Bank of England rates could rise more than thought

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

Globalisation and technology has led to historically high inequality of income, low interest rates have boosted asset prices which has resulted in inequality of wealth.

Those with the wealth, companies and individuals, choose to save rather than consume or invest. Meanwhile the havenots see the lifestyle of the haves and very cheap borrowing (with all this money looking for a home) and borrow to spend and consume. Which remains unsustainable....

Why should there be income equality? Or static difference between the top 1% and the bottom 1%

If it was so important then 2008-2009 would have been a great year the top 1% lost about half their wealth and the gap fell drastically. How did t help the poor?

Also a lot of the richest people have zero income or even just $1 annual income so clearly people are jumping between assets and income.
The problem there is you need to do a NPV of the income to compare to the assets.

The rich don't own as much as people think.
If we did a NPV of UK GDP we would get something like $100 trillion
The richest person in the world doesn't even have $0.1 trillion so 1/1000th of the UK with its 32 million workers.

Therefore a reasonable statement would be that Jeff Bezos has the capital to command 32,000 UK workers. That's a lot but not close to the silly statements like he has more than the bottom 2 billion people combined.

Also its very likely he will donate most of that wealth or put it into areas he think would benefit the future of humanity like his rocket company spending $1 billion a year of his own fortune trying to advance space technology. Or bill gates and his foundation doing a lot of great work for others.

The-Joker

Filo25 wrote: »

Even if I was being very hawkish on rates I don't see them being above 2% by the end of 2019, I wouldn't necessarily call that a return to normal.

With hints of some softer economic data recently I'm not sure I see rates reaching that 2% by then either

If the emergency was over and the green shoots story was true, then rates could go back to normal 5% plus,

But the emergency from 2008 was never solved it was just pushed into the future.

michaels

Can't remortgage for another 4 months, new rates for March are enough higher than Feb to cost me 3k, who knows how much more they will be by June

fewcloudy

michaels wrote: »

Can't remortgage for another 4 months, new rates for March are enough higher than Feb to cost me 3k, who knows how much more they will be by June

You sure about that?
£3000 seems a lot; maybe that's the case if you just remortgage with your current lender, but I'll bet a broker could help you do better than that.

Ocelot

westernpromise wrote: »

Frankly we are still running a deficit 10 years after Labour's crash because the public sector is too large and overpaid, and because the handful of people who now pay income tax (60% is paid by the top 10% of earners) don't earn enough that they can be robbed of more to balance the budget any faster.

We are in the position of a submarine that has dived to 1,000 feet and was giving signs of being about to implode. We've started to level off but we have not yet even started to head back towards the surface. It is IMHO premature to talk of a return to historic interest rate levels because the level of indebtedness Labour achieved is unprecedented in all our history and thus it is not possible to say what an appropriate level of borrowing is.

We won't see "normal" rates again until we see "normal" public debt again. That could be decades, but the turd in the swimming pool is the nightmarish prospect of a Khorbiyn government. Khorbiyn's Labour won't say sorry for wrecking the economy because they're not. They wish it had been wrecked more and intend to finish the job by ratcheting borrowing all the way back up again. In that event we could see both staggering levels of public debt and much higher interest rates. After all, who's going to lend money to a government that hates you for having money to lend in the first place, and that supports Brexit so it can expropriate private property and impose capital controls?

One thing I have learned from 40-odd years of paying attention to politics is that you should never underestimate how much harm Labour can do, nor how little the moral bankrupts who vote Labour even care. Labour will find something you didn't realise could be wrecked - manufacturing, mining, the housing market, pensions, banking - and do just that.

A bit harsh, and wrong. The only budget surpluses since the war were 4 years in a row under labour, and the national debt as a % of GDP was lower in 2007 than in 1996, under John Major. Then came the credit crunch, caused by American banks.

Thrugelmir

Ocelot wrote: »

A bit harsh, and wrong. The only budget surpluses since the war were 4 years in a row under labour, and the national debt as a % of GDP was lower in 2007 than in 1996, under John Major. Then came the credit crunch, caused by American banks.

Interesting that RBS (amongst others) has been erased from the history books. Nor does GDP unfortunately doesn't pay the bills.

shirlgirl2004

Ocelot wrote: »

A bit harsh, and wrong. The only budget surpluses since the war were 4 years in a row under labour, and the national debt as a % of GDP was lower in 2007 than in 1996, under John Major. Then came the credit crunch, caused by American banks.

Not surplus in 1989 then of 1.9% GDP?

lisyloo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43724002

RICS raise rise doubts.
Personally I think the decision does not revolve around the housing market as much as RISC and some posters think although undoubtedly there is an effect on consumer spending.

Filo25

lisyloo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43724002

RICS raise rise doubts.
Personally I think the decision does not revolve around the housing market as much as RISC and some posters think although undoubtedly there is an effect on consumer spending.

Likewise I don't think it would have a huge impact on the decision making process with the current conditions, if we were seeing a more rapid correction then it might be different.

fewcloudy

economic wrote: »

Luckily fixed my mortgage for 2 years back in November at 1.54%. Dont have to worry about rates for 2 years

That's great...