Err, no matey, no

At its nadir, sterling had lost 30% of its value against both the dollar and the euro – that\’s amazing, considering that a devaluation of only 14% destroyed the Labour government\’s reputation for economic competence in the late 1960s.

There\’s a difference between being in a fixed exchange rate system and having to devalue and being in a floating exchange rate system and finding that the price changes.

As the Tories found out in 1992…..

6 comments on “Err, no matey, no

  1. But the thing is that while the 1% are rich by everyone else’s standards, they are not rich by the standards that rich people use themselves. To be in the 1%, in income terms, you have to earn – or, as the Socialist Worker has it, “earn” – £150,000 a year. That’s a lot, to most people’s way of thinking – but not to the way of thinking of the rich. I’ve asked quite a few people in the world of money, the kind of people who know properly seriously rich people, what counts are being properly, seriously rich. The consensus figure is that you need $100m. At that level, even the seriously rich agree that you are rich.

    Surely you’re not going to let this confusion between earnings and assets pass are you? At least I assume the $100 million is not a salary.

    Anyone with that amount of money is obviously way, way past the point where they will never have to think about any of their material needs, ever again.

    At least one Irish billionaire is now bankrupt.

  2. There’s a difference between being in a fixed exchange rate system and having to devalue and being in a floating exchange rate system and finding that the price changes.

    It is easier to cover up economic incompetence and mismanagement? Why should the Tory government in 1992 have survived? Didn’t idiocy of that scale deserve a sound thrashing? Which they got a little bit later.

  3. At that level, even the seriously rich agree that you are rich.

    I once heard it put that you are not truly rich if you know how much you will earn this year.

  4. “being in a floating exchange rate system and finding that the price changes”

    But you don’t believe it was simply ‘the price changes’. You’ve said a number of times that it was a deliberate devaluation (and that you think it was a good idea to do that).

  5. “a devaluation of only 14% destroyed the Labour government’s reputation for economic competence in the late 1960s.”

    I don’t think any British government had a reputation to destroy for economic competence in the late 1960s.

  6. My father had it right:
    ‘To be rich you need to live off not the interest, but the interest on the interest’

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.