Gordon acts against savers again........

miserable_ol_so_n_so

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

.......... basically RBS are saying that savers should be paying (in the form of reduced interest rates) for the bankers mistakes & the profligacy of consumers (who are so feeble that they couldn't resist the offers of, what were at the time, very cheap loans to fund their aspirational lifestyle choices).

.

I as a pensioner and a saver, rely on interest earned. I have moved my savings from natwest, because this bank is going to penalise savers. On the whole, I think the govt has not handled the crisis properly. Why, if the aim was to stimulate the economy by getting people to buy something, anything, they should have sent money in the post to each and every hosehold, instead giving the billions to banks. Thepeople would have spent it, the shopkeepers would be happy, the delivery people, the postmen, factory workers, and the money spent would have eventually got to the banks. Trickled up as it were.Benefitting everyone at every stage. Hell, even the govt would have benefitted in VAT receipts alone!

Lynt_3

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

I as a pensioner and a saver, rely on interest earned. I have moved my savings from natwest, because this bank is going to penalise savers. On the whole, I think the govt has not handled the crisis properly. Why, if the aim was to stimulate the economy by getting people to buy something, anything, they should have sent money in the post to each and every hosehold, instead giving the billions to banks. Thepeople would have spent it, the shopkeepers would be happy, the delivery people, the postmen, factory workers, and the money spent would have eventually got to the banks. Trickled up as it were.Benefitting everyone at every stage. Hell, even the govt would have benefitted in VAT receipts alone!

what a great idea

ManAtHome

Aegis wrote: »

Sounds like they (like most others in the industry and outside, for that matter) didn't realise the shear size of the problem that arose because of adverse credit. I wouldn't say this means they were working against the economy, they just didn't appreciate quite how big an effect this would have. I'd say they're in fairly good company as far as that goes.

I think it was more to do with their remit - the effect on inflation which was minimal at the time (mainly due to the China effect, the internet effect, the cheap dosh effect, and the Polish plumber effect).

Before "independence day" they could influence the amount of credit in the system by changing capital adequacy ratios - Troosers shifted that to somewhere between the Treasury and the FSA who did nothing (and I don't think either of them is sure where responsibility is even now...).

donnykebab

Aegis wrote: »

They are independent, and they are looking at the best thing they can do for the economy in the medium to long term, and skepticism alone won't change that fact.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

MPC includes amongst other placemen:
'four external members appointed directly by the Chancellor'

Nick_C

MrLlama wrote: »

Last time I checked it wasn't Gordon Brown or any government official who set interest rates, its the bank of England. They set interest rates independent of what the government wants and based on what the overall economy needs!

Hear Hear. I believe that totally. I also believe in Father Christmas, and that this little economic downturn that we are going through - which is entirely down to things going on elsewhere in the world- will be over within a year.

GB is doing a fantastic job of running the country. So what if no one voted for him. Just proves we don't need elections. Lets abolish them all together, and keep Uncle Gordon protecting us for many decades to come.

And as for you filthy capitalists moaning that the interest on your savings is less than inflation, get out there and spend it while you have a chance, otherwise Uncle Gordon will take it from you and give it to the poor and needy.

RayWolfe

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

they should have sent money in the post to each and every hosehold, instead giving the billions to banks. Thepeople would have spent it, the shopkeepers would be happy, the delivery people, the postmen, factory workers, and the money spent would have eventually got to the banks.

Isn't that exactly what has happened? We had tax credit in October, pensioners are getting £60 in January, child tax credits have increased, pensioners tax allowance increased by around 2K in April, higher personal allowances are being continued and of course we all have an extra 2.5% of our vat-able spend left in out pocket every month.
So easy to concentrate on the negative and forget entirely all the positive. As for giving "billions to banks", what do you think would have happened to you savings had they not?
Incidentally I went shopping for Christmas presents yesterday. The place was heaving, no sign of restraint whatsoever ... and, after all that discretionary spending, there was even bigger signs of discretionary spending; the restaurants were packed.
No sign of the jam sandwiches being eaten in the bus shelter - the picture that you are painting in this thread!

nilrem_2

Nick_C wrote: »

So what if no one voted for him. Just proves we don't need elections. Lets abolish them all together,

AFAIAA Gordon Brown was elected MP for the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeat constituency where at the last election he received a 58% share of the vote.
We don't elect Prime ministers as such and many previous PM's have obtained office without getting there by way of an election, I believe the previous one was John Major who followed Mrs Thatcher.

nilrem_2

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

Why, if the aim was to stimulate the economy by getting people to buy something, anything, they should have sent money in the post to each and every hosehold, instead giving the billions to banks. Thepeople would have spent it,

I believe that they did this in the USA and it failed, people just placed the money in their savings account and did not spend it. :eek:

SGE1

donnykebab wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

MPC includes amongst other placemen:
'four external members appointed directly by the Chancellor'

What's your point?

a) Cynicism must be getting to you. Just because the Chancellor appoints 4 members, doesn't mean they represent his views on the MPC.

b) Even if that were the case, 9 people sit on the committee. The Government's alleged moles, therefore, wouldn't constitute a majority.

SGE1

RayWolfe wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what has happened? We had tax credit in October, pensioners are getting £60 in January, child tax credits have increased, pensioners tax allowance increased by around 2K in April, higher personal allowances are being continued and of course we all have an extra 2.5% of our vat-able spend left in out pocket every month.
So easy to concentrate on the negative and forget entirely all the positive. As for giving "billions to banks", what do you think would have happened to you savings had they not?
Incidentally I went shopping for Christmas presents yesterday. The place was heaving, no sign of restraint whatsoever ... and, after all that discretionary spending, there was even bigger signs of discretionary spending; the restaurants were packed.
No sign of the jam sandwiches being eaten in the bus shelter - the picture that you are painting in this thread!

Amen to that. I took a day off work yesterday to do some xmas shopping, and almost got smothered to death in the crowd.