£££- Inflation rate 4% -£££

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gideon should just be honest (!) and tell us that he's trying to inflate away the national debt.

It would be futile to exchange the one-off bonus of eroding the debt by inflation for a permanent increase in government spending as pensions, benefits and salaries all increase.

Going to spend some of my savings I think, providing a much needed boost to the economy.

Found out today that in the UK there are x7 more savers than borrowers.

The 7x statistic is oft quoted and always bollocks. There are 11.4 million mortgages in the UK.

There are a touch under 61 million people. Even if everyone was saving the figures don't add up.
 


Shares are too risky although have increased Pension contributions as more confident will get return over time.

I hadn't heard of Zopa until yesterday so may well check it out.

Erm pension companies invest in equities! And charge you for the privilege!

It would be futile to exchange the one-off bonus of eroding the debt by inflation for a permanent increase in government spending as pensions, benefits and salaries all increase.
...
The 7x statistic is oft quoted and always bollocks. There are 11.4 million mortgages in the UK.

There are a touch under 61 million people. Even if everyone was saving the figures don't add up.

Fair enough, not my figure, I saw it in an article I read today.

Even so, why should prudent savers be punished for reckless borrowing?
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, not my figure, I saw it in an article I read today.

Even so, why should prudent savers be punished for reckless borrowing?

I know it's not your figure. I've heard it dozens of times, usually after a rate cut, but it can't be right.

I don't think prudent savers hould be punished for reckless borrowing. However, we are where we are and we have to do what is best in the current circumstances.
 
Erm pension companies invest in equities!


Fair enough, not my figure, I saw it in an article I read today.

Even so, why should prudent savers be punished for reckless borrowing?

Ooops, you know what I mean though. To risky in the short term however more confident I'll get a return over time. Can also move to less risky option when I get a bit older.

I'd like a nice, simple ISA and Savings account with a resonable interest rate. Far easier and limited risk although apprciate rerun is never going to be great.
 
Ooops, you know what I mean though. To risky in the short term however more confident I'll get a return over time. Can also move to less risky option when I get a bit older.

I'd like a nice, simple ISA and Savings account with a resonable interest rate. Far easier and limited risk although apprciate rerun is never going to be great.

Yes agreed and I knew what you meant!

...
I don't think prudent savers hould be punished for reckless borrowing. However, we are where we are and we have to do what is best in the current circumstances.

Still the majority being punished by the reckless though.

I didn't max out on credit cards, mortgage etc.

Getting stung to correct the mistakes of 'experts' and their ridiculous risk models/lending criteria/dodgy accounting is taking the piss.
 
I know it's not your figure. I've heard it dozens of times, usually after a rate cut, but it can't be right.

I don't think prudent savers hould be punished for reckless borrowing. However, we are where we are and we have to do what is best in the current circumstances.

Reckless lending. I think a lot of ordinary punters were sold down the river by the banks, lending them far too much as a multiple of their earnings. This fueled the property price hike, which in turn fueled people remortgaging and spending.

It was a bubble and it was always going to burst. Fucked up the housing market and a lot of people's finances.

Luckily, I bought my house 20 years ago when prices were sensible.
 
Still the majority being punished by the reckless though.

I didn't max out on credit cards, mortgage etc.

Getting stung to correct the mistakes of 'experts' and their ridiculous risk models/lending criteria/dodgy accounting is taking the piss.

With rates at 0.5%, unemployment is rising, repossessions and insolvencies are still very high (although falling) and house prices are falling.

What alternative do you propose? Hike rates? I suspect the economy would fall off a cliff taking everybody (including savers) with it.
 
With rates at 0.5%, unemployment is rising, repossessions and insolvencies are still very high (although falling) and house prices are falling.

What alternative do you propose? Hike rates? I suspect the economy would fall off a cliff taking everybody (including savers) with it.

Steady rise in rates.

Historically low rates haven't helped when banks aren't lending money to SMEs.

Japan have had low rates for a decade and are fooked.

Falling house prices isn't really the end of the world is it? Unless you're not buying ever again or are basing your future on an inheritance.
 
Steady rise in rates.

They'll have to take all the QE money out of the economy first. That's not going to happen when the government is cutting spending.

