UK inflation rate falls to 1.7%

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In around 1970 perhaps. Since then the monetary policy has been progressively loosened. UK mortgage debt stopped being funded by retail deposits in around 2000. The boom of 2003-2007 (£600 billion) was primarily funded by selling securitised debt to overseas investors.

Hence why we've had endless liquidity schemes to keep the UK banks operational and give them breathing space to accord with Basle 3.

debts equal savings

is your objection that some of the savings are by foreigners?

why do you object to foreigner funding new factories, research, business, even housing etc in the UK

would you prefer they invested in other countries?

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

debts equal savings

is your objection that some of the savings are by foreigners?

why do you object to foreigner funding new factories, research, business, even housing etc in the UK

would you prefer they invested in other countries?

So why are banks leveraged?

Debt requires servicing. Interest is a capital outflow from the UK.

When did I say I objected? Certainty not in the context of this discussion.

Define investing. Why do US multi nationals all base their European headquarters in Eire ? Again off topic from funding of UK debt though.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So why are banks leveraged?

Debt requires servicing. Interest is a capital outflow from the UK.

When did I say I objected? Certainty not in the context of this discussion.

Define investing. Why do US multi nationals all base their European headquarters in Eire ? Again off topic from funding of UK debt though.

no idea of what you are trying to say.


I thought the discussion was whether production of goods and services funded by borrowing were somehow less worthy that goods and services not funded by borrowing.

now such borrowing may or may not be sustainable (in the sense that people may eventually refuse to continue to lend): currently people seem willing to lend to UK people, businesses and government.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

no idea of what you are trying to say.

I was responding to the points you asked me.

I'm merely mulling over the fact that economic policy as we know it. Appears to have run it's course. As continuation on the same path doesn't address structural faults that exist. Perhaps the world would become a more equitable place with a period of deflation. Rather than using artificial mechanisms such as benefits to redistribute income.

No fixed views. I'm crystal ball gazing.

AndyGuil

EIRE base is tax reasons.

Thrugelmir

AndyGuil wrote: »

EIRE base is tax reasons.

To the detriment of every other EU country.

AndyGuil

The others could reduce their tax rates. Switzerland attracts a lot of companies for the same reason.

BillJones

AndyGuil wrote: »

The others could reduce their tax rates. Switzerland attracts a lot of companies for the same reason.

A small country like Switzerland can run a far lower rate of tax than a larger country, because relative to their size they can siphon off many companies from their bigger neighbors. If large countries followed suite then no-one would end up taking enough in tax to fund the level of services that people demand.

It means, in effect, that little tax havens are operating like parasites off other countries, siphoning off profitability without giving much back.

antrobus

BillJones wrote: »

....It means, in effect, that little tax havens are operating like parasites off other countries, siphoning off profitability without giving much back.

Alternatively, the 'little tax havens', being often tiny little countries without much in the way of natural resources or other economic assets, have found a way of scooping up a few crumbs from the big boys tables.

prowla

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I bought a NAIM unit the other day.

At least the Company is British (in part).

They're French owned now, aren't they?