We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

More QE please....and interest rates...

Should interest rates be cut to zero?

That, is part of what the OECD are urging today. They suggest either further QE, or cutting rate to zero in order to fuel growth.

My view on this is rather simple. If 0.5% rates hasn't worked, and £375bn of QE (plus extras disguised under a different title) hasn't worked, why will more do the trick? Why would another 0.5% off base rates do the trick?

Surely theres a point where something else needs to be done? Or maybe, rather nothing is done, and a natural rebalancing allowed?

So, would extra QE or base rates cut to zero do anything other than extend things for a while longer?

OECD article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21357167
«13

Comments

  • MacMickster
    MacMickster Posts: 3,646 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    It was Franklin D Roosevelt who said

    "Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesnt, do something else"

    A sound philosophy, but we seem to prefer doing the same thing over again, expecting a different result - Einstein's definition of insanity.
    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
  • GeorgeHowell
    GeorgeHowell Posts: 2,739 Forumite
    No, both policies have largely failed and as has often been said one form of sanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The answer is to encourage people to go out and spend more money instead of saving it in order to stimulate demand and improve business confidence.
    No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Further QE or reducing interest rates will not increase the amount of lending to businesses or encourage investment in new housing.

    The banking regulators are the main reason why lending is restricted and not the lack of actual cash.

    Just because some-one has a black mark on their credit file due to an issue with a mobile phone company should not preclude you from getting a mortgage


    If necessary the government should open their own bank and lend direct.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    If necessary the government should open their own bank and lend direct.

    Would that not just attract all the high risks, while banks retrench even further?

    Therefore the taxpayer would be basically guarantor to all high risk loans? (not that were not already I guess!!)
  • Thrugelmir
    Thrugelmir Posts: 89,546 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    If necessary the government should open their own bank and lend direct.

    Isn't LloydsHBOS, RBS and Nram sufficient?

    That accounts for around 45% of the outstanding UK's mortgage debt.
  • GeorgeHowell
    GeorgeHowell Posts: 2,739 Forumite
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Isn't LloydsHBOS, RBS and Nram sufficient?

    That accounts for around 45% of the outstanding UK's mortgage debt.


    They let them do what ever they like though, don't they ? Civil servants don't understand business or finance, let alone banking, so they're terrified to intervene. Politicians as always are extremely reluctant to go against the advice of officials.
    No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • Thrugelmir
    Thrugelmir Posts: 89,546 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    They let them do what ever they like though, don't they ?

    Hardly. Basle 3, FSA regulations, bankers bonus tax, PPI claims, Libor fines and claims.

    Think its easy to run a bank at the current time?
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    Won't do any good for the reasons PP have made.

    As Generali pointed out on another thread perhaps rather than being Doves it is now time for Owls and Pooh.

    Perhaps doing little and waiting for it to unravel would be better?

    .
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Isn't LloydsHBOS, RBS and Nram sufficient?

    That accounts for around 45% of the outstanding UK's mortgage debt.
    I actually think theres scope in the government becoming lender.

    However, the government should also be the builder of, and owner of, the assets.

    Therefore, we don't just become guarntors, we have an asset. Said asset would have been built, creating jobs.

    Could be win win all round. Building = some growth and employment. Asset = protection on the loan. Lending = profit on the loans.

    Or, could so a bit of both. We could have the radical idea of council housing, alongside owner occupied, bringing in 2 revenue streams, firstly, the rents, and secondly the profit on the loans from those who have bought.

    Becomes a self sufficient scheme, with a huge outlay at the start. Would also kick builders into touch through competiton.#

    Theres a downside for investors and BTLs, but how long can certain groups keep feeding on the struggles of society?
  • GeorgeHowell
    GeorgeHowell Posts: 2,739 Forumite
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Hardly. Basle 3, FSA regulations, bankers bonus tax, PPI claims, Libor fines and claims.

    Think its easy to run a bank at the current time?

    Not our problem, they get paid vast amounts to grapple with it all.
    No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Margaret Thatcher
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.