Historically low rates haven't helped when banks aren't lending money to SMEs.

Well, yes. Low rates reduce the supply of money to the banks (from savings and bond sales, etc). They have less money to lend. Therefore they lend less money.

It was never about increasing lending it's about increasing spending.

Japan have had low rates for a decade and are fooked.

Japan has always had a huge savings rate and a massive positive balance of trade. Comparisons between the two might not yield much insight.

Falling house prices isn't really the end of the world is it? Unless you're not buying ever again or are basing your future on an inheritance.

You are quite right, of course, but I think it will make it a political impossibility.

I also mentioned unemployment and insolvency. Do you think they are not sufficiently important?
 
They'll have to take all the QE money out of the economy first. That's not going to happen when the government is cutting spending.
...
I also mentioned unemployment and insolvency. Do you think they are not sufficiently important?

Good reply mate you're obviously on the ball whereas I'm just a lay-person.

Re: unemployment and insolvency. They are the victims of laissez-faire economic policies as I understand it. Many people were vehement in their opposition of the c. 600k 'ersatz' public sector jobs created by New Labour so perhaps these will be the first to be affected. The UK unemployment rate is still relatively low compared to e.g. Spain and the US although this isn't much solace to those affected.

I don't have much experience re: insolvencies. If you're referring to personal ones then surely it's the effect of over-borrowing? I'd have thought that the banks/government could assist smaller companies from becoming insolvent although again I've never owned a business so don't understand the current scenario.
 
Good reply mate you're obviously on the ball whereas I'm just a lay-person.

Re: unemployment and insolvency. They are the victims of laissez-faire economic policies as I understand it. Many people were vehement in their opposition of the c. 600k 'ersatz' public sector jobs created by New Labour so perhaps these will be the first to be affected. The UK unemployment rate is still relatively low compared to e.g. Spain and the US although this isn't much solace to those affected.

I don't have much experience re: insolvencies. If you're referring to personal ones then surely it's the effect of over-borrowing? I'd have thought that the banks/government could assist smaller companies from becoming insolvent although again I've never owned a business so don't understand the current scenario.

Both corporate and personal insolvencies are high, although they are falling. Over-borrowing is one cause of insolvency but it is often a dramatic fall in income that is the root.

As I've said, I think it is unfair that the prudent are punished while the feckless are saved. I don't think we have an alternative just yet. Maybe later in the year.

The best cure we have is not to have fucked up in the first place but that bastard H.G.Wells lied to us.

We are where we are.
 
With rates at 0.5%, unemployment is rising, repossessions and insolvencies are still very high (although falling) and house prices are falling.

What alternative do you propose? Hike rates? I suspect the economy would fall off a cliff taking everybody (including savers) with it.

It's going to with these c.unts in charge.
 
Ill eat my hat if it ever hits the target of 2% in the next few years. At least huge increases in unemployment will reduce demand.

The problem is that it's fuel and food that is pushing up inflation. They talk about wage cuts, benefit cuts, cuts left, right and centre but people won't be able to live unless something is done about prices.

Both corporate and personal insolvencies are high, although they are falling. Over-borrowing is one cause of insolvency but it is often a dramatic fall in income that is the root.

As I've said, I think it is unfair that the prudent are punished while the feckless are saved. I don't think we have an alternative just yet. Maybe later in the year.

The best cure we have is not to have fucked up in the first place but that bastard H.G.Wells lied to us.

We are where we are.

Your talking about the poorest who are certainly not prospering. Their money is spoken for before they get it, council rents up 8% an attempt to help the buy to rent brigade.
The whole mess is a result of what took place in money and banking in the 1980s. We know who presided over that.

The prudent are they the tax avoiders? Of course that's alright.
 
Your talking about the poorest who are certainly not prospering. Their money is spoken for before they get it, council rents up 8% an attempt to help the buy to rent brigade.
The whole mess is a result of what took place in money and banking in the 1980s. We know who presided over that.

I'm not quite sure why you quoted my post before writing this shit since none of it is related to anything I wrote.

The prudent are they the tax avoiders? Of course that's alright.

No, the millions of ordinary people who save a portion of their income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top