City taken by surprise as Bank of England’s figures herald end of recession

Really2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

unlike chucky and really2, very few of your posts show any form of intellect whatsoever -

Dam, I have been trying to hide it under a sea of spelling errors and bad grammar.

cogito

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

the only way we as a country will turn our economy around is to get the economy moving again. get back into growth and people start to spend again, businesses grow, tax revenues rise. We have read so much about the size of the UK's debt and how - as Cameron put it yesterday - we're likely to default, and yet they are all based on recession forever. Move to recovery and see government bills decline and government revenues rise. That spending deficit doesn't seem as set in stone as has been made out. Then add in the vast billions to be recovered from selling our banking industry back to private owners, and things look even better.

Remember that Darling forecasted growth from Q4 this year. How he was ridiculed as being completely out of touch from the reality of the mess. Now we have the Bank of England forecasting growth a full quarter earlier and the government knockers are busily wanting to know why the UK isn't experiencing the same early growth - something that 12 months ago they described as ludicrous to even consider - being experienced in France and Germany.

He also said that there wasn't going to be a recession and built his budget around continuing growth.

Thrugelmir

the.ciscokid wrote: »

My point is the government are still spending at record levels, and pumping money through QE into the banks (having already bought up all their TOXIC debt). The banks have used this to balance their books and invest in the stock markets (hence the recent growth in the FTSE etc).

The Government is insuring the toxic debt, it hasn't bought it. The banks are/will pay a premium for the cover and incur an excess on the first defaults before the insurnace kicks in. No agreement has been reached with LLoyds yet though.

The banks don't invest in the FTSE. They've kept cash on their balance sheets. The pension funds and life assurers would have been buying equities. As thats where the initial QE was focused in buying in bonds.

Dan:_4

July's deficit was 8 BILLION for gods sake, that is over a factor of 10 away from where it was supposed to be and a pretty hideous figure. We are going to be budget reducing and tax raising all the way through the next government to sort this out.

All the pain is around the corner. Much better if the government took a little more pain now and make the job next year that much easier. Not going to happen though is it with the Tories guaranteed to get elected. You bulls are all so short sighted.[/QUOTE]

The last hope you bears [and HPC.co.uk bears] is that everything will be 'okay' after the next election. By 'okay' I mean that the house price crash continues, as it seems that 20-25% is not enough to enable some to buy. I can't see the Torys coming to your rescue, as there policies are no different to Labour.

In terms of house prices we are already 7.5% above where we were in Feburary, so if we have another 10% fall [unlikely] then it will only be 2 or 3% lower then 6 months ago.

wolvoman

Dan: wrote: »

:rotfl:

Your the pr*ck if anyone is. For the record, im not that far off earning 50k and there is no chance of me getting into negative equity.

You can target my typo if you like, as you have nothing left to argue with.

What's with all the willy waving?

There will always be someone earning more than you. Always.


I know colleagues of mine on way over £100k a year who haven't even bought their first homes yet.
On the other hand, there will always be a section of society who won't ever earn enough to buy their own home.

Thrugelmir

Dan: wrote: »

The last hope you bears [and HPC.co.uk bears] is that everything will be 'okay' after the next election. By 'okay' I mean that the house price crash continues, as it seems that 20-25% is not enough to enable some to buy. I can't see the Torys coming to your rescue, as there policies are no different to Labour.

In terms of house prices we are already 7.5% above where we were in Feburary, so if we have another 10% fall [unlikely] then it will only be 2 or 3% lower then 6 months ago.

Why has the discussion returned to houses?

There's a real wealth generating economy out there. Houses are merely a walk on part. :rolleyes:

Dan:_4

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why has the discussion returned to houses?

There's a real wealth generating economy out there. Houses are merely a walk on part. :rolleyes:

Because some are so short-sighted that they would like to see the economy fail purely to get a cheap house.

Thrugelmir

Dan: wrote: »

Because some are so short-sighted that they would like to see the economy fail purely to get a cheap house.

Everything is relative and the economy is struggling in a broad sense. If wages fall, interest rates remain high. Then houses even if they fall in price will still be expensive. Cheap suggests a giveaway price which the average house will never be. Those with capital and no borrowings will make money. Always been the same and never change.

mbga9pgf

Dan: wrote: »

Because some are so short-sighted that they would like to see the economy fail purely to get a cheap house.

I dont know why I bother.

In fact, this will be my last post on this page for a while. I have been spending less time on here anyway of late.

There is a distinct difference between wanting the economy to further downturn and having a belief it will downturn. Massive difference. I can hope to have a million quid in the bank, will never make it happen. Whereas, I think the economy is set for a significant further downturn. Either way, until later this year, we will either see stagnant prices or prices slowly drifting upwards. Next year as a whole will be pretty horrendous for all, with cuts in front line services, benefits affecting the lower classes and horrendous income tax and NI contributions affecting the middle/upper classes.

Either way, next year's emergency post election budget is going to be bad for house prices.

See ya losers.

lemonjelly

Thrugelmir wrote: »

It was merely an observation. As initially it was politically motivated (rather than military or other reasons) in the beginning. As certain sections of Germanys ruling classes were extremely affluent even in the depression.

Where I disagree though. Is people will get angrier for many reasons. Until you yourself are in a particular situation its impossible to emphasise fully.

I would imagine you'd get an angry response to comments like "And it is an underclass more fixated on Monster Munch and Chocolate Hobnobs, than revolution". A very sweeping comment.

I've been involved in a redundancy programme to reduce headcount. Something I've done on several occassions and its not a pleasant task. As the people that are going are hardworking, pleasant, average people. More than likely they will struggle to find work in the short term. Yet some could join the "underclass" as I have no personal knowledge of their financial situations.

Last night on a property programme. One lady buyers key criteria was that the property she purchased had to have a wow factor, for when her friends arrived. Kerb appeal. As she wanted something to show for her £500,000 spend. In a way sums up a general attitude in society. That many will find rather offensive.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Its a reflection of society where what we own in terms of status symbols ( material goods and their branding) matters more than who we are as people.

The fact that was for £500,000, for a property, in a village with views, and a large garden, and a large study , it isn't a huge amount of money even in the current market. She was put off merely by arriving at the property. Concerned with what other people would think of it rather living inside it as a home.

Excellent, & I'd argue fairly accurate pair of posts Thrugelmir.

I'm suprised at the debate here. after all, the BoE is struggling to know what's going on - aren't they split as to the amount of QE still needed? Didn't Merv think £75bn was needed, not just £50bn.

(Can't believe I just typed "just £50bn"!!!)