progress, attempt to explode a bomb under this theory of a virtuous economic circle. “Left to their own devices, unfettered markets and trickle-down economics will lead to increasing levels of inequality, stagnating wages, and a hollowing out of decent, middle-income jobs,” the report argues.

To Summers and Balls, tax cuts for the rich do not inexorably result in more economic activity, but create a growing income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. The rich tend to save more of their disposable income and growth slows down. Ha-Joon Chang, the popular economics writer from Cambridge University, is another veteran critic of the idea. “The trickle-down argument crucially depends on the assumption that, when given a bigger slice of national output, the rich will use it to increase investments”, he has written. He describes this as “an assumption that has not been borne out by reality”, and goes on: “Once you realise that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are: a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer.”






More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-wealth-that-failed-to-trickle-down-report-suggests-rich-do-get-richer-while-poor-stay-poor-9989183.html

Good post that Max.

Wrong glasses with the champagne.....

Might be of interest to some:


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/20/uk-china-economy-gdp-idUKKBN0KT04F20150120?feedType=nl&feedName=ukmorningdigest



China's 2014 economic growth misses target, hits 24-year low
BY KEVIN YAO AND PETE SWEENEY
BEIJING/SHANGHAI Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:30am GMT


RELATED NEWS
Chinese stocks rebound after regulator comment, GDP
IMF welcomes slower growth as China rebalances economy
China fourth-quarter GDP growth 7.3 percent, slightly above forecast, but further cooling seen
China property investment growth hits five-year low in 2014, curbs GDP
China's survey-based jobless rate at 5.1 percent in 2014
China's 2014 steel output grows at slowest rate since 1981
RELATED TOPICS
Business »
(Reuters) - China's economy grew at its slowest pace in 24 years in 2014 as property prices cooled and companies and local governments struggled under heavy debt burdens, keeping pressure on Beijing to take aggressive steps to avoid a sharper downturn.

For investors worried about growth in China and the world this year, the data poses two questions:

Will the soft numbers and expectations of further weakness force the central bank to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into banks system-wide to prop up growth? And if so, what does that mean for Beijing's attempts to reform its economy?

The world's second-largest economy grew 7.4 percent in 2014, official data showed on Tuesday, barely missing its official 7.5 percent target but still the slowest since 1990, when it was hit by sanctions in the wake of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. It expanded 7.7 percent in 2013.

Fourth-quarter growth held steady at 7.3 percent from a year earlier, slightly better than expectations.

Few had expected China to meet its 7.5 percent full-year target, but the performance was better than some had feared after a rough few months raised concerns the economy may be heading for a hard landing.

"The country's period of miraculous break-neck growth is over, but let's get over it," said a commentary on the official Xinhua news service, referring to a long string of double-digit expansion.

"The end of the high-speed growth era does not spell an end for China's economy."

Modest support measures from the government over the year helped stave off a more dramatic slowdown, while Beijing's tolerance of somewhat slower growth sent a message that reform remains a priority.

"This is the best possible miss you could have from a messaging standpoint," said Andrew Polk, economist at the Conference Board in Beijing.

"The government is saying, 'we're not married to this specific target, we missed it and we're okay.' That seems to me a quite positive development."

Still, a further slowdown in China could hinder the chances of a revival in global growth in 2015, given the major role it plays, in particular for commodities and high-tech.

Indeed, Polk said the GDP figure was difficult to square with other negative signs.

China's property market - a major driver of demand across a range of industries - has proven stubbornly unresponsive to policy support, and lending data from the banking system shows both enduring weakness and a resurgence in the shadow banking system, which Beijing has been struggling to rein in.

Policymakers also are concerned about the potential onset of a deflationary cycle, aggravated by plummeting energy prices, industrial overcapacity and sluggish demand.

Systemic deflation, an economically toxic cycle in which investors and consumers hold off on fresh spending on the assumption prices will drop further in the future, could leave China in a similar condition to Japan, and is cited as a major reason why Beijing will need to put more money into the system.

At the same time, there may be a looming fiscal crisis among debt-sodden local governments, which depend on land sales for most of their revenue. And more companies, especially small property developers, could flirt with default.

Nevertheless, the International Monetary Fund's chief economist Olivier Blanchard said slower growth seen for 2015 reflects a welcome decision by the Chinese government to rebalance the economy away from a heavy reliance on investment and exports to a more consumption-based growth model.

The IMF predicts China's economy will grow 6.8 percent in 2015, while the median forecast in a Reuters poll of economists sees an expansion of around 7 percent.

December data posted numerous upside surprises after a weak November. Factory output rose 7.9 percent, while retail sales rose 11.9 percent, both above market expectations.

