What will Mervyns excuse be this time?

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

No, I'm just not a greedy money-grabbing b4stard, who wants something for nothing (which to all intents and purposes is what house price rises that exceed inflation are).

Lovely rhetoric, but basically you have said that you dislike any gains that are made in any asset, be it Gold, Property, shares, bonds. The only people who aren't money-grabbing b4stards in your world are people who work to produce soemthign tangeable, such as in the food and manufacturing industries. Intersting, but surely a failed and discredited concept since the fall of Communism?

AD9898 wrote: »

I'm content and happy with my lot, chasing the end of the rainbow is futile and ultimately a miserable existence.

Its all about an individual's own perception. For those people without ambition, they view those who do have ambition as being driven, money grabbing and miserable.

For those with ambition, they view those without as being under achievers, fearful and miserable.

Its a funny old world!

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Lovely rhetoric, but basically you have said that you dislike any gains that are made in any asset, be it Gold, Property, shares, bonds. The only people who aren't money-grabbing b4stards in your world are people who work to produce soemthign tangeable, such as in the food and manufacturing industries. Intersting, but surely a failed and discredited concept since the fall of Communism?



Its all about an individual's own perception. For those people without ambition, they view those who do have ambition as being driven, money grabbing and miserable.

For those with ambition, they view those without as being under achievers, fearful and miserable.

Its a funny old world!

Problem is that many seem to be happy with the upside, but then seem to expect to be bailed out by others when the gamble does not pay off.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

Problem is that many seem to be happy with the upside, but then seem to expect to be bailed out by others when the gamble does not pay off.

I very much doubt that those people who have benefited from 10 years of HPI will be the ones who will get reposessed due to a few percentage point rises. Do you?

Its almost as though some people on here feel that they have missed out on an asset boom and want all owners of that asset to be punished, regardless of whether those people actually gained or not.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

I very much doubt that those people who have benefited from 10 years of HPI will be the ones who will get reposessed due to a few percentage point rises. Do you?

Its almost as though some people on here feel that they have missed out on an asset boom and want all owners of that asset to be punished, regardless of whether those people actually gained or not.

I cannot see that an interest rate of say 2% should be considered a punishment. It worries me that many now seem to think that way.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

RenovationMan wrote: »

Its almost as though some people on here feel that they have missed out on an asset boom and want all owners of that asset to be punished, regardless of whether those people actually gained or not.

There's no almost about it.

That's exactly what it is.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

I cannot see that an interest rate of say 2% should be considered a punishment.

Do you think the few hundred thousand people who would lose their job if we removed several billion pounds a year from the economy during a fragile recovery would consider it a punishment?

How about the victims of additional government spending cuts when tax revenue falls as a result of the economy shrinking from removing those billions from the economy. Do you think they might consider it a punishment?

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Do you think the few hundred thousand people who would lose their job if we removed several billion pounds a year from the economy during a fragile recovery would consider it a punishment?

How about the victims of additional government spending cuts when tax revenue falls as a result of the economy shrinking from removing those billions from the economy. Do you think they might consider it a punishment?

You seem to ignore the fact that savings rates would go up by around the same amount that mortgage rates would. So the net loss is around zero. I thought most borrowers were using the low rates to pay down debt, so the cash is not getting into the general economy anyway.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

You seem to ignore the fact that savings rates would go up by around the same amount that mortgage rates would. So the net loss is around zero.

False.

From memory, the reduction of interest rates caused an extra 24 billion to be gained by borrowers.

And 18 billion to be lost by savers.

That's a 6 billion gain to the economy.

I thought most borrowers were using the low rates to pay down debt, so the cash is not getting into the general economy anyway.

Some of it is, but by no means all.

The BoE is watching savings and debt repayment rates like a hawk at the moment.

The country cannot afford to have people save too much or pay back too much debt, thereby reducing consumer spending too much.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

I cannot see that an interest rate of say 2% should be considered a punishment. It worries me that many now seem to think that way.

Me too, hence my mean-sprited' comment. What dismal lives people must have if they want other people to descend into financial misery.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

False.

From memory, the reduction of interest rates caused an extra 24 billion to be gained by borrowers.

And 18 billion to be lost by savers.

That's a 6 billion gain to the economy.



Some of it is, but by no means all.

The BoE is watching savings and debt repayment rates like a hawk at the moment.

The country cannot afford to have people save too much or pay back too much debt, thereby reducing consumer spending too much.

I would guess that that 6 billion difference is probably similar to teh amount that borrowers are using to pay down debt. So very little if any net gain to the economy of low IRs.