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!
Carney guarantees low rates on breakfast tele
Comments
-
consumer debt is rising
Consumer debt must always rise in nominal terms.
It's an essential component of an inflationary monetary system.Thrugelmir wrote: »Personally I'm optimistic that the corner will be turned shortly. .
If you're referring to decreasing debt in nominal terms, then describing that as 'optimistic' is economically illiterate.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
clearly one doesn't bail out assets (they have value and are cash generating); one bails out the depositors/savers.
if the government had bailed out the depositors then the bank would not be bankrupt .. in fact the exact opposite it would be the most solvent bank in the world with lots of cash generating assets and no liabilities.
Semantics really. The bank didn't need to be bailed out for depositors to be protected. The government could have set up a scheme where depositors were reimbursed (full or partly) post-bust and put themselves at the front of the queue of creditors.
Better or worse? Who knows?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Consumer debt must always rise in nominal terms.
Absolute nonsense.
You won't increase your debt, you are all about paying yours down.
So why must everyone else take on ever more debt? It's in everything you write,. you want more and more enslaved to debt so that your privileged position becomes ever more privileged.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Absolute nonsense.
You won't increase your debt, you are all about paying yours down.
So why must everyone else take on ever more debt? .
Nice rant.
As always though, you've completely missed the point.
In an inflationary monetary system, which we have by design, credit/debt should over the long run grow in nominal terms.
Central banks target money supply growth, and the majority of the money supply is credit money rather than base money.
This does not necessarily mean that people have to or should take on more debt in real terms.
They may or may not choose to, but it's of no relevance to the fact that debt in nominal terms should increase over the long run.It's in everything you write,. you want more and more enslaved to debt so that your privileged position becomes ever more privileged
You really do have a warped perspective on debt.
People should take on debt when it advantages them to do so.
Not all debt is bad, debt that is used to invest in businesses, buy assets, etc can be seen as good debt.
Whereas debt that is used for excessive consumption, or to live beyond one's means, can be seen as bad debt.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Consumer debt must always rise in nominal terms.
It's an essential component of an inflationary monetary system.
If you're referring to decreasing debt in nominal terms, then describing that as 'optimistic' is economically illiterate.
Speaking as someone with both BSc and MSc in economics I haven't the beginning of a clue what you're on about.FACT.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Nice rant.
As always though, you've completely missed the point.
In an inflationary monetary system, which we have by design, credit/debt should over the long run grow in nominal terms.
Central banks target money supply growth, and the majority of the money supply is credit money rather than base money.
This does not necessarily mean that people have to or should take on more debt in real terms.
They may or may not choose to, but it's of no relevance to the fact that debt in nominal terms should increase over the long run.
You really do have a warped perspective on debt.
People should take on debt when it advantages them to do so.
Not all debt is bad, debt that is used to invest in businesses, buy assets, etc can be seen as good debt.
Whereas debt that is used for excessive consumption, or to live beyond one's means, can be seen as bad debt.
Hamish... You don't need to make graham look stupid, he does it rather well by himself0 -
Semantics really. The bank didn't need to be bailed out for depositors to be protected. The government could have set up a scheme where depositors were reimbursed (full or partly) post-bust and put themselves at the front of the queue of creditors.
Better or worse? Who knows?
what exactly is the difference between bailing out the bank and bailing out the depositors as the only significant liabilities the bank has are depositors.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »Speaking as someone with both BSc and MSc in economics I haven't the beginning of a clue what you're on about.
Wrong type of qualification it seems!0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »Speaking as someone with both BSc and MSc in economics I haven't the beginning of a clue what you're on about.
That reflects rather more poorly on you than on me...;)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
by design? how so?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Nice rant.
In an inflationary monetary system, which we have by design,0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
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