Credit Action stats out for Dec

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Amazing how simply publishing some hard stats seems to rile the 'anti bear' faction :rolleyes2

Quite enlightening as to their mentality in posting here, really. Why debate when you can simply slag people off for talking about the issues?

I have not slaged you off or "anti-bear":rolleyes:

I have just questioned how the figures were split and how they were going up considering banks are not leanding (I know becuase it is posted on here daily;) )

Dithering_Dad

I must admit that I was also at a loss as to where anyone was slagged off (apart from people who had debt - they were slagged off a bit).

Hold on, I have mortgage debt! I AM BEING SLAGGED OFF!!

You rotters!

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

I have not slaged you off or "anti-bear":rolleyes:

I have just questioned how the figures were spit and how they were going up considering banks are not leanding (I know becuase it is posted on here daily;) )

My comments weren't directed at you. Although we've had bitter disagreements you have shown yourself open to debate and not solely interested in getting a dig in.

WTF?_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Amazing how simply pointing out that;

1) The debt appears to have actually fallen during the month.
2) That credit card lending fell if comparing the same month in previous years.

quicky generates the !!!!!! penchant for putting "smileys" in his posts and claiming that people are "slagging" him off. Where exactly where you "slagged off".

Is you definition of a debate you just lecturing people, while they nod along like the Churchill Dog ?

My definition of a debate is rational discussion of facts, not the oh-so-usual behaviour of jumping in with the sarky comments and personal asides from the usual suspects.

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

My comments weren't directed at you. Although we've had bitter disagreements you have shown yourself open to debate and not solely interested in getting a dig in.

I would not say bitter I am never bitter. Just like an open debate.
I am open to both sides. I just put ideas out there that may or may not be correct (the unsecured loans part for example) It may not be true but it is a reasonable assumption.

Dithering_Dad

Jimuth wrote: »

As Disraeli said.
Still do you not think the bullets at the end of the OP linky are worrying:



If you're happy about a culture where we're owing £7.20 more a day then that's your choice. I for one applaud !!!!!!'s posts for helping point me in the direction of the detail illustrating this "buy now, pay later" culture which could potentially fall around our ears. :T

I am happy about a culture where one person can voice opinions and other people can debate those opinions. Are you not?

People borrow money for all sorts of reasons. I have mentioned myself and my Dr. mate - both of which have borrowed money - are we part of the 'buy now and pay later' culture that you think will destroy society?

A tradesman who borrows money to buy himself a new van (say £20k) will use this van in his business and will generate far more money by using the van than what it cost, though obviously over a few years - are they adding to a 'buy now, pay later' culture that you think will destroy society?

Many people choose to buy a house on credit rather than spend decades saving up - are they part of the 'buy now, pay later' culture that you think will destroy society?

As I said before, just because people borrow money does not mean they're going to go broke and default on it. Also, when you buy something, that item has an intrinsic value so a £20k debt on a £20k car is probably only a £2k debt because the car has a resale value of £18k.

I hope this post has pointed you in the direction that you cannot rely on a single set of figures and should base your opinion on a wider factual range.

p.s. just so you know. !!!!!! didn't compile the statistics, he just posted them onto this thread. So when I say 'bare statistics like these are bollox', I am of course disagreeing with the compiler of the statistics, not the person who brought them to our attention. :rolleyes:

fc123

It would add up with what I have heard anecdotally. Small businesses that I am familiar with, who have had little debt over the years, are now getting into debt but through personal loans /CC....just to ''see them through'' STS.

Although my sister doesn't need/want any debt at the moment,, she could put her hands on around 80k tomorrow, unsecured if she chose....all sitting there on un-used cards.

Takes a lot longer for debt to be paid down than acquired...generally...so those paying down (like moi) haven't affected the figures too much.

kennyboy66_2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

My definition of a debate is rational discussion of facts, not the oh-so-usual behaviour of jumping in with the sarky comments and personal asides from the usual suspects.

Just let me know which personal asides I made in post #9 or post #12 and I will happily edit the post or delete it completely if it detracts from any rational debate.

To be honest, I am struggling to see any personal asides or slagging off in either of the posts.

Dithering_Dad

Really2 wrote: »

I would not say bitter I am never bitter. Just like an open debate.
I am open to both sides. I just put ideas out there that may or may not be correct (the unsecured loans part for example) It may not be true but it is a reasonable assumption.

I think that we're seeing someone 'muddy the waters' of the debate by introducing the 'anti-bear' and 'personal attack' drivel that simply does not exist in this thread.

This tactic is introduced often in an attempt to reduce a debate to an argument when it's not going his way.

Could everyone please ignore these divertionary tactics about 'personal attacks' and continue debating whether these debt statistics are actually meaningful?

Cheers!

kennyboy66_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I think that we're seeing someone 'muddy the waters' of the debate by introducing the 'anti-bear' and 'personal attack' drivel that simply does not exist in this thread.

This tactic is introduced often in an attempt to reduce a debate to an argument when it's not going his way.

Could everyone please ignore these divertionary tactics about 'personal attacks' and continue debating whether these debt statistics are actually meaningful?

Cheers!

Oh, I think the statistic are meaningful and clearly the growth of credit continually outstripping GDP growth (a better comparison may be earnings growth or GDP plus inflation) is unsustainable.

I am also puzzled why the BoE text states that lending increased, whereas the actual numbers point to a small decrease.

I would strongly suspect that we will see very little growth (or actually a contraction) in these figures over the next 12-18 months.

It also puts in context government attempts to inject money into the economy when you see the scale of additional borrowing over a year.

I would also love to see how much of each months increase is due to additional net spending as opposed to the compounding of rolled over interest.

Failing all of this I will just resort to snide remarks