New Debt Crisis

[Anna B]

Give us an alternative way of measuring it then...

 

There are lots of other ways, other averages. Even the Geni coefficient has several different measures. But statistics don't always tell the whole story and usually contradict each other.

 

"And meanwhile the divisions between the nations and regions of our country have grown larger.

In London we have the wealthiest region in Northern Europe: yet six of the ten poorest regions are here in the UK."

Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

How is that measured by the Geni-coefficient?

How much do discrepancies like that distort the overall statistics?

Sheffield's average wage is well below that of London. Is that taken into account?

 

This is about people, not numbers.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Anna B

[spilldig]

The nonsense that is our student loans system.

 

The Money Saving Expert site uses the term debt to describe the product multiple times in the page I posted.

 

The SLC describes it as a debt.

 

What MSE is really trying to say is it’s different to other forms of debt. That is true. I’m not disputing it.

 

One thing it definitely isnt is an official tax. It kind of behaves like one in some ways, but the entire edifice that underpins it is a loan book of debt accruing interest.

 

As I said earlier stop defending it. The system is a joke.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 19:18 ----------

 

 

Spectacular failure there in the context of this thread.

 

People often have these things because of willingness to take on excessive debt.

 

Not with the failure bit, but whether these things are on credit or not people are still living up to it and presumably they have enough income to pay it back because if not, the lender is not fit to be in business.

[truman]

There are lots of other ways, other averages. Even the Geni coefficient has several different measures. But statistics don't always tell the whole story and usually contradict each other.

 

"And meanwhile the divisions between the nations and regions of our country have grown larger.

In London we have the wealthiest region in Northern Europe: yet six of the ten poorest regions are here in the UK."

Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

How is that measured by the Geni-coefficient?

How much do discrepancies like that distort the overall statistics?

 

This is about people, not numbers.

 

"This claim’s source seems to be a poster from 2014 and the figures have changed since. In 2016, according to EU data, six of the UK’s regions were in the bottom ten according to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person when comparing against nearby countries.The EU’s statistics agency Eurostat says this is a measure of the economic development of regions, and doesn’t show how rich or poor people living in those regions are.

 

So this is more a measure of how rich regions are in general, rather than necessarily the people living in them."

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/does-uk-have-poorest-regions-northern-europe/

[Obelix]

No, because we've had the conversation before.

 

And better educated than me have said the Gini coefficient is not an accurate measure of anything.

 

As for 'rhetoric' there's a growing mass of people saying the same thing. I suggest you come out of your bubble, look around the real world. And listen.

 

We have havent we. Every time you complain that inequality is growing I get to point at the Gini coefficient that shows in fact that it is shrinking.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 16:42 ----------

 

"And meanwhile the divisions between the nations and regions of our country have grown larger.

In London we have the wealthiest region in Northern Europe: yet six of the ten poorest regions are here in the UK."

Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

How is that measured by the Geni-coefficient?

How much do discrepancies like that distort the overall statistics?

Sheffield's average wage is well below that of London. Is that taken into account?

 

This is about people, not numbers.

 

OK its measured by it because thats what it measures. No one is saying that the gini coefficient is zero. So there will be inequality... I appreciate this may be a difficiult concept for you but really tahts all the gini coeff does...

 

As for the Archbishop when did you decide that an ex banker was someone worth listening to. By your rhetoric he should be locked up right? So since you said before they are untrustworthy I'll consider him to be untrustworthy ok.

[Anna B]

We have havent we. Every time you complain that inequality is growing I get to point at the Gini coefficient that shows in fact that it is shrinking.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 16:42 ----------

 

 

OK its measured by it because thats what it measures. No one is saying that the gini coefficient is zero. So there will be inequality... I appreciate this may be a difficiult concept for you but really tahts all the gini coeff does...

 

As for the Archbishop when did you decide that an ex banker was someone worth listening to. By your rhetoric he should be locked up right? So since you said before they are untrustworthy I'll consider him to be untrustworthy ok.

 

No longer a banker, now a Christian and I think a good man. He talks a lot of sense, not just about this but on other issues too.

[Obelix]

No longer a banker, now a Christian and I think a good man. He talks a lot of sense, not just about this but on other issues too.

 

No you've made it perfectly clear that bankers are never to be trusted over the last few years, despite having almost no demonstrable knowledge of the banking system yourself. So I'll assume that you are doing you usual trick of making excuses for people who just happen to sing whatever view you want - like the way the BBC is always biased unless if proves your point for some reason.

 

So - back to the Gini coefficient. Do you understand how it works and how it quite simple distills household income spreads into a single value?

[Anna B]

Not with the failure bit, but whether these things are on credit or not people are still living up to it and presumably they have enough income to pay it back because if not, the lender is not fit to be in business.

 

But that's the problem, do they?

 

This seems to be a rerun of the subprime crash of 2008, when banks were lending mortgages to subprime (unsuitable) people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back. This made the banks look good on the balance sheet and they hoovered up their bonuses before the fat hit the fan.

 

When the chickens came home to roost and people defaulted on their loans in huge numbers, the banks went bust or had to be bailed out with quantattive easing.

 

The public have been paying the price ever since with low interst rates and austerity.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Anna B

[ez8004]

[/b]

 

But that's the problem, do they?

 

This seems to be a rerun of the subprime crash of 2008, when banks were lending mortgages to subprime (unsuitable) people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back. This made the banks look good on the balance sheet and they hoovered up their bonuses before the fat hit the fan.

 

When the chickens came home to roost and people defaulted on their loans in huge numbers, the banks went bust or had to be bailed out with quantattive easing.

The public have been paying the price ever since with low interst rates and austerity.

 

You mean living within our means?

[Anna B]

You mean living within our means?

 

No, I mean 0% interest and austerity.

 

The fact that some people have had to resort to borrowing just to live is worrying, but for some, necessary. And as for borrowing to pay for extravagant luxuries - well, have they learnt nothing?

[I1L2T3]

You mean living within our means?

 

It doesn’t quite work like that.

 

Austerity reduces aggregate demand in the economy.

 

The individual austerity measures create short and long term costs to the economy too.

 

Austerity can be counter productive.

 

In the context of this thread, for example a rise in cases of poor mental health creates strain on services and an increase in sick days. Services need more funds to cope, and sickness reduces productivity and potentially tax take. On an individual basis the propensity to fall into debt can become greater.

 

There are numerous scenarios where micro decisions accumulate into a wider macroeconomic effect. Neglected infrastructure another example.

 

It has always been the problem with major parties, and the Tories in particular. Policies are just not joined up across departments.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2018 at 00:45 ----------

 

Not with the failure bit, but whether these things are on credit or not people are still living up to it and presumably they have enough income to pay it back because if not, the lender is not fit to be in business.

 

You need to understand how banks lend, and what drives their policies and decisions.

 

If you look back at the run up to 2008 then your argument will mostly collapse. And if you look at what happened since then you will understand how little has changed

 

Lenders are not always responsible.