Okay so the general consensus would seem that the Triple-A rating doesn't make a Blind bit of difference. My personal view is with the government and the media screaming on about recessions people do hold the belts tight. Leading to slow growth Or no growth that matter. I am 25 years old and currently looking to purchase my first house. I come from a working family background. My education level is A-level. But I would say my general economic and other educational level is but above-average. It was my ambition to become heating engineer by the time of 25. I've now been out of the education system one year I'm currently not employed in our heating or plumbing job at all. I'm working For Tesco . From my point of view it has not been easy to get job. Not that it should be. What Tesco has been a job which has been very reliable. And now I'm contemplating the managerial positions within the business. I'm kind of, I'm a bit of a tandem thought I just wanted to understand where my point of view comes from. I understand the need people to receive benefits but I do think that it is not regulated very well and that people that really needed are getting. Web should be found to people on benefits with in the government itself. After people on long-term benefits it becomes very hard for them to make a positive attitude. This then leads that I'm not find a job at all unbecoming lackadaisical. Finished There is my tuppence
Believe it or not there is more to this country than what the square mile thinks. Although current/past Governments have focused on this far too much. Doom and gloom is reported far too much by the media. As I said in an earlier post Mr Osborne constantly feeds this negative outlook by stating negative sound bites, such as "it's worse than we thought". The problem with the unemployment figures is that they are far more positive in the south, but far more negative in the north. Which is worsened by the fact that the cuts are hitting the large northern cities far more than the south. It is clear to me that the current chancellor is still banging on with his same old message, when he should be looking to amend/change his plan. Only political pride is making him do this.
And you clearly a Labourite I'm right wing socially but don't identify as a Tory. Bit of topic so we'll leave it. There's already a large transfer from London and the Southeast to the rest of the country. They're the only regions running surplus. What more can be done exactly. Just make the transfer even larger? His plan certainly isn't failing and its a fallacy assuming that the Labour version would somehow have a better effect.
That is a problem with unemployment figures. However that isn't the only issue, there has been a large rise in underemployment (those who want more hours). Also It is being masked by a fall in wages in real terms especially at the bottom which is leading to more people qualifying for tax credits and housing benefit help. These problems are increasing welfare spending and increasing and decreasing tax receipts. I disagree that this is pride that is stopping him. The reason for this is ideology. He wants a small state and here's the excuse and through this he misleads people into believing that cutting spending will reduce the deficit effectively in the long term because people think the macro economy is like household finance. Whatever government gets in next will struggle to get the economy moving because of how much he has stifled growth and increased debt. There will be little room for manoeuvre in terms of expansionary fiscal policy. Basically achieving a goal of damaging the governments ability to borrow which will leave the country unable to afford their hated welfare system and NHS.
Ahhh good old sarcasm, The lowest form of comedy and well known masquerade for a willingness to ignore some simple facts that are in plain sight. Just calling this credit/debt mess for what it is, There isn't really any nice facts about it. A 'Well balanced' opinion gives the parasites, thieves and faux beggars a chance to mouth breath. Time for a new system, And I personally feel the people who have been instrumental in the propping up of the current system should be stripped of status and possessions (like a criminal) and made to earn like the rest of us, Under a fair system they would be thankful they wouldn't be robbed of their worth like we are having done to us now. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
FTFY quotes should be quoted correctly Although I agree the whole political system should be scrapped
No! wrong again. I vote for who offers the better deal for everyone, it's not preprogrammed decision handed down from my parents based on lack of knowledge or lack of concern for anyone who is below my pay grade
Fair enough, Can't say I was quoting, Just my take on sarcasm in general and it's use to detract factual remarks. The Intellect was visibly questionable with so few weak words. Yes the political system is rotten to the core, And does support the current fiat financial system, Which is what I am talking about in this case. I believe changes are due in both, But the people involved now must not be allowed to ply their destructive trade any longer. The current fiat finance system must cease to exist at the same time as a new currency is introduced on a standard that balances against finite resources and zero interest. Only them will we begin to see economy charts that don't look like hockey sticks. The only people complaining will be those who will finally have to get off their arse and be a "useful engine" instead of being a parasite. i.e the career banking elite (pyramid scheme inheritors) and genetic welfare leeches and failed politicians, All who I hold equally in contempt. Why the f*ck should my unborn grand kids pay for the thievery of others.
There were banking wealthy during the days of the gold standard and golden coins. The manipulation currencies can undergo is galling.
Pot kettle much?! How on earth does this: constitute as fact? That's just conjecture and personal opinion. Debt is promising to pay someone X amount when you cannot pay X amount immediately. If you chose to pay someone who is going to ride your ass and make money out of the situation then so be it; but you can't complain about the choice you made and the consequences afterwards.
