Baroness Thatcher - Dead / RIP

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊







HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
If Thatchers government hadn't sold all the Silver Brown may not have sold the gold.

Thatcher sold the family silver to pay off the costs of the disastrous Labour policies of the 70s. Brown sold the gold to pay off the costs of his own disastrous policies.
 


Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
ma·jor·i·ty**
/məˈjôrətē/
Noun
The greater number: "in the majority of cases"; "a majority decision".
The number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other

So you've read the dictionary and posted the definition which supports what I've said. Was that an apology I heard?
 


KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
20,016
Wolsingham, County Durham
This has not been the case since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971; and the UK has not had a 'proper' gold standard (which is the term for having a currency supported by a hoard of gold) since 1931 (Bretton Woods tied sterling to the dollar, and the US at that time were willing to exchange dollars directly for gold).

There's been a (primarily academic) discussion about the role of fiat currency (the current system, where central banks print as much money as they like) in the financial/economic crisis and how alternative systems might work (or otherwise). But as of yet no country (to my knowledge) has been brave enough to try. There is an argument that Bitcoins (or at least the model behind them) might become a viable alternative, although with no intrinsic value (beyond what people are willing to pay for them) and a limited supply its difficult to see a mainstream future for them.

My Uncle was heavily involved in setting up the IMF and World Bank after the war, as a representative of the Bank of England. Not entirely sure when though as he was still fighting when the Bretton Woods conference was held. Just thought I would throw that in as a bit of an aside.....
 


HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
This has not been the case since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971; and the UK has not had a 'proper' gold standard (which is the term for having a currency supported by a hoard of gold) since 1931 (Bretton Woods tied sterling to the dollar, and the US at that time were willing to exchange dollars directly for gold).

There's been a (primarily academic) discussion about the role of fiat currency (the current system, where central banks print as much money as they like) in the financial/economic crisis and how alternative systems might work (or otherwise). But as of yet no country (to my knowledge) has been brave enough to try. There is an argument that Bitcoins (or at least the model behind them) might become a viable alternative, although with no intrinsic value (beyond what people are willing to pay for them) and a limited supply its difficult to see a mainstream future for them.

The Gold Standard wasn't a term for having a currency supported by a hoard of gold. It was the term for the value of gold being the same around the world (for those in the Gold Standard), and each nation's currency being valued against that. Sterling came off the Gold Standard in 1931, as you say, meaning it no longer valued its currency against the Gold Standard of the world, but it still backed the value of Sterling against its own gold reserves. When we came off the Gold Standard, our currency became a floating currency, that is, its value went up and down in relation to other currencies, but its value was still backed up by our own gold. Brown sold the gold to increased the Bank of England's holdings in currency, but currencies are far less stable than gold, and critics have said that this action affected the global financial market. The money in our pockets is a representative thing. It represents the backup it has of the Bank of England's holdings, whether in gold, other currencies or bonds. If the value of any of those changes, that affects the value of the pound in our pocket.
 




hybrid_x

Banned
Jun 28, 2011
2,225
I think you need to check your facts there as I don't think you have got one right.

The govt borrow by issuing Gilts which are owned by all sorts of institutions including your pension fund if you have one. They don't borrow from high street banks I can assure you. If you are talking about other countries borrowing from the European Central Bank, well that is not really a bank. It's like the Bank of England for European countries and "owned" by those countries own national banks. There are no shady families benefiting from their loans.

the bank of england is not owned by the nation of gov - it is a private corporate central bank - calling it the bank of england is a trick. research the rothschilds and morgans a bit more....
 


somerset

New member
Jul 14, 2003
6,600
Yatton, North Somerset
So you've read the dictionary and posted the definition which supports what I've said. Was that an apology I heard?

Ha.... it contradicts your ramblings....never mind.
 


Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Ha.... it contradicts your ramblings....never mind.

Jesus H Christ...it does not. If only 40% voted for Thatcher, then 60% - the greater number - the majority - did not.

You do know 60 is a larger number than 40? This is primary school stuff.
 




The Gold Standard wasn't a term for having a currency supported by a hoard of gold. It was the term for the value of gold being the same around the world (for those in the Gold Standard), and each nation's currency being valued against that. Sterling came off the Gold Standard in 1931, as you say, meaning it no longer valued its currency against the Gold Standard of the world, but it still backed the value of Sterling against its own gold reserves. When we came off the Gold Standard, our currency became a floating currency, that is, its value went up and down in relation to other currencies, but its value was still backed up by our own gold. Brown sold the gold to increased the Bank of England's holdings in currency, but currencies are far less stable than gold, and critics have said that this action affected the global financial market. The money in our pockets is a representative thing. It represents the backup it has of the Bank of England's holdings, whether in gold, other currencies or bonds. If the value of any of those changes, that affects the value of the pound in our pocket.

You've got the early part of this rather the wrong way round. In 1931, under Bretton Woods, the UK fixed it's exchange rate with the US dollar. At the same time, the US guaranteed to fix the price of gold at $35 per ounce. Therefore, sterling could be converted into (US) gold. Technically, Bretton Woods was not a real gold standard - it was a standard for exchange rates.

Once the currency floated, you are right - money is effectively valued in accordance with the assets supporting it (including, but not limited to, gold, which is a relatively minor stake in the overall holding of the BoE).
 


User removed 4

New member
May 9, 2008
13,331
Haywards Heath
Jesus H Christ...it does not. If only 40% voted for Thatcher, then 60% - the greater number - the majority - did not.

You do know 60 is a larger number than 40? This is primary school stuff.
Since you're so positive that most of the population disliked thatcher can you give me a breakdown (percentage wise) of the amount of people who DIDN'T vote ,albeit through apathy or whatever ,who were anti thatcher ? It just strikes me that if she was as reviled as some on here claim then people would've been busting a gut to vote her out.
 


Since you're so positive that most of the population disliked thatcher can you give me a breakdown (percentage wise) of the amount of people who DIDN'T vote ,albeit through apathy or whatever ,who were anti thatcher ? It just strikes me that if she was as reviled as some on here claim then people would've been busting a gut to vote her out.

Exactly, I already asked but got no reply as to why the people who actually voted who weren't Tory didn't all vote for Labour as a protest rather than vote for the libs to remove the devil that was Thatcher.
 






seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,698
Crap Town
Thatcher sold the family silver to pay off the costs of the disastrous Labour policies of the 70s. Brown sold the gold to pay off the costs of his own disastrous policies.

It all goes around in circles , the next Government taking over will find out the country's finances are in a right mess when they examine the books. Ad infinitum
 


Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Exactly, I already asked but got no reply as to why the people who actually voted who weren't Tory didn't all vote for Labour as a protest rather than vote for the libs to remove the devil that was Thatcher.

You might as well ask why, if the majority supported Thatcher, the majority voted for someone else. That is actually relevant to the point at issue, whereas your question isn't.
 




You might as well ask why, if the majority supported Thatcher, the majority voted for someone else. That is actually relevant to the point at issue, whereas your question isn't.

But the majority didn't vote against her, they voted in favour of somebody else.

All depends on what spin you want to put on it.
 


User removed 4

New member
May 9, 2008
13,331
Haywards Heath
You might as well ask why, if the majority supported Thatcher, the majority voted for someone else. That is actually relevant to the point at issue, whereas your question isn't.

No,no,no you have stated that most of the POPULATION didn't like thatcher , I'd like to know how you can quantify this .
 








Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
60,115
The Fatherland
You don't actually vote in this country according to your location.

I think you can as long as you have not lived outside for 15 years.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top