Rachel Reeves Faces Mounting Pressure Pound falls and Rising Borrowing Costs

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, gearbox said:

Cheap labour in East Asia....this was the case many years ago. These countries lead in the implementation of robots, China is deploying more than half of the robots in the world in recent years.

 

The reasons for their success is very simple - they study and work harder, and the governments have policies to promote this.

 

   Robots have an unfair advantage though , they can study and work harder because they don't have to sleep 

[The Cyclist]

26 minutes ago, mokwit said:

The question is what does China get in return?. China only acts in it's own interest. (Disclosure: I thought of this all by myself so don't have a link to post).

 

That will be the £600 million question. The certainly will not be doing anything for the benefit of the UK.

 

28 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I'm sure the Chinese negotiators were no match for someone of Rachel Reeves calibre [sarcasm].

 

I hear you 😀😀😀

 

29 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I found a link from a "credible" source that details some of the other concerns 🤣

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-economy-crisis-china-b2677818.html

 

I think we can dismiss the link as Tory rants 😀😀😀

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, mokwit said:

Perhaps this is exactly what the market is scared of and why the risk premium to in invest in Gilts has increased.

 

Who knows best, People who run billions of dollars or Rachel Reeves?

 

I don't have a link, as the above is my own thoughts. You do understand how that works? Perhaps not.

 

The interest rates on UK guilts is also linked to the rate at which the Bank of England (not the Government) is selling the guilts issued by Labour during the 2008 financial crisis and by the Tories during COVID.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

That will be the £600 million question. The certainly will not be doing anything for the benefit of the UK.

 

 

I hear you 😀😀😀

 

 

I think we can dismiss the link as Tory rants 😀😀😀

Hang on a minute, trade deals with China will certainly not be doing anything to benefit the UK?

 

So what was that ‘We’ll be able to make trade deals with the rest of the world’ a about?

[mokwit]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The interest rates on UK guilts is also linked to the rate at which the Bank of England (not the Government) is selling the guilts issued by Labour during the 2008 financial crisis and by the Tories during COVID.

 

 

Sorry, I am unable to decipher this, what point are you trying to make? Do you know anything about how Gilts are sold?

 

Do you understand the difference between how new Gilt issues are priced and how existing Gilts are priced?

 

I suppose you will just have to insult me if you can't answer.

 

Here, chomp on this ( I had to). it's only 936 pages for the latest edition, down from over 1,000. We expect a full summary by tomorrow morning.

https://www.amazon.com/Bond-Markets-Analysis-Strategies-tenth-dp-026204627X/dp/026204627X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

 

Gilts not Guilts (Freudian slip because you also can see what calamity Labour have caused?).

 

Seem to be picking up a pattern in your writing. is there more than one Chomper Higgot using this account?

[James105]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The interest rates on UK guilts is also linked to the rate at which the Bank of England (not the Government) is selling the guilts issued by Labour during the 2008 financial crisis and by the Tories during COVID.

 

 

 

So they are linked to profligate spending then.  The idiot ex customer services rep has wasted tens of billions on pay rises for public sector buddies without asking for productivity improvements, given Mad Ed Milliband tens of billions to spaff away on net zero idiocy and other wasteful spending and has net zero plans for growth to cover this expenditure after implementing an anti-growth budget.  Her options now are to raise taxes which will cause growth to go backwards even further into recession or to cut spending as the markets see a Labour government as high risk so want higher interest rates for borrowing.   

 

Are you ready to admit that it is not looking very good and even the Tory morons were better than this clown show?  

[The Cyclist]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hang on a minute, trade deals with China will certainly not be doing anything to benefit the UK?

 

£120 million a year over the next 5 years from China does absolutely nothing when your debt repayments have just jumped by £1.5 Billion a month.

 

Now Professor clueless, show your working as to how this benefits the UK.

