dothemaths

Of course, if you have a mortgage it belongs to the bank and not you.

Absolutely. There are always losers and winners. If you can't afford a house, you're simply a sore loser. Survival of the fittest - the winners are always those who best take advantage of the opportunities the market gives. You may not like it and think that it leads to perverse incentives but that is how the market works. The same people always end up on top. Regulation either makes no difference or makes things easier for the less capable .

No you must be mistaken. Regulation is bad and the market always knows best.

This seems to be mostly rhetoric. It is in effect what the banks were doing anyway. They have basically stopped giving liar loans to new buyers because in a falling market this leaves them exposed. The banks are no longer allowed to do what they have stopped doing anyway - yippee ! Even if the banks are still 'allowed' to approve high multiple loans for second time buyers, I really can't imagine there to be many lenders who will actually want to do that in a stagnant market. So first timers who bought around 2005-2007 are still very stuck indeed. I thing they'll be in NE for decades.

Yes, you live in a society not on a desert island so yes, your neighbour, your workmate, maybe even your close family are drowning in personal debt in addition to the amount we all owe collectively via the national debt.

Actually we have much higher levels of private debt than sovereign debt (around 70 % GDP and growing). This is basically debt owed by companies (approx 100 % GDP) , families (approx 100 % GDP) and financial institutions (approx 200 % GDP). This is why you sometimes hear about us being the most indebted western country. This is not good at all .... It reflects our unbalanced economy and is why we're basically f**ked .... However most people (and I'm including most on here too) don't want to face reality ....

Western, democratic, prosperous nations ...?

Greg Pytel's blog gives an excellent summary http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2011/12/has-cameron-killed-city.html

Article on the programme: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8921220/Vanessa-Engle-on-Money-interview.html

Chinese manufacturing has been boosted by Western companies transferring manufacturing (and skills) to China. They did this to boost their profits at the expense of their citizens. This was sold as good for everyone which was a LIE. It may have eventually happened anyway but much slower and given Western economies time to adjust. Now we're f**ked (apart from Germany/Japan maybe).

It's even worse than Wales

Good summary of the current situation. "Ye cannae change the laws of physics." Diversify, spread your assets, take it easy and wait.

Yes, noticed that too. Sometimes the prepackaged stuff is cheaper (potatoes) and sometimes it's not (bananas). I weigh and compare in the fruit and veg sections these days so as not to get ripped off.

This is not a sustainable state of affairs so will eventually end in tears. However it is impossible to predict how long this will take. My guess is months - a couple of years max.

Just words used to confuse those who cannot think logically. Yes and this was based on a huge untruth which the (unsophisticated) majority (who don't get 'markets') are just beginning to understand. The biggest lie of the last 30-40 years has been that the cost of education, health, transport and other infrastructure is much lower than it actually is. This was perpetrated using creative accounting which essentially transferred the real costs of these things to future generations (e.g. selling council houses without building any new stock). This was politically very popular as it told people that they could have things without paying for them i.e. lower taxes without any reduction in the services provided by the state. Basically a political ponzi scheme (big failure of press, legal & political system) .... But you have to ask - who benefits the most from this huge untruth. Not the average punter for sure ... Looking at things dispassionately, it is just a question of choice. A society must decide if these things (education, health, infrastructure) are worth having. If it accepts that these things are beneficial and good for its well being, then they must be properly costed and paid for. Either we pay for them individually (e.g. £9000 university fees) or we return to the high tax rates of the past. The average person pays higher taxes while the rich person pays much higher taxes. So again who does the status quo benefit ... You should probably check your numbers. (UK unemployment is around 7% , Germany's is around 6%). I am not sure how accurate numbers of economically inactivity that are bandied around are. Taxes in Germany are higher than the UK and German CEOs are paid much less in comparison to their workers than British ones. Bankers bonuses are totally missing the point. Banks are part of the financial sector which is only a fraction of the UK economy so they can only be part of the problem. Outsourcing (aka globalization) has definitely contributed to unemployment which has been bad for the UK economy. This was due to another lie based on creative accounting - the money made from globalization more than made up for the money lost by low/medium skilled workers leaving the economy and so they could be paid from the profits to do nothing. This was not true and even if it was, it isn't good from the societal stability point of view. This is again an example of the interests of multinational corporations put ahead of the population - not a recipe for success.

I have seen this kind of misleading statement again and again in the media This is a blatant attempt to obfuscate by telling people they are too stupid to understand how the world works using pedantic put downs about imprecise use of language by non-experts. Actually it is very simple and most people (in the mainstream media or otherwise) understand it. That is why there is so much rage around from the tea party to the occupy movement. Most people know that the markets are dominated by large organisations (pension funds etc) which are supposed to allocate OUR money in an efficient way for OUR benefit (a comfortable retirement, etc) . What is clear to everyone but the most intellectually challenged is that this HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING for a VERY LONG while. No amount of pedantic obfuscation can stop that. The financial system (let's call it the markets) has increasingly been working for the benefit of a few extremely unscrupulous and wealthy individuals and the detriment of everyone else for several decades. So when people b***h about the markets, they are actually (in sometimes inarticulate ways) complaining about the state of the financial system AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!! Of course the world has always been and always will be unequal so the system will always be skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. The problems start when this becomes so extreme that there is no upside at all for the majority. This is where we are today in the UK and most wealthy countries. It ain't going to be pretty ....

Yes, but this has been the point of view of the ruling classes for most of history. This state of affairs has been punctuated by the odd revolution when the majority have their backs to the wall. We're probably not quite there but I imagine we will be in less than a decade.

+ 1 What we do have is a corporate oligarchy which is looking rather wobbly at the moment.

The problem for people like you is that he is saying that banker bonuses must stay while education/health/housing for the unwashed masses must go. Fine if you are a CEO .... The debate the country has to have is if they are willing to give up all these `rights' and tolerate a CEO elite populated by people like him. The social contract of the last 30 years was basically based on 'free stuff like health/education' for the masses funded by the 'wealth generation' of the super rich elite who were tolerated because of this. This social contract has been shown to be unsustainable, as the elites weren't creating much real wealth for the majority. Actually it was based on passing it the costs on to future generations....

2 bed flat below mine used to have two people sharing - now it's three.

I guess the point of the article was not about the absolute value but the relative decline. There has been a decline in manufacturing in all major economies - this decline in the UK has been the most impressive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing

+ 1 Spot on. Western corporate shareholders have sold out western societies for increased short term profits. But most of the shares are held by pension funds which pay for members of the same societies pensions. Talk about some serious f**ked up Karma.

Actually that was exactly my point. Germans are not genetically any more honourable than other Europeans (a cursory review of recent history will tell you that). There are plenty of Rosbifs (like myself) or Frogs with solid morals who would feel just as `indebted' to someone who had helped them as a German in a similar situation. These are exactly the kind of people who don't have debts and live within their means and you'll find them all over the EU. There is a far too much hype these days in the UK press about the prudent German which is simply not based in fact.

I meant misuse by Auslaenders of course.