Not raising rates is damaging the economy

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In a huff? What makes you think I'm in a huff? I'm just amused by the fact I'm getting the flack for someone elses article.

I'm amused people are suggesting index linked 5 year bonds, as the answer to pensioners retreating from spending. I mean, !!!!!!.

I'm amused that people doin't read what's actually said, and simply see "interest rates should rise" and automatically go into auto pilot.

I'm amused that so far, no one has actually looked at the point of the article. Rather attacked the person who posted it. I don't post these knowinly contencious articles to go off in a huff though. I post them because it's backup to my beliefs, and theres an amusement factor attached to the falling over oneself to justify why rates should stay low no matter what.

I am amused you think supporting the spending of those with cash reserves is more important than trying to create jobs.

Ps who has given you flak? they have argued against the article.
No one shot the messenger, they argued where they disagreed, you did not like that and have now gone off on one about shooting the messenger and no one discussing the article.
Oh dear, what has everyone other than you in the last few posts been doing then?

Really2

ILW wrote: »

On a connected theme, the tube workers have just negotiated a pay deal based on RPI Plus, if this type of settlement becomes commonplace then we will get into an inflationary spiral.

If you get the you put rates up, but it has to be the comonplace, it is far from it at the moment.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I am amused you think supporting the spending of those with cash reserves is more important than trying to create jobs.

Firstly, I've never said that.

Secondly, pensioners spending money in the economy creates jobs. That's the entire point of the article. Pensioners retreating from spending cuts money being passed around the local economy.

So I'm confused as to how, after posting an article about pensioners spending less and therefore damaging the economy, you come to the conclusion you have.

Ps who has given you flak? they have argued against the article.

Theres none so blind.

For the second time, I'm really not in a huff, and won't be, regardless as to how many times you try to tell me I am.

I'm still amused by the blinkered pot shots being shot around. You could at least try to aim correctly.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Ps who has given you flak?

the drama queen think it's actually more than flak...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rather attacked the person who posted it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's all attack the poster from the same people each time. Every single post.

as far as i can see on this thread until the Devon bloke had his little e-breakdown on this thread - there were quite a few questions and points made that have been deliberately avoided by him. what a surprise...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

as far as i can see on this thread until the Devon bloke had his little e-breakdown on this thread - there were quite a few questions and points made that have been deliberately avoided by him. what a surprise...

I've answered the questions that actually relate to the article.

I've answered the index linked bonds, which goes against the point of the article.

I've answered the spoon fed "you think pensioners savings are more important than jobs" slur, because jobs and growth was the point of the article.

If it's about the article, I'll answer it. If it's just some tangent, I won't.

I've been polite though and i've also answered the "you are in a huff"..."Graham you ARE in a huff"..."You are Graham, I'm telling you. You are in a huff"...."people, he won't listen to me, tell him he's in a huff" nonsense.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Firstly, I've never said that.

Secondly, pensioners spending money in the economy creates jobs. That's the entire point of the article. Pensioners retreating from spending cuts money being passed around the local economy.

So I'm confused as to how, after posting an article about pensioners spending less and therefore damaging the economy, you come to the conclusion you have.

Theres none so blind.

Blind,

Did you read this.

Really2 wrote: »

So inflation is causing people to spend less? what could that lead to?
So how does raising rates give the general economy more money?

Raising rates means in general the population have less to spend (it is to cut inflation caused by a overheating economy) it also means company's costs increase (servicing debt) and it makes company investment more expensive (less likely to invest)
It would slightly increase the value of the £ making exports less attractive while not touching petrol or food inflation.

Saga ramping up the case for the over 50's who would have thought it. I thought most who want rates to go up hate the boomers.
Now they wan't higher rates for them so they get more money when they cash out of their 25+ years of HPI.:D

The increase spending of the over 50's by increasing rates will be far lower than the cost to the economy of company's cutting jobs because of debt interest.
AFAIK over 50's with savings still have to spend so why would their spending increase? or do they mean they would be dipping in their savings less?
Every debter will have less to spend that is people and companies. Also companies would be less likely to invest if debt is more expensive (with return so shaky)

So the idea a few over 50's will rescue the economy if they had more interest is far more blind than my view.
Why,
1) you (before you get paranoid it is a general term, not specifically you.) are only looking at people over 50 with cash.
2) you are ignoring all those under 50 and with no cash
3) you are ingoring the wider effects to the economy that are not supported by over 50 spending.
4) It is basically ignoring all economics other than over 50's spending cash.

PS I missed your edits.

ILW

Really2 wrote: »

If you get the you put rates up, but it has to be the comonplace, it is far from it at the moment.

So if a lot more pay deals are agreed based on inflation, would you then think rates should be raised?

Really2

ILW wrote: »

So if a lot more pay deals are agreed based on inflation, would you then think rates should be raised?

Of corse I have long argued the difference in types of inflation, if we got wage spiral inflation like in the 70's etc you should respond with rate increases.

Why it is different at the moment is wages are not following inflation, that should mean people have less to spend so should in time cause inflation to fall.

But if wages took off, of cause you should use rates to cool them down to stop a wage spiral.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

So the idea a few over 50's will rescue the economy if they had more interest is far more blind than my view.

No one has said the over 50's will rescue the economy. That would be stupid. Which is why it's not been stated, or implied.

1) you are only looking at people over 50 with cash.
2) you are ignoring all those under 50 and with no cash
3) you are ingoring the wider effects to the economy that are not supported by over 50 spending.
4) It is basically ignoring all economics other than over 50's spending cash.

PS I missed your edits.

You asked where I was being told I was wrong. Then you have said "you are" 3 times. It's not my article. You keep trying to imply I'm stating things. Even what you imply no one, neither I, or the article has stated it.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You asked where I was being told I was wrong. Then you have said "you are" 3 times. It's not my article. You keep trying to imply I'm stating things. Even what you imply no one, neither I, or the article has stated it.

Well I edited nearly 10 mins before you posted this so you must have deleted the edit???

you (before you get paranoid it is a general term, not specifically you.) are only looking at people over 50 with cash.

Are you ok or can't you accept "you" as a loose term, At school in assembly they told me if I don't look left and right you might get run over.
I never took that as a personal address for only me?