@contradevian Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Who was it on here in the audience? Guy in the audience stated the bankers bonuses were earned or related to Zero Interest Rate Policy designed to support house prices. Of course it went over like a lead balloon and Dimbleby moved the discussion on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Definitely a HPCer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyHead Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Saw it too. Almost choked on my tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The liebour broad seems quite moderate this week, hardly any foam or spittle coming from her mouth at all. Well spoken too, must be specially selected for the Tunbridge Wells audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He said we needed higher interest rates and lower house prices. Dimbles couldn't have moved on more quickly. Unfortunately it looked to be more out of bafflement that anything else. Problem is everyone on these panels is the wrong age to even know there's a problem, let alone give a damn about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 As usual it's been garbage central tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
“Nasty Piece of work” Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Congratulations to that geezer! Unfort. it is too much to think the average dunder-head viewer will understand HPI is why the Country is F.U. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyHead Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Man in audience saying British are lazy. Bast**d The reason the young aren't thrilled about earning minimum wage is because LOW WAGES WON'T PAY ENOUGH FOR THESE BUBBLE HOUSING COSTS!!! FFS! Baby boomers seem to think the young should work without any of the rewards they enjoyed (like putting a roof over your head). Now they want the young to work for nothing!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Man in audience saying British are lazy. Bast**d The reason the young aren't thrilled about earning minimum wage is because LOW WAGES WON'T PAY ENOUGH FOR THESE BUBBLE HOUSING COSTS!!! FFS! Baby boomers seem to think the young should work without any of the rewards they enjoyed (like putting a roof over your head). Now they want the young to work for nothing!! What about that other kn*b that had taken on some graduates, put them into "middle management" and with smug face stated he was paying them half the normal salary. What a total s**t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Its like choccy. Naughty but nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Its like choccy. Naughty but nice! Surely more like forbidden fruit that's gone mouldy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 What about that other kn*b that had taken on some graduates, put them into "middle management" and with smug face stated he was paying them half the normal salary. What a total s**t. Ha, saw that. Seemed very proud he was paying half the going rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 There was much support for Workfare, which surprised me, overlooking the now well-documented exploitative and coercive nature of it, even on the live blog I was on. Perhaps it's a good idea, poorly delivered or too costly in terms of admin when some of that cost perhaps should reward the work done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 He said we needed higher interest rates and lower house prices. Dimbles couldn't have moved on more quickly. Unfortunately it looked to be more out of bafflement that anything else. Saying that we need higher interest rates when the economy and money supply growth are flat on their backs is baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 He said we needed higher interest rates and lower house prices. Dimbles couldn't have moved on more quickly. Unfortunately it looked to be more out of bafflement that anything else. Saying that we need higher interest rates when the economy and money supply growth are flat on their backs is baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLASH_2007 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Saying that we need higher interest rates when the economy and money supply growth are flat on their backs is baffling. I don't agree. As a nation there is too much debt and not enough savings. I see no other way of adjusting this other than raising inerest rates. Edited February 24, 2012 by FLASH_2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't agree. As a nation there is too much debt and not enough savings. As a saver I hear what you're saying but aren't we in so much debt that any rise in interest rates beyond a token amount would send the economy into a tailspin? Not that the current "deer in the headlights" approach adopted by the MPC is going to work out either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLASH_2007 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 As a saver I hear what you're saying but aren't we in so much debt that any rise in interest rates beyond a token amount would send the economy into a tailspin? Not that the current "deer in the headlights" approach adopted by the MPC is going to work out either. In a sense you're right but personally I don't see any point in delaying the inevitable crash and would rather see a severe ressession lasting a few years and let the economy grow from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 In a sense you're right but personally I don't see any point in delaying the inevitable crash Indeed, but our elected politicians know that such a crash would be blamed squarely on them if it occurred on their watch. In a sense, this is the opposite approach to that taken in the early 80s in the US when Paul Volcker raised US interest rates to 20% to tackle the stagflation of the 1970s. This caused a very steep but relatively short-lived recession. In the film I.O.U.S.A. this is described as a "truly courageous" decision. Anyone who's ever watched Yes Minister will know what Sir Humphrey means when he uses this kind of language: Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous". Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"? Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"! We have no courageous politicians any more in the UK, only short-term, quick fix, shyster crooks and self-serving spivs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 There was much support for Workfare, which surprised me, overlooking the now well-documented exploitative and coercive nature of it, even on the live blog I was on. Perhaps it's a good idea, poorly delivered or too costly in terms of admin when some of that cost perhaps should reward the work done. I think in a recession you get a lot of redundant folk, effectively, forced into self-employment. Suddenly they have to do their own tax and I they think get much more right-wing in their views about those receiving the tax in the form of handouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 There was much support for Workfare, which surprised me, overlooking the now well-documented exploitative and coercive nature of it, even on the live blog I was on. Perhaps it's a good idea, poorly delivered or too costly in terms of admin when some of that cost perhaps should reward the work done. Getting people to work (perhaps even slave work) who have no intention of ever working will always be seen as a good thing. And don't give me that crud about there aren't any. We've all read about the 'education software writers' who were 'unable' to find work during the boom years. And there's loads of people on the sick because they are too disgusting to employ. Does that mean we set targets for levels of disgust to allow people to live a life of doing nothing on nice sick money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 It will send it into a tailspin down towards where it actually is. EXACTLY. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't agree. As a nation there is too much debt and not enough savings. I see no other way of adjusting this other than raising inerest rates. To get rid of the debt you need savers to stop saving and start spending and debtors to stop spending and start paying back. Higher interest rate would make things worse. It would encourage saver to hang on to they money to make more money and make paying off debt more difficult. If savers wont spend their money then that money can be replaced by the BofE with freshly printed money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamLancs Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 To get rid of the debt you need savers to stop saving and start spending and debtors to stop spending and start paying back. Higher interest rate would make things worse. It would encourage saver to hang on to they money to make more money and make paying off debt more difficult. If savers wont spend their money then that money can be replaced by the BofE with freshly printed money. Uh you seem to have everything backwards. Savings underpin the entire bank lending structure. If you take the savings away, the whole system falls down. Or look at it the other way... if everybody were to become a saver, then demand for debt suddenly disappears. You can print the money, but it will destroy savings and discourage future savings, and thus lending will become either more sparse or more fragile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.