of course the country won't get shares for the investment so worse than socialism.
Burgerman wrote:Actual power used by the world by year.
It has risen by approx the same amount as the population has over my lifetime. Around 300%.
Burgerman wrote:
The idea that mrs mays net zero CO2 can be achieved is frankly rediculous and it will bankrupt the country attempting to do so. For nothing!
Um, low interest rates were needed to prop up a fucked economy after bailing out the banks which is why borrowing is down compared to 10 years ago. Neither is an indicator of a strong economy.
Low interest rates were forced upon us to keep the economy going, I'm pretty sure that the BOE didn't want to lower them as far and for as long but have done so because it would cause real problems if they raised them.
More consumer debt can be a problem especially if loans are taken out at low rates and then the rates rise which is why the BOE can't raise quickly, there would be an immediate knock on to consumer spending given the current level of consumer debt. And I agree on the 15% days, I think that my first mortgage was taken out at 13 or 14%, fortunately it was within my means so when the rates came down I could repay more of the capital. Glad that I did as I would be screwed if we still had a mortgage.
Burgerman wrote:Low interest rates were forced upon us to keep the economy going, I'm pretty sure that the BOE didn't want to lower them as far and for as long but have done so because it would cause real problems if they raised them.
Wrong. Low interest rates would be the natural result of what happened. If allowed to float in a free market. The banks should NOT ne controling them for any other reason other than to balance income to outgoing.
So if the rates are too high, people, and businesses dont BORROW and the bank has a load of money it cannot "sell".
Becaause those with money save it and gain interest!
If the rates are too low, nobody banks money, they buy stuff or invest elsewhere, so that the bank now has no money to lend, and many public and business wanting to borrow as its cheap!
So the CORRECT figure is a balance, if not artificially manipulated foe external (socialist) reasons.More consumer debt can be a problem especially if loans are taken out at low rates and then the rates rise which is why the BOE can't raise quickly, there would be an immediate knock on to consumer spending given the current level of consumer debt. And I agree on the 15% days, I think that my first mortgage was taken out at 13 or 14%, fortunately it was within my means so when the rates came down I could repay more of the capital. Glad that I did as I would be screwed if we still had a mortgage.
The choice to borrow or invest at whatever the rate is at the time, including risk of it rising is both the borrower and the lenders RISK. Their own choices. If the get that wrong, thats their problem in a free market.
It is not in any way political, banks create money from nothing,
what secures a loan is irrelevant.
Look at the numbers UK debt £2tn there wasn't that much money 50 years ago it has been created from banks lending money they created. Theoretically there is more money in circulation but little of it is real with an equivalent value in gold sitting in a bank vault.
Security of a loan depends upon market value, home owners are used to seeing house values increase this was used by Thatcher to regenerate a failing economy caused by socialism and too powerful unions. If interest rates rise market value has a risk of dropping so problems for lender and borrower.
Hence why BOE couldn't increase interest rates other than slowly.
A strong economy would have a balance of inflation and interest rates but ours is still too fragile, if we get inflation from a falling £ they have limited ways to control it and the additional problem of having to raise bond rates giving a bigger cost of servicing it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests