green Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Interesting article...and something of an eye opener...Wonder when that one will hit the general news programs? Its been bubbling for a while.... Bully Banks (the webbie for SME's) wont let it go. I believe there are a few interesting court cases proceeding aswell. SME's (small medium enterprises) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Stagnation!Entirely expected in the short-term, whilst the economy reboots at sustainable growth rates, i.e. not artificially boosted by never-never money. I do so wish insta-news 24/7 media would stop clamouring for overnight double-digit growth rates at the snap of magic No.10/No.11 fingers The 'system' got so borked, the IMF and central banks have had to get the shocking paddles out several times already, and the prognosis is pretty much still 'critical but stable', because the last tremors are still coursing (€ for the EU and the forthcoming "debt ceiling timebomb" deadline for the US). It's gonna take a long while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I wasn't being obtuse. All the things you outline are perfectly valid. But the nett result is stagnation. There's no money moving around anywhere!..People can't buy houses, people aren't spending on the high street...etc...etc....Stagnation! Stagnation with no inevitable bust is good, whilst another debt fuelled boom (growth) followed by an inevitable bust is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It wasn't an argument. You said something, and I don't think you were right. I think you missed the point but I'll not lose any sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Stagnation with no inevitable bust is good, whilst another debt fuelled boom (growth) followed by an inevitable bust is bad. But surely the economy will always go in cycles. We surely can't expect it to flat line forever? Case in point. The banks will no longer give 100% mortgages. Why? If they do as Loob suggests and make the proper checks on income, so that it's blindingly obvious that the customer 'can' afford the repayments. Then why not lend the money?...But what do first time buyers get now?...A minimum of 20% deposit. Which is a huge lump of money. Beyond most first time buyers reach. In the full knowledge that they can claw that 20% off the buyer at the drop of a hat if things go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 But surely the economy will always go in cycles. We surely can't expect it to flat line forever?Besides the fact (factable fact ) that the economy has always and will indeed always go in cycles (of higher or lower amplitudes)...it was not flat-lining before the credit explosion of the early noughties. It was growing, albeit at a sustainable rate far removed from the stratospheric (artificially-propelled) heights achieved through the injection of 'toxic' credit. The banks will no longer give 100% mortgages. Why? If they do as Loob suggests and make the proper checks on income, so that it's blindingly obvious that the customer 'can' afford the repayments. Then why not lend the money?They do lend the money. Case in point: we got a mortgage in late 2009 as FTBs. On a single wage, at less than 3 times multiple. Many, many other people have been obtaining mortgages without difficulty since 2008. Just not as many as before 2008, due to more strenuous checks. By the same token, those who obtained 'toxic'-like mortgages (90+%, interest-only, etc.) on the run up to that time (artificial salaries, exaggerated multiples) have admittedly found the going tough since, at the time of renewing mortgages. This is all documented ad nauseam on the web, old news. ...But what do first time buyers get now?...A minimum of 20% deposit. Which is a huge lump of money. Beyond most first time buyers reach.Hasn't that always been the case/norm before the days of 90+% or interest-only mortgages? And there's your "property bubble" (which has yet to pop in the UK) neatly summed up (guess what? It goes in cycles too!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larky Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 What parts? The only way to make substantial savings is to cut pensions. Perhaps cut the state pension to £56.25 per week. Keep winter fuel and get rid of bus passes. Cut public sector pay and pensions across the board. Abolish foreign aid. I agree with some of the above, apart from cutting out the state pension as this country need to do more to help the poor in society and take more from the rich Although as for bus passes as i know a few folks with bus passes and one guy in particular showed me his and sais you should try and get one of these ..he carried on saying he had it for years and goes all over with the visiting many pubs in all parts of Scotland with his bus pass smiling as he sais it, and he is on Disability Living Allowance for depression and alcoholism , told me he went to his Doc pi-s-d etc has been on the sick for many yrs and not on Incapacity benefit but the higher Disability benefit allowance and with a bus pass I feel only folks whom genuinely cant walk, and say in a wheelchair should be allowed bus passes when under 65 yrs of age ..the guy above story he can walk no problems as nothing at all wrong with his physicality Oaps should have bus passes but should be made to pay something for each journey made, as should the genuinely disabled say for instance 10 pence per mile then they are paying something in fares, but not too much But as for beer in pubs i feel the unemployed should get so much off the price of these expensive pints ..id say if out of work which nowadays is through no fault of your own , as there is no jobs then a guy whoms wife say likes a we break in the house and likes to see her man have a night out once a week which is only right then a guy should get £1 of the price of his pint then say 10 pints saves a total if he is out of work of £ 10.00 for his night out .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 But as for beer in pubs i feel the unemployed should get so much off the price of these expensive pints ..id say if out of work which nowadays is through no fault of your own , as there is no jobs then a guy whoms wife say likes a we break in the house and likes to see her man have a night out once a week which is only right then a guy should get £1 of the price of his pint then say 10 pints saves a total if he is out of work of £ 10.00 for his night out .. Oh dear, there's always one! Subsidised beer for the unemployed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larky Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Subsidised beer for the unemployed yes for the Scots Ye Pete ^^ I heard that when Scotland is Independant this is going to be happening Ps ..I cant wait and you guys South of the border shall be drooling with envy from us Bonnie Scots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Ye Pete ^^ I heard that when Scotland is Independant this is going to be happening Ps ..I cant wait and you guys South of the border shall be drooling with envy from us Bonnie Scots I guess that will mean reintroduction of university student fees, then? I hate to break it to you, but your stipend from Westminster is not increasing anytime soon, and last I checked they still had not found a money-growing tree anywhere north o'the border, so you're gonna have to take that 'free' beer money from some other poor sap in the scot budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.