However, growth in fixed asset investment, a key growth driver, eased to 15.7 percent in the whole of 2014 from the previous year, hovering near a 13-year low.

Investment growth in real estate slowed to a five-year low and new construction slumped, even as home sales improved at the end of the year.

MORE EASING OR LESS?

With China's growth seen cooling further this year, more support measures are still expected, though economists are divided over what tools policymakers will use and when.

"The overall numbers lower the need for further stimulus, although there remains some room for easing as risks are still skewed to the downside," said Dariusz Kowalczyk, economist at Credit Agricole in Hong Kong.

He expected the central bank to cut interest rates again in the first quarter, after a surprise move in November, and slash banks' required reserve ratio (RRR) by 100 basis points in the first half of 2015 in a bid to spur more lending.

Others, however, think Beijing may have to get more aggressive, even at risk of reinflating asset bubbles, given the need to reduce debt burdens at Chinese companies which are inhibiting them from fresh investments.

"I don't expect monetary policy to accelerate growth, though," said Wang of UBS.

"Final demand in the economy is very weak and it's unlikely that the corporate sector will take this credit and invest in new projects, so containing financial risk and stabilising growth is the trend for this year."

(Additional reporting by Jake Spring; Editing by Kim Coghill)

such is the mentality, that i would expect the chinese to do no more or less than what they think suits them best
unfortunately, as has been seen in various industries, that action can be "curious" ..... read that as you will, but i couldn't think of a polite phrase to say exactly what i think

put another way, devil and long spoon should be well remembered when doing business

http://order-order.com/2015/01/19/were-healthier-wealthier-and-longer-living/

Oxfam was complaining today that some people were too rich. Truth is globally, thanks to capitalism, we’re all getting richer.

Do you mean if I go to a Chinese Restaurant for a meal I have to be careful if I chose No 21 or No 52?

so probably is Oxfam's management, he said sourly

haha zebedee
more seriously and as a very simple example, the chinese have little or no regard for intellectual copyright

The future face of the tories!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/20/lord-mandelson-mansion-tax-labour-miliband

Lord Mandelson attacks Ed Miliband’s ‘crude’ mansion tax plans

Peter Mandelson has denounced the mansion tax, which will form a key part of Labour’s general election manifesto, as a “crude short term” measure that will clobber homeowners.

In a blow to Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, who aim to use £1.2bn raised from the mansion tax to help pay for a new £2.5bn “Time to Care” NHS fund, the former business secretary said his party should instead adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal for higher council tax bands.

Speaking on Newsnight on BBC2, Mandelson said he favoured finding new ways of taxing property in Britain. But he added: “I don’t happen to think that the mansion tax is the right policy response to that. I think it’s sort of crude, it’s sort of short-termist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11354717/Ed-Miliband-is-like-Francois-Hollande-business-leaders-warn.html

Ed Miliband is like Francois Hollande, business leaders warn

Business leaders warn that Ed Miliband will prove to be 'anti-business' if he wins the General Election

Ed Miliband will be like Francois Hollande and damage the economy with a series of "punitive" tax rises if he wins the next election, business leaders have warned.
Writing in the Financial Times, they warned that a future Labour government will prove to be "anti-business" and deter investors.

Guy Hands, the chief executive of private equity firm Terra Firma, said he was concerned that Mr Miliband will usher in a series of "punitive taxes on the City".
He said: "We could see the sort of tax rises that would have other international financial centres rubbing their hands with glee."

Manny Roman, chief executive of investment manager Man Group, said: "The UK election is a real risk. The Labour party is seen as very anti-business and investors fear a repeat of Hollande."

Such a lot of fuss about a character in Coronation Street soap. I never could watch it, due to the strange 'foreign' accents. I did once go up there and couldn't understand the locals. Anywhere that far up north is as different to London as Germany or anywhere abroad.

"Haystack Send an email to Haystack View Haystack's profile - 20 Jan 2015 10:33 - 55345 of 55350

http://order-order.com/2015/01/19/were-healthier-wealthier-and-longer-living/

Oxfam was complaining today that some people were too rich. Truth is globally,

thanks to capitalism, we’re all getting richer."

1) Which group does "We" refer to. (Ukraine ? Nigeria? Palestine? Iraq?.)

2) Which groups in society are getting richer more quickly?

3) How are you measuring "richer", do you mean Cash, Assets, Health, "Quality" of life?

4) Is the endless drive to make a quick buck and drive GDP up beginning to become a false "measure" for measuring a modern society, although still useful for "underdeveloped" societies.?

5) Are "possessions" such as a Ferrari the measurement of success or simply another form of trinket?

========

Umm.

Manuel,

Don't expect many answers