3 ms·

It does seem like a recipe for high inflation. But I want to understand why they chose this combination? Why play such a big gamble? There has to be some logic

It does seem like a recipe for high inflation. But I want to understand why they chose this combination? Why play such a big gamble? There has to be some logic behind making this choice. But what is it? Were there other safer alternatives that they could have gone with? What could be the reasons for choosing this combination over those safer alternatives?

matthews2 4y ago
> What could be the reasons for choosing this combination over those safer alternatives? Corruption.
ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Almost anything else would have been safer. I've heard rumours about Kwarteng being involved with Hedge Funds that have now made a fortune by shorting the pound and to be honest, that makes more sense than any other explanation.
pjc50 4y ago
The logic seems to be that they wanted the financial benefits of reducing their tax bills, and those of their backers, and didn't care about any of the other consequenses. (There was some stated nonsense about reducing tax bills increasing growth, but trickle-down economics has never been proven to work and they weren't interested in that)
dinopete 4y ago
The logic is nothing to do with inflation and more about putting cash in the pockets of themselves and their donors.
Workaccount2 4y ago
They are trying to juice the economy with an adrenaline shot and hoping it still will work like it would in "normal" times.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
I don't see what you think is a gamble, Tories will get rich from this budget; the ever increasing borrowing of Tory governments is wrecking chances for future Labour (or PR, I hope) governments to fix that. It's win-win for Tories. No government with morals could do the sort of borrowing + tax cuts that the Tories are doing. That means down the line a moral government has to be austere and have higher taxes, and so the people will just vote in the Tories again. Only complete societal collapse will stop that cycle ... Ergo having a climate change denier in charge of business and energy is a good thing! /s
denton-scratch 4y ago
> But I want to understand why they chose this combination? My guess is scorched earth. BoJo is such a disaster that his own party had to remove him - and even that turned out to be a struggle (getting rid of leaders with challenged hair seems to have been a struggle lately on both sides of the pond). He became that unpopular. The crew that have replaced him have no chance of winning the next General Election; Truss has even said that she knows she's unpopular, and doesn't care. So by running up the debts, they set a minefield for the next Labour government, which will have no alternative but more austerity. So I guess the Tories are planning to win an election in 7 years time.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  Bingo! Keir Starmer wanted rid of BoJo because he would be hard to beat in a GE. Truss will be easy to beat but yes the damage she will cause. Was it really worth it? There just really isn't any win for Labour, or the British people.
theironhammer 4y ago
Ideology. Truss is a fanatic. An Ayn Randian Zealot. That's why. She co-wrote a manifesto Britannia Unchained. Her Chancellor was a co-writer.
nathanasmith 4y ago
My only guess is it's an attempt to tackle inflation by stimulating the supply side. That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with for the reasoning.

matthews2 4y ago

> What could be the reasons for choosing this combination over those safer alternatives? Corruption.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

Almost anything else would have been safer. I've heard rumours about Kwarteng being involved with Hedge Funds that have now made a fortune by shorting the pound and to be honest, that makes more sense than any other explanation.

pjc50 4y ago

The logic seems to be that they wanted the financial benefits of reducing their tax bills, and those of their backers, and didn't care about any of the other consequenses. (There was some stated nonsense about reducing tax bills increasing growth, but trickle-down economics has never been proven to work and they weren't interested in that)

dinopete 4y ago

The logic is nothing to do with inflation and more about putting cash in the pockets of themselves and their donors.

Workaccount2 4y ago

They are trying to juice the economy with an adrenaline shot and hoping it still will work like it would in "normal" times.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

I don't see what you think is a gamble, Tories will get rich from this budget; the ever increasing borrowing of Tory governments is wrecking chances for future Labour (or PR, I hope) governments to fix that. It's win-win for Tories. No government with morals could do the sort of borrowing + tax cuts that the Tories are doing. That means down the line a moral government has to be austere and have higher taxes, and so the people will just vote in the Tories again. Only complete societal collapse will stop that cycle ... Ergo having a climate change denier in charge of business and energy is a good thing! /s

denton-scratch 4y ago

> But I want to understand why they chose this combination? My guess is scorched earth. BoJo is such a disaster that his own party had to remove him - and even that turned out to be a struggle (getting rid of leaders with challenged hair seems to have been a struggle lately on both sides of the pond). He became that unpopular. The crew that have replaced him have no chance of winning the next General Election; Truss has even said that she knows she's unpopular, and doesn't care. So by running up the debts, they set a minefield for the next Labour government, which will have no alternative but more austerity. So I guess the Tories are planning to win an election in 7 years time.

theironhammer 4y ago
Bingo! Keir Starmer wanted rid of BoJo because he would be hard to beat in a GE. Truss will be easy to beat but yes the damage she will cause. Was it really worth it? There just really isn't any win for Labour, or the British people.

theironhammer 4y ago

Ideology. Truss is a fanatic. An Ayn Randian Zealot. That's why. She co-wrote a manifesto Britannia Unchained. Her Chancellor was a co-writer.

nathanasmith 4y ago

My only guess is it's an attempt to tackle inflation by stimulating the supply side. That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with for the reasoning.