Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

andyrdj

New Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About andyrdj

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie
  1. A lot of people slag off the idea of the buyer's strike, claiming that there's no unity among us, and that as soon as prices look like being the best that they'll be for a while, all the strikers will rush to buy. Whether that's true or not, there might be another way - the saver's strike. Right now, the return for saving money is ridiculously low, due to the 0.5% interest rate we're enduring. There's no real incentive for people to save, one reason that property seems like an attractive investment to many. But here's the rub - the money that banks lend out to people comes from the money that savers deposit in the accounts, which is how we savers make interest. If nobody saves, then there just isn't the money to lend out. Gordon Brown's money printing can only really be a temporary exception to this. For some interting articles explaining this in depth, read http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/. One of his articles states that during the boom, despite the lack of savings being deposited banks lent money based on their optimistic projections of the values of their assets. You can see why that had to come tumbling down eventually. Now here's the really interesting bit - in the post credit crunch world our banks are going to have to be a lot more cautious about their lending and speculating - which is to say, they need to have a lot more solid savings based wealth in their banks to back up their lending. Savers have been a bit apathetic in many ways - we don't like the loss of interest, but we haven't really wielded any influence to lobby against it. But if large numbers of us withdrew cash from our effectively dead savings accounts, there would be a huge drop in the amount available to be lent to house buyers, and prices would plummet as a result. This, in fact, is the very crash which Gordon Brown mortaged us up to the hilt to avoid. So, with that in mind, let us imagine we get a large number of people to agree to the following ultimatum to present to government. "Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg We as prudent savers wishing to buy a home are fed up with both the ridiculously high house prices and ridiculously low interest rates in this country. We wish to see you put forward an exit strategy which will move us towards a country where: 1. House prices are a reasonable mutiple of average income - e.g. 3.5 2. Savings rates are reasonable, 6% or higher 3. Our economy is no longer dependant on high house prices for its wealth, with investment going into industry where it belongs so that true wealth can be generated Unless our demands are met within 1 month, large numbers of us will withdraw our savings from British banks from that date." The beauty of this is that we can win either way, namely - either the government puts forward a public strategy to do this, in which case the housing market, massively dependant on optimism, will fall, or - We pull our money from the banks, and make it very public that this is what we're doing. It doesn't require a long drawn out strike to do it - the panic will set in very quickly. Plus, what have you got to lose?
  2. A lot of people slag off the idea of the buyer's strike, claiming that there's no unity among us, and that as soon as prices look like being the best that they'll be for a while, all the strikers will rush to buy. Whether that's true or not, there might be another way - the saver's strike. Right now, the return for saving money is ridiculously low, due to the 0.5% interest rate we're enduring. There's no real incentive for people to save, one reason that property seems like an attractive investment to many. But here's the rub - the money that banks lend out to people comes from the money that savers deposit in the accounts, which is how we savers make interest. If nobody saves, then there just isn't the money to lend out. Gordon Brown's money printing can only really be a temporary exception to this. For some interting articles explaining this in depth, read http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/. One of his articles states that during the boom, despite the lack of savings being deposited banks lent money based on their optimistic projections of the values of their assets. You can see why that had to come tumbling down eventually. Now here's the really interesting bit - in the post credit crunch world our banks are going to have to be a lot more cautious about their lending and speculating - which is to say, they need to have a lot more solid savings based wealth in their banks to back up their lending. Savers have been a bit apathetic in many ways - we don't like the loss of interest, but we haven't really wielded any influence to lobby against it. But if large numbers of us withdrew cash from our effectively dead savings accounts, there would be a huge drop in the amount available to be lent to house buyers, and prices would plummet as a result. This, in fact, is the very crash which Gordon Brown mortaged us up to the hilt to avoid. So, with that in mind, let us imagine we get a large number of people to agree to the following ultimatum to present to government. "Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg We as prudent savers wishing to buy a home are fed up with both the ridiculously high house prices and ridiculously low interest rates in this country. We wish to see you put forward an exit strategy which will move us towards a country where: 1. House prices are a reasonable mutiple of average income - e.g. 3.5 2. Savings rates are reasonable, 6% or higher 3. Our economy is no longer dependant on high house prices for its wealth, with investment going into industry where it belongs so that true wealth can be generated Unless our demands are met within 1 month, large numbers of us will withdraw our savings from British banks from that date." The beauty of this is that we can win either way, namely - either the government puts forward a public strategy to do this, in which case the housing market, massively dependant on optimism, will fall, or - We pull our money from the banks, and make it very public that this is what we're doing. It doesn't require a long drawn out strike to do it - the panic will set in very quickly. Plus, what have you got to lose?
  3. A lot of people slag off the idea of the buyer's strike, claiming that there's no unity among us, and that as soon as prices look like being the best that they'll be for a while, all the strikers will rush to buy. Whether that's true or not, there might be another way - the saver's strike. Right now, the return for saving money is ridiculously low, due to the 0.5% interest rate we're enduring. There's no real incentive for people to save, one reason that property seems like an attractive investment to many. But here's the rub - the money that banks lend out to people comes from the money that savers deposit in the accounts, which is how we savers make interest. If nobody saves, then there just isn't the money to lend out. Gordon Brown's money printing can only really be a temporary exception to this. For some interesting articles explaining this in depth, read http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/. One of his articles states that during the boom, despite the lack of savings being deposited banks lent money based on their optimistic projections of the values of their assets. You can see why that had to come tumbling down eventually. Now here's the really interesting bit - in the post credit crunch world our banks are going to have to be a lot more cautious about their lending and speculating - which is to say, they need to have a lot more solid savings based wealth in their banks to back up their lending. Savers have been a bit apathetic in many ways - we don't like the loss of interest, but we haven't really wielded any influence to lobby against it. But if large numbers of us withdrew cash from our effectively dead savings accounts, there would be a huge drop in the amount available to be lent to house buyers, and prices would plummet as a result. This, in fact, is the very crash which Gordon Brown mortaged us up to the hilt to avoid. So, with that in mind, let us imagine we get a large number of people to agree to the following ultimatum to present to government. "Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg We as prudent savers wishing to buy a home are fed up with both the ridiculously high house prices and ridiculously low interest rates in this country. We wish to see you put forward an exit strategy which will move us towards a country where: 1. House prices are a reasonable mutiple of average income - e.g. 3.5 2. Savings rates are reasonable, 6% or higher 3. Our economy is no longer dependant on high house prices for its wealth, with investment going into industry where it belongs so that true wealth can be generated Unless our demands are met within 1 month, large numbers of us will withdraw our savings from British banks from that date." The beauty of this is that we can win either way, namely - either the government puts forward a public strategy to do this, in which case the housing market, massively dependant on optimism, will fall, or - We pull our money from the banks, and make it very public that this is what we're doing. It doesn't require a long drawn out strike to do it - the panic will set in very quickly. Plus, what have you got to lose?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.