Inflation falls to 2.4%

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not even gonna bother giving that a response wotsthat.

You just have.;)

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You just have.;)

Well yer true. Didn't want to be accused of running away (again!)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, I understand YOUR definition.

I have quoted you, verbatim, the dictionary definition.

If you have a problem with that, it's hardly my fault.

ILW wrote: »

My point was more a reflection of Hamishes view that the defivition of prudence was "if it works out your favour".

That isn't my view.

Nor is it my view that taking on shedloads of debt is prudent, just as fanatically avoiding all debt isn't prudent.

What is prudent however, is managing risk so that neither a large fall in interest rates nor a large rise in them leaves you in financial trouble.

If interest rates stay at 0.5% for life, I will not be in financial trouble.

If interest rates hit 12% tomorrow, I will not be in financial trouble.

Balancing risk is prudent.

Avoiding all risk is imprudent.

In other words, not having all your eggs in one basket is a lot more prudent than having all your cash in instant access savings accounts and moaning about the prudent bailing out the debtors.

When by definition, having all your cash in low interest accounts is imprudent.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In other words, not having all your eggs in one basket is a lot more prudent than having all your cash in instant access savings accounts and moaning about the prudent bailing out the debtors.

Most people are not investors. They are simply buying houses to the best of their financial ability and getting by.

Which eggs you put in which baskets are of irrelevance to the majority. Paying the bills is their main concern month to month year to year.

For an investor, you are right. But you are using investor style arguments in a family / household style setting.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For an investor, you are right. But you are using investor style arguments in a family / household style setting.

Same principles apply.

Only the scale is different....

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Same principles apply.

Only the scale is different....

No, they don't.

For the majority (and household saving statistics will show you this) it would be, frankly, pointless locking away their cash into shares, bonds, fixed rate accounts.....or indeed, spending all their savings on a deposit to get more debt and buy into property.

You are talking primarily about people with tens of thousands which is available to them and not marked for use.

That's not the majority of the households in the country.

In 2000, the average household had £5,200 in savings. It would be nigh on pointless spreading this over several baskets.

It's your average household complaining that they are being hit by the economic policy at the moment. Those that DO have the ability to move money around into several baskets probably aren't the ones complaining.

Absolutely pointless telling people who don't have the money to put into several baskets, to stop moaning and put it into several baskets.

Pensioners hold most of the savings wealth too....and they want it accesible. Locking it away really isn't suitable in a lot of cases.

You are missing the point entirely. For investors, what you say is absolutely fine. But don't try and impose it on the average household and then say they can't complain as they have choices.