As is always in life and has been for the length of the world as we know it. The rich get richer whilst the rest suffer the consequences. Whilst the banking sector has problems its not the only area that has issues. Britian has got virtually 0 manufacturing its all been sold off to different countries. You look at all country's still posting growth and they all have big manufacturing backgrounds. Politicians are all career liers that's the proffesion they are in. Most people on benifits these days are there because they have little to no choice in the matter, the systems have changed in the last 2-3 years pushing those on benifits back into work. Even if the entire country was working we would likely still be in the place where we are, problem is companies have been going bankrupt lots of big employers have disappeared. Probably 20 k+ retail jobs have disappeared alone since 2008.
Myth. Firstly, plenty of manufacturer based economies are in trouble. Secondly, plenty of service based economies are fine, most of scandinavia for example. Canada is another example but a slightly odd one. Their economy is about 15% manufacturing, they did go into recession after 2008 (albeit late), but also came out of it very quickly. Manufacturing decreased as a result of the recession. The only thing manufacturing does is allows economies to rely on each other more than their internal performance - it's useful to a point but as soon as everyone you are relying on gets ****ed up, then it's as useless as everything else. CONSUMER DEBT is the issue here. Yes the rich get richer but that's because they lend money to people who think they can afford to borrow the amounts they are asking for. It's a cultural problem as well, but when you do the maths, rational decision should have taken precedence rather than borrowing half a million quid on a 45k a year salary. Of course, if someone rich is asked "hey, can I borrow 500k, I'll give you 650k back over 20 years, and if I balls it up you can have my house and the money I have paid you so far", they are going to go along with it. Now tell me - who's fault is it when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Blaming a broken system and politicians is a method of shrugging responsibility. If you're the 20 something who can't afford a house, don't blame the bankers, blame the generation before you for acting so irresponsibly. The banking system is founded on the behaviours of the last 75 years - it's a reactive system that builds products based on the decisions people are making, that gives them what they want, and the bankers what the bankers want - in both cases that is money. The more money one asks for, the more the other is asking for. Just about every 40-50 something I know that isn't in financial trouble, exercised a little thing known as restraint in the 80s and 90s, buying the 150k house instead of the 300k house. Now they likely nearly own a house which is much more valuable than they paid for it, and are financially secure, in addition to having gone on holiday every year. Where it gets really ****ed up, is the Credit Default Swap system, and the reliance on rating agencies. Bankers got lazy, essentially, because by and large, people were paying off their debts. Thus they promised more, and then the ratings agencies slowed in giving out realistic information, whether that is due to corporate pressure, no-one really knows, but I think it's unlikely a bank would have actually wanted it to go pop. I could go on further with more detail but I don't think it's that much of interest. TL;DR, Ratings Agencies are some of the most criminally responsible for the escalation of consumer debt, yet not a single one has been made accountable.
Interesting that you bring up the housing market. If your a 20 something who can't afford a house blame the politicians, the environmentalists and your local authorities. There is a direct correlation between planning laws and house prices so, sorry, you can't blame the bankers for that one. That rather neatly brings us onto the US subprime market which again is the result of political and local community action groups interference into traditional banking practices. I share much the same disdain for the rating agencies as you do but to be fair to them they were asked to rate new financial products with no historical data behind them. How do you make a model for that? Also very, very few people saw what was really happening within the property market and financial sector at the time.
Great points. The American experience is one where the highest priced real estate were also the most controlled artificially depressing demand and causing prices to go up. Rising prices and easily borrowed money is candy to speculators. Compound that with federal programs subsidizing risk that lenders wouldn't normally adopt - and in some cases particularly in the 90's lenders were threatened by law enforcement to lend to people who were considered higher risk. People were incentivized to spend upwards of 50-75% of income on housing where, traditionally, it was around 25-35% we were setting ourselves up for disaster. And, believe it or not, we are doing it again.
Of course the flip side is sprawling suburbia, cities where you need a car to get round, no green space. So yes politicians and environmentalists artificially keep the housing stock short but the alternative is London, Huston, LA, New Delhi; cities with urban sprawl and commuter belts going on for a hundred miles in all directions. Were it not for these interferences the central belt would be completely populated and probably extend much further north and south than it currently does.
Yes I believe I'm stating a correct fact that central banks managing to hold sway on the economy and hold a position of power by controlling the money supply and the debt/inflation attached to it. All this on the backs of working people, who have NO CHOICE but to pay the interest, even though they never agreed to pay the debt. That is what is happening, Don't let that simple little fact get in the way of a good discussion. The debt can NEVER be repaid and that's the point, A clever scam if there ever was one. I can't believe how many people are easily stooged by accepting that debt is part of life, You didn't agree, It's not yours to pay back. If that doesn't change then there truly is no f*cking hope for the future generations having something worth while, Just keep watching the sedation box.
That is, of course, a given. As always it is about finding the right balance but perhaps we should identify why houses are so expensive before we point the finger or start resorting to exotic methods of finance to make them artificially affordable. Really the point of the post was to highlight the fact that the truth is more complex than the politicians and media would have us believe but then its easier to whip up the mob and point the finger at the nasty capitalists.
Money is created in england in theory there is an infinite supply of it enough Germany tried that idea and we know where that ended up. Same with All the major currencies accept the euro.
