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!
Bubble Warning from senior economist
Comments
-
It's not very interesting at all it's a fact.
The people that recouped their losses were probably the ones that took investment risks and definitely not the ones sitting on an Internet forum complaining that the global crisis and recovery wasn't distributed correctly.
So, the wealthy, then.
How do you assume people who don't have much money take investment risks?
If you have the money in the first place to start investing and moving investments around to react to the macro economic conditions to make a profit, you are likely pretty well off in the first place.
We need to stop confusing the normal saver with investors. I realise it makes your argument, but it's in no way realistic.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »How are they being taken for a ride?
They get to store their money in a bank, risk free, and they still get paid for it.
Less than they used to get paid, but it's risk free and we've just come through the biggest financial crisis in a century.
When the economy picks up, they will get paid more.
A financial crisis that they weren't responsible for. They had simply been provident and endeavoured to plan for their future.
Meanwhile they receive virtually nothing on their savings whilst Inflation at a personal level is high.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
Indeed.
But the returns from cheap lending are all that's available risk free.
Savers are welcome to invest in riskier assets if they wish.
Savers are different to investors as you well know.
How much risk do you think the average Joe Puinter pensioner should be taking?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
What, like the tax payer guarantees for the contents of savings accounts with banks?;)
What like HTB with properties up to £600K.Benefit scroungers."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 Muruganantham0 -
Ahhhh HTB a great way to begin the next crash so soon after. As the QE is withdrawn, the HTB is withdrawn and the interest rates rise. Thus mortgage payments start to bite those 95 percenters repossessions go up
Crash round 2 ding ding0 -
No.Graham_Devon wrote: »So, the wealthy, then.
If you bothered reading my post you might have got the point but as expected it's gone above your head.
Bizarre.Graham_Devon wrote: »How do you assume people who don't have much money take investment risks?
If you have the money in the first place to start investing and moving investments around to react to the macro economic conditions to make a profit, you are likely pretty well off in the first place.
We need to stop confusing the normal saver with investors. I realise it makes your argument, but it's in no way realistic.
How is this different to any other time in the history of the world?
If you don't invest or take risks you don't get returns however small the investment is.0 -
Seem to remember that before everything went crazy, savers used to deposit money and expect a small return, the banks then lent the money at a higher rate, using their skill and judgement to spread it around and thus mitigate the risk.No.
If you bothered reading my post you might have got the point but as expected it's gone above your head.
Bizarre.
How is this different to any other time in the history of the world?
If you don't invest or take risks you don't get returns however small the investment is.
Worked pretty well with banks not only competing for loan business, but also for deposits. Savers were not competing with government money.
Simple idea really.0 -
Maybe for the simple minded who only think that savings accounts are the only option for investors.Seem to remember that before everything went crazy, savers used to deposit money and expect a small return, the banks then lent the money at a higher rate, using their skill and judgement to spread it around and thus mitigate the risk.
Worked pretty well with banks not only competing for loan business, but also for deposits. Savers were not competing with government money.
Simple idea really.0 -
Many people are not in a position of looking into complex investments, and with only a small ammout of capital charges would probably make it not worthwhile. Does not mean they should be punished though.Maybe for the simple minded who only think that savings accounts are the only option for investors.0 -
If you are admitting you are simple and don't understand that you can invest in anything else then I guess you are right.Many people are not in a position of looking into complex investments, and with only a small ammout of capital charges would probably make it not worthwhile. Does not mean they should be punished though.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »If you have the money in the first place to start investing and moving investments around to react to the macro economic conditions to make a profit, you are likely pretty well off in the first place.
You won't thank me but Loughton Monkey has explained this many many times. If you spend 100% of income then when investment conditions improve and returns increase you'll miss out because a large % of F all is still F all. You need to save and save early.
You don't need to be 'pretty well off' to have money to invest either. Very few people need to spend 100% of their income in the UK. I challenge anyone to take a look at their finances and not be able to identify how they could increase their savings ratio now or might have done so in the past with minimal impact on lifestyle. Yes they might choose to spend 100% income but that's free will - no point moaning on their behalf on an internet forum.
Remember no investments/ savings = no investment return. Guaranteed.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