And if you cannot do that, now might be a good time to accept that you are indeed clueless, and that you might be better giving the keyboard back to a responsible adult.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

So they are linked to profligate spending then.  The idiot ex customer services rep has wasted tens of billions on pay rises for public sector buddies without asking for productivity improvements, given Mad Ed Milliband tens of billions to spaff away on net zero idiocy and other wasteful spending and has net zero plans for growth to cover this expenditure after implementing an anti-growth budget.  Her options now are to raise taxes which will cause growth to go backwards even further into recession or to cut spending as the markets see a Labour government as high risk so want higher interest rates for borrowing.   

 

Are you ready to admit that it is not looking very good and even the Tory morons were better than this clown show?  

I’m not sure how you blame the current chancellor for past Governments issuing gilts, and the BoE selling them off.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

12 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Gilts not Guilts. Seem to be picking up a pattern in your writing. is there more than one Chomper Higgot using this account?

 

Shift change at Labour HQ ?

[mokwit]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure how you blame the current chancellor for past Governments issuing gilts, and the BoE selling them off.

 

 

Can you please explain what you mean.This just seem like rubbish to me.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

£120 million a year over the next 5 years from China does absolutely nothing when your debt repayments have just jumped by £1.5 Billion a month.

 

Now Professor clueless, show your working as to how this benefits the UK.

And if you cannot do that, now might be a good time to accept that you are indeed clueless, and that you might be better giving the keyboard back to a responsible adult.

£120million a year is > £0 year.

 

Simple arithmetic not your thing. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

Can you please explain what you mean.This just seem like rubbish to me.

I mean precisely what I said.

 

Read it again until it sinks in.

 

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Shift change at Labour HQ ?

Somebody posted a picture of her at PMQT before she escaped to put one over the Chinese negotiators (joke). looking very haggard with a thousand yard stare.

[mokwit]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I mean precisely what I said.

 

Read it again until it sinks in.

 

If you are trying to link this to Truss and the BoE stepping in, that is not major factor to what is happening today. markets are FORWARD LOOKING, any market professional; will tell you that. You think it is static just as Labour think the economy is static.

 

With regard to your other "point" about BoE selling. Yes the BoE may step into the market to buy or sell, but it cannot sell Gilts held to maturity by institutions. It can't sell bonds it doesn't own because it already sold them, unless it bought them back from the market.

 

Nothing to sink in, stop trying to pretend you have superior knowledge when you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

9 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Somebody posted a picture of her at PMQT before she escaped to put one over the Chinese negotiators (joke). looking very haggard with a thousand yard stare.

 

Yes, it was me

 

I marked as " This is the look when you realise that you have just made a monumental ***up.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

£120million a year is > £0 year.

 

Simple arithmetic not your thing. 

 

I'm sure that makes sense in your befuddled head

 

It certainly bears no resemblance to what I posted or what you quoted

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, mokwit said:

If you are trying to link this to Truss and the BoE stepping in, that is not major factor to what is happening today. markets are FORWARD LOOKING, any market professional; will tell you that. You think it is static just as Labour think the economy is static.

 

With regard to your other "point" about BoE selling. Yes the BoE may step into the market to buy or sell, but it cannot sell Gilts held to maturity by institutions. It can't sell bonds it doesn't own because it already sold them, unless it bought them back from the market.

 

Nothing to sink in, stop trying to pretend you have superior knowledge when you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

I didn’t mention Truss.

 

 

[mokwit]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t mention Truss.

 

 

Well, clarify what you were alluding to then when you said "past Governments", or is this 'I didn’t mention Truss.' just an evasion tactic?

 

Strictly speaking it would have been the Chancellor, not Truss, but YOU said Government not Chancellor.

 

So: I repeat, what were you alluding to if not the Truss govt mini budget and its effect on the bond market. What were you alluding to with your reference of past Government if not that?

 

i think I would rather wait until a higher grade Chomper takes over the account, it seems we have a very junior Chomper using it at the moment.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Well, clarify what you were alluding to then when you said "past Governments", or is this 'I didn’t mention Truss.' just a tactic?

