Quote:

Yes, Brown did sell off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

Have you joined the Tory party, contracycle? Actually he only sold off half:

[...] Treasury minister Ian Pearson attempted to defend the gold sale. He said: "The gold sales between July 1999 and March 2002 reflected a prudent decision to reduce over-exposure to a single asset in the net reserves portfolio."

However official confirmation of the scale of the loss was severely criticised by the Conservatives, who claim that by signalling the gold sale in advance, the Government drove down the price of gold to a 20 year low.

Philip Hammond, shadow secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gold traders confirm that it was because the Government announced in advance that it was planning to sell such a large quantity of gold that the markets became depressed.

"The low price Gordon Brown got for selling our gold wasn't caused by bad luck. It was a staggering display of economic incompetence that has landed taxpayers with a £7 billion black hole."[...]

As a matter fact this loss pales into insignificance compared with the absurd action of the Thatcher government in 1984 to agree to, in 1997, give away Hong Kong Island and Kowloon to the People's Republic of China, absolutely for free.

What would those two territories be worth today? Trillions?

Originally Posted by contracycle

Whats that Lassie? Yes, Brown did sell off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market. After all, with boom and bust having been vanquished, and with ever-more inventive structures of mutual obligation preventing a crisis, there was no earthly reason that a government should do something so vulgar as to actually own assets. Not even, say, it's own hospitals. What sterling foresight, what heroic vision.

I can't possibly see what are the commonalities between gold and hospitals in terms of being "assets"...

But here's something to cheer you up: UK high-flyers should brace for bad news

Thu, 13 May 2010 08:33:00 GMT -- The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own -- By Neil Collins

LONDON, May 13 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Election first, manifesto afterwards. While there may be a Conservative prime minister in Downing Street, quite a few among the millions who voted for David Cameron will have a shock when they see the price they are paying for his pact with the more left-leaning Liberal Democrats.

Nobody seriously expected the current 18 percent rate for capital gains tax to last. But the plan to raise it to "rates similar or close to those applied to income" could imply a top rate of 50 percent. The question now is whether it will apply from the date of the emergency budget, promised for 50 days hence, or only from next year.

The Conservatives' crowd-pleasing pledge to raise the threshold for inheritance tax to a million pounds had already been downgraded to an aspiration. Now that's gone, at least for this parliament. Meanwhile, "unacceptable bonuses" in banking are to be subjected to "robust action".

High earners will also get thwacked by changes to income tax and National Insurance, a second income tax. Although there will be a "substantial increase" in the amount individuals can earn before they start paying tax, that will be focused on the lower paid. The give-away will be funded by increasing NI contributions from the better paid. The new effective top rate of tax will be 52 percent.

Tax credits for higher earners will also be reduced. Quite how the proposal will mesh with the impenetrable tangle of these credits that the last Labour government created is left for another day.

At least, those reaching 75 will no longer be obliged to buy an annuity with their pension pot, for which relief much thanks. The bankers are also spared the Lib Dems' "mansion tax" on their Chelsea homes, but the proposal to tax planes rather than passengers cannot be good news for their private jets. It's going to be even tougher at the top.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

I can't possibly see what are the commonalities between gold and hospitals in terms of being "assets"...

Gold can be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and so can hospitals. In fact they may be synergistic if harnessed together.

I'd say that's scrapping the bottom of the barrel but you'd make some comments about the mining industry...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.