the absence of private demand makes government expenditure necessary. It repays itself by creating a stronger economy than would have otherwise been the case. For me that is the macro - non-household budget - reasoning. (1/13ish)

Making G contingent on a ultra low government rate of interest (ULGROI) seems household budget thinking: lower expenditure on interest payments is being portrayed as permitting the higher expenditure on G. (2/13)
All fine that this is permitting those who think in a household budget way (OBR, IFS etc) to support spending (or rather not prescribe austerity) but it is not the macro of the situation. (3/13)
As an aside I'd rather call out the household budget mob for prescribing austerity last time, not least in the week that the OECD publicly acknowledged austerity was overdone. Parotting their present argument seems to let them off the hook. (4/13)
As you know the low rate of interest - in advanced economies on government debt - is not a matter of chance but a consequence of a decade of reliance on QE and a wider global retreat from risk. (5/13)
QE can fund the spending irrespective of the rate of interest. Though it seems more likely that the dominant factor in the present ultra low rate of interest is that the massive necessary spending is near overfunded by QE (i dont have the exact numbers to hand). (6/13)
I don't know if this is desirable and the ultra low rate sensible. (7/14)
For one when central banks reign in QE, rates will start to rise and fiscal hawks will call a halt (and of course there are already steps in this direction, eg (8/13) https://t.co/waPYsjn2pc
your call for yield curve control gets round this, and would provide a more concrete basis for policy towards the long term rate. And would better align fiscal and monetary policy, likely taking back some initiative from the BoE (9/13)
But on top of this we have the wider questions about risk. As others have argued the complex interplay between ultra low government rates + QE is (or has been) fostering investment in riskier assets on a global basis. (10/13)
This is likely yet another - very big - bubble, and indicative of a wider global disarray - rooted in the underlying demand for high returns that has characterised global rentier capitalism for four decades - and this is far from resolved. (11/13)
Rather than celebrating the ultra low rate at home we should be regarding it as symptomatic of this disarray and be addressing the system as a whole. I regard dear money from the 1980s as fundamental to this disarray, but I hope you know that. (12/13)
Hence the linked piece yesterday, tho admittedly the relation was likely not obvious (am lazy on twitter). Hope clarified. Would like to debate properly. (13/13 - yay!)
https://t.co/J5ZKRi3wYZ

More from For later read

Ester Ranzen/ Childline/BBC/Saville/Mandelson 👀👇


1. 'MYSTERIOUS ESTHER RANTZEN' ..2017
https://t.co/aBsJL2Avqd


2. (Let's This Party Started) Keith Vaz and Ester Ranzen.


3. 'BBC'S ESTHER RANTZEN LINKED TO ELM GUEST HOUSE' https://t.co/a064KgW8LJ


4. Esther Rantzen is quizzed about Jimmy Savile - 2012
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
कुंडली में 12 भाव होते हैं। कैसे ज्योतिष द्वारा रोग के आंकलन करते समय कुंडली के विभिन्न भावों से गणना करते हैं आज इस पर चर्चा करेंगे।
कुण्डली को कालपुरुष की संज्ञा देकर इसमें शरीर के अंगों को स्थापित कर उनसे रोग, रोगेश, रोग को बढ़ाने घटाने वाले ग्रह


रोग की स्थिति में उत्प्रेरक का कार्य करने वाले ग्रह, आयुर्वेदिक/ऐलोपैथी/होमियोपैथी में से कौन कारगर होगा इसका आँकलन, रक्त विकार, रक्त और आपरेशन की स्थिति, कौन सा आंतरिक या बाहरी अंग प्रभावित होगा इत्यादि गणना करने में कुंडली का प्रयोग किया जाता है।


मेडिकल ज्योतिष में आज के समय में Dr. K. S. Charak का नाम निर्विवाद रूप से प्रथम स्थान रखता है। उनकी लिखी कई पुस्तकें आज इस क्षेत्र में नए ज्योतिषों का मार्गदर्शन कर रही हैं।
प्रथम भाव -
इस भाव से हम व्यक्ति की रोगप्रतिरोधक क्षमता, सिर, मष्तिस्क का विचार करते हैं।


द्वितीय भाव-
दाहिना नेत्र, मुख, वाणी, नाक, गर्दन व गले के ऊपरी भाग का विचार होता है।
तृतीय भाव-
अस्थि, गला,कान, हाथ, कंधे व छाती के आंतरिक अंगों का शुरुआती भाग इत्यादि।

चतुर्थ भाव- छाती व इसके आंतरिक अंग, जातक की मानसिक स्थिति/प्रकृति, स्तन आदि की गणना की जाती है


पंचम भाव-
जातक की बुद्धि व उसकी तीव्रता,पीठ, पसलियां,पेट, हृदय की स्थिति आंकलन में प्रयोग होता है।

षष्ठ भाव-
रोग भाव कहा जाता है। कुंडली मे इसके तत्कालिक भाव स्वामी, कालपुरुष कुंडली के स्वामी, दृष्टि संबंध, रोगेश की स्थिति, रोगेश के नक्षत्र औऱ रोगेश व भाव की डिग्री इत्यादि।