 

Strictly speaking it would have been the Chancellor, not Truss, but YOU said Government not Chancellor.

 

So: I repeat, what were you alluding to if not the Truss govt mini budget and its effect on the bond market. What were you alluding to with your reference of past Government if not that?

 

i think I would rather wait until a higher grade Chomper takes over the account, it seems we have a very junior Chomper using it at the moment.

I already stated in an earlier post which Governments and under which circumstances.

 

You responded to that post.

 

Perhaps without reading it

[mokwit]

28 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Shift change at Labour HQ ?

You can often tell it is a corporate or Government account because the Junior people manning the account are not allowed to post their own answers - so you get a cut and paste of the nearest "approved" answer/talking point - "an" answer not "the" answer as per those infuriating corporate "service" departments "answers". It seems posting approved links is allowed by this account.

[mokwit]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I already stated in an earlier post which Governments and underwear circumstances.

 

You responded to that post.

 

Perhaps without reading it

"underwear" circumstances" what is going on here with these types of mistakes - are you a non native English speaker or a poorly trained AI bot?

 

So why can't you just tell me which Government and "underwear" circumstances, or link to the post - I don't recall any such identification/explanation. Is this an evasion tactic in the hope I will go away? I won't.

 

I think I would be better off waiting until a more senior Chomper is manning the account. Are  you the Chomper who made alot of money under Tony Blair or the one who put milk in his tyres when bicycle racing in California?

 

 

[The Cyclist]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I already stated in an earlier post which Governments and underwear circumstances.

 

Wow, saved for posterity

 

I think that ' Outs ' the @Chomper Higgot account, for what it is.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, mokwit said:

"underwear" circumstances" what is going on here with these types of mistakes - are you a poorly trained AI bot?

 

So why can't you just tell me which Government and "underwear" circumstances, or link to the post - I don't recall any such identification/explanation. Is this an evasion tactic in the hope I will go away? I won't.

 

I think I would be better off waiting until a more senior Chomper is manning the account. Are  you the Chomper who made alot of money under Tony Blair or the one who put milk in his tyres when bicycle racing in California?

 

 

Go back and read my post in which I state which Governments and under which circumstances.

 

Oh and thanks for your spell checking, you do have your uses.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Wow, saved for posterity

 

I think that ' Outs ' the @Chomper Higgot account, for what it is.

For your reference:

 

“Rachel Reeves Faces Mounting Pressure Pound falls and Rising Borrowing Costs”

[mokwit]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go back and read my post in which I state which Government and underwear circumstances which circumstances.

 

Oh and thanks for your spell checking, you do have your uses.

Post it here. I'm not going back looking for a post that might not be there because you are sending me on a wild goose chase as an evasion tactic.

 

POST IT HERE OR EXPLAIN WHICH GOVERNMENT AND WHICH "UNDERWEAR CIRCUMSTANCES" YOU ARE A B*LL<deleted>TER.

 

Btw nobody types "underwear" rather than "under what" circumstances, unless there is something wrong. I think Sigmund Freud, with his "slips" would be able to make something of this.

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

For your reference:

 

“Rachel Reeves Faces Mounting Pressure Pound falls and Rising Borrowing Costs”

The discussion has evolved as it is entitled to do.

 

We obviously have "tactics" Chomper rather than "links" Chomper on this thread now. No answers, only deflection tactics.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Post it here. I'm not going back looking for a post that might not be there because you are sending me on a wild goose chase as an evasion tactic.

 

POST IT HERE OR EXPLAIN WHICH GOVERNMENT AND WHICH "UNDERWEAR CIRCUMSTANCES" YOU ARE A B*LL<deleted>TER.

 

Btw nobody types "underwear" rather than "under what" circumstances, unless there is something wrong. I think Sigmund Freud, with his "slips" would be able to make something of this.

Foul language and personal attacks in one single post.

 

 

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Foul language and personal attacks in one single post.

 

 

Oh, of course so that is why you can't provide the post/link. Just a deflection tactic.