[singlemalt]

The woman from the TUC was mentally incoherent.

Complete inability to formulate any kind of logical response when Kirsty Wark repeatedly pressed her on why people cannot retire later.

As has been discussed on here many many times before the demographics timebomb is already going off.

The long held assumption of simply leaving the dining table and telling the waiter "that young guy sat over there is picking up the tab" no longer applies. There is no "young guy sat over there"!

The game's up. Reach into your own pocket and pay your own bill or report to the kitchen for scrubbing duty.

[spyguy]

singlemalt, on 14 March 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

The woman from the TUC was mentally incoherent.

Complete inability to formulate any kind of logical response when Kirsty Wark repeatedly pressed her on why people cannot retire later.

As has been discussed on here many many times before the demographics timebomb is already going off.

The long held assumption of simply leaving the dining table and telling the waiter "that young guy sat over there is picking up the tab" no longer applies. There is no "young guy sat over there"!

The game's up. Reach into your own pocket and pay your own bill or report to the kitchen for scrubbing duty.

The demographic are going against us now - literally.
The boomers started retiring thisyear. The big bulge occurs in about 5 years.
2012 onwards is not the best of time to have a an economy overburdened with debt.

[madpenguin]

Woot, on 13 March 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Damn I missed that bit - is that really what was being proposed? By whom? Can they really not see the flaw in the plan, or indeed how much of our current predicament comes from trying to support x00,000 jobless immigrants and their extended families?

They did indeed, using the same principal as QE no doubt, if it doesn't work first time keep going with the same idea cos we're correct and it will work eventually.

Couldn't see who said it, but frankly wasn't that bothered, I left the UK 2 years ago as I thought this was coming after all the lunacy in 2009 (across the board in terms of what the government were doing), will probably buy some extra bedding in case I have to put up any family

To be honest now you have to think like the immigrants these days "I'm living in a s@#! hole, where's better?", I'd certainly advise any person under 30 to look elsewhere particularly with this kind of news


Was indeed a very gloomy Newsnight, was quite surprised they were so honest, guess they realise they can't hide it any more

This post has been edited by madpenguin: 14 March 2012 - 07:12 AM

[ingermany]

juvenal, on 13 March 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

What did Mason say about immigration? A big infusion of young taxpayers are going to get us out of this mess?

This is essential in order to create housing demand. You build 100,000 new houses per year and allow net inward migration of 500,000. And then you give the influx of new people state money to compete for somewhere to live (more money than the average wage-that bit is essential). It keeps rental and house prices up. It allows equity withdrawal and consumer spending. Everyone wins. Probably.

[madpenguin]

ingermany, on 14 March 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

This is essential in order to create housing demand. You build 100,000 new houses per year and allow net inward migration of 500,000. And then you give the influx of new people state money to compete for somewhere to live (more money than the average wage-that bit is essential). It keeps rental and house prices up. It allows equity withdrawal and consumer spending. Everyone wins. Probably.

Despite the rhetoric I think the powers that be realise proper jobs are an endangered species (apart from non-jobs in the likes of Tesco's).

They have obviously settled on the wizard plan you describe to keep things ticking over, British politicians never got out of the feudal area mentally, I guess thousands of serf's beholden to rich landowners fit's with that mindset.

This post has been edited by madpenguin: 14 March 2012 - 07:25 AM

[Grrrr I'm a tiger]

spyguy, on 14 March 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

The demographic are going against us now - literally.
The boomers started retiring thisyear. The big bulge occurs in about 5 years.
2012 onwards is not the best of time to have a an economy overburdened with debt.

I think you'll find that many of them were given generous early retirements between 10 and 20 years ago when the pension funds were bursting at the seams and there were plenty of (cheaper) people to replace them.



Huge corporate re-structuring took place in the 1980's onwards that allowed companies to boost profits by cutting costs and the pension schemes picked up the tab so the costs of effecting it were 'off balance sheet' as it were.

