Downturn points to cut in rates

boyse7en

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Two can play at that game. I demand you answer my hypothetical pointless question first:

If wood chuck could chuck wood, how many woods would a wood chuck chuck?

I'm surprised Realy and Chucky haven't pulled you up on this yet...
It should be:-
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

OK breaktime's over. Back to the pointless, hypothetical bickering everyone.:D

Realy

And we wonder what happened yesterday. !!!!!! you are an embaresment.

For some one who professes great financial knowlage you turn a simple question in to folly to avoid answering because the answer goes against what you state as FACT.

Plus you bring in a load of other people to take the thread off topic.

I really can't take anything you say seriously now and I am sure most others cant either.

I never had you down as a bottler but there you go.

WTF?_2

JoJil wrote: »

Do you also post under the user name of DitheringDad?

Yes - bit of a giveaway I thought.

Still, it solves the mystery of whose hand is up the sock.

StevieJ

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Is that the overnight rate - what about the 3 and 12 month rates then?


My point was that LIBOR decoupled from base rates well over a year back.

http://www.bba.org.uk/content/1/c6/01/06/58/BBA_LIBOR_Graphs_070907.pdf

As is plain, the 3 and 12 month rates really started to pull away around August 2007.

None so blind as those that cannot see.
It does say 3mth libor.

WTF?_2

StevieJ wrote: »

None so blind as those that cannot see.
It does say 3mth libor.

Indeed it does. No need to shout, it's just the internet.

Realy

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Yes - bit of a giveaway I thought.

Still, it solves the mystery of whose hand is up the sock.

Oh grow up at least DD will admit when he is wrong, or answer a question

6th time
Still have not answered the question!!!!!!!

If interest rates were 15% (during the last 5 years) and the money was still lent to people with no job at 130% do you think we would not be in the same mess?:rolleyes:

pickles110564

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Indeed it does. No need to shout, it's just the internet.

!!!!!!? what do you think bank rate will go down to this month?

Turnbull2000

Realy wrote: »

100% and + is madness as it is clear you can't afford it.

I disagree. 100% (but not above) mortgages are much needed for those in the rental trap and perfectly able to manage their finances. The ability to provide a deposit does not always reflect the ability to service a mortgage.

chucky

Realy wrote: »

And we wonder what happened yesterday. !!!!!! you are an embaresment.

For some one who professes great financial knowlage you turn a simple question in to folly to avoid answering because the answer goes against what you state as FACT.

Plus you bring in a load of other people to take the thread off topic.

I really can't take anything you say seriously now and I am sure most others cant either.

I never had you down as a bottler but there you go.

i think that's a bit light. he's been at it for months and months.

let me try and ask the question even though i asked it 4 times yesterday and he either came back with another question or decided to ramble on about something else totally different...

!!!!!! this is the question...

are low rates and low levels of credit being offered to indivduals a good thing or bad thing for the economy?

WTF?_2

pickles110564 wrote: »

!!!!!!? what do you think bank rate will go down to this month?

I'd say the general expectation is that they'll cut by 0.5% tomorrow, and would agree with that.