This post has been edited by hotairmail: 14 March 2012 - 07:54 AM

[georgia o'keeffe]

Damn that Gordon Brown for introducing the taxation of pension surpluses as profit through the 80s/90s coz the stockmarket always goes up, if only hed not been Chancellor for 30 years everything would be superduper

This post has been edited by Tamara De Lempicka: 14 March 2012 - 08:14 AM

[fluffy666]

stormymonday_2011, on 13 March 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

Indeed

The top rated comment on Masons blog I suspect is rather c;lose to the truth on this whole debacle

Quote

Racking up debt and then inflating it away is a mechanism deliberately designed to keep all but the super wealthy in their place. Applied cyclically it becomes a "wealth harvest" pulling back any wealth which may have trickled won or been created by "ordinary" people and stashing it in the coffers of the rich.

The one thing the masses can not be allowed to do is to accumulate and control their own capital. If that was to happen how could they be controlled ?

I don't understand haw the above quote works. If you look at measures of inequality in the UK, the low point in the 1970s was associated with high inflation; the heights of the 1930s and the present day are associated with low inflation. Inflation may erode cash savings (although not share-based savings, property, etc), but it also erodes personal debt. If you are a rich person/entity who is lending money out you want low inflation.

Now, there are other forces at work here.. but I do get the impression that the whole '[moderate] Inflation is bad for the masses' argument is an awful lot like the '50p tax rate reduces revenue' argument - it only makes sense if you don't ask for the numbers to prove it.

[SHERWICK]

Durch, on 14 March 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

What sort of forum have we become when a thread on a Newsnight special on the inevitability of eventual UK bankruptcy attracts no replies?

(I assume there was another thread? )

Well, we've been saying it for 8 years now...

[koala_bear]

Durch, on 14 March 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

What sort of forum have we become when a thread on a Newsnight special on the inevitability of eventual UK bankruptcy attracts no replies?

(I assume there was another thread? )

Of course - try this one with 50 +replies:
http://www.housepric...howtopic=176369

[madpenguin]

Durch, on 14 March 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

What sort of forum have we become when a thread on a Newsnight special on the inevitability of eventual UK bankruptcy attracts no replies?

(I assume there was another thread? )

At least 2 others so far, Mr. Merge-Threads is obviously asleep

Doom And Gloom On Newnsight Now

Financial Repression

This post has been edited by madpenguin: 14 March 2012 - 09:10 AM

[long time lurking]

bmf, on 13 March 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Read it thoroughly: http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17301032

As I've said on many a post, the demographic cliff is going to make the last decade look like clover.

also needed further ruleYou s to force pension funds to hold a certain amount of home government debt. In this way you create and encourage a "national pool" of capital, from which savers can't escape.

Hmmm getting a bit worrying now ,could this be why Prue are looking to move it`s base to Asia?

[long time lurking]

shindigger, on 13 March 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Over the years i can remember reading various Demographic links on here.
This will come as a shock to some, but not your average HPCer.
No less unpalatable though.
Im planning on redoubling my efforts to hook up with my ex in the south of France.
It aint gonna be pretty anywhere, but at least its hot down there.

Your ex got a sister by any chance

[madpenguin]

Durch, on 14 March 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Here's the iPlayer link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ght_13_03_2012/

I'm considering one of these and never putting in to shore:

I've been thinking along similar lines lately, maybe the future will become a bit like Waterworld, at least at sea there might be a few fish left, and a decent desalinaton unit and solar cells would probably be essentials (along with a good collection of weapons!).

Just been talking to my Boss who's a keen sailor, apparently powered boats (with engines) are getting increasingly harder to sell due to rising fuel costs, he has just bought some new sails for about €4k, however they should last about 10 years, so sounds like sail is definitely the way to go.

Mind you had another colleague who has lived on boats and he maintains it's pretty grim, cold wet etc.

[Democorruptcy]

Isn't the answer to go where the immigrants are coming from?

The immigrants are coming here because our wages are higher but we know that in reality those wages are useless in relation to living costs. As the living costs are so high more and more people, including immigrants turn to a life of living off the state. Then we need more immigrants to come and work to try support those living on benefits and drawing pensions. We get over crowded, house prices rise but we are going to be taxed to breathe. It's no good being asset rich but cash poor, it just means downsizing until you get to multiple occupancy or die first.

So... you take your money where wages are lower because that's where living costs are lower? Then your money lasts longer.