Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Quicken

Save Our Savers On Message

Recommended Posts

I just received an update email from Save Our Savers, and it makes interesting reading from an HPC perspective. Here's a snippet (my bold highlighting):

Save Our Savers was launched in January 2010 in the belief that savings and the ethics of the saver – self-reliance, security, compassion for others and a focus on the long term rather than the short – provided the only sustainable route out of the economic quagmire into which the country was rapidly sinking. Furthermore, fiscal and economic policy should encourage, not penalize, saving and above all ensure that money saved retained its value.

Consumer debt had risen to record highs and easy credit had encouraged a "buy now, pay later" culture. The housing market had spiralled out of control, fuelled by – and in turn fuelling – a culture of debt which was further aggravated by the abuse of self-certified mortgages or "liar loans".

Savers were instinctively cautious when faced by the easy-borrow, easy-spend culture of the 90s and early 00s. They know that the economy would not be in such a sorry state if governments had encouraged financial prudence instead of adopting short-term, politically expedient policies. Much of the anger of savers comes from knowing that they did the "right thing" by being thrifty, yet have been forced to pay the price on behalf of those who spent as if there were no tomorrow. We calculate that Britain's savers have incurred losses of over £220 billion since bank rate was cut to 0.5% in March 2009.

They do seem to get it, which is a good thing given they have a decent media profile.

Cheers, Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save our savers should have a sister site called save our consumers, might get a few more on board.

A litre of petrol in Jan 09, before QE started, 80p a litre, A litre of petrol by April 13, 140p a litre, a 60-70% increase. I dare say if the market for foodstuffs had as immediate a turnover as oil, we would see the weekly food bill be ~50% lower too.

Its not just housing printed money shows up in, after all.

Its not just accumulated savings it harms, but wage purchasing power.

Of course, the banksters have convinced the public the sky would fall in if they hadnt been bailed out, however the reality is, as shown by Denningers charts, there has been no meaningful improvement in employment since QE started. As MISHs charts show, QE has only improved wealth levels for the richest 7%, but harmed everyones purchasing power.

Their rhetoric is empty. Their threats void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do seem to get it

I don't think they get it at all. One man's debt is another man's savings. If there is too much debt there are too many savings. Deflating the debt bubble requires a reduction in the total value of savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they get it at all. One man's debt is another man's savings. If there is too much debt there are too many savings. Deflating the debt bubble requires a reduction in the total value of savings.

Hmmm. Don't asset values (house prices) play a role? During the credit bubble pre-2008, the household savings ratio fell to an all time low of 2 percent. More debt, less saving.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/848/economics/savings-ratio-uk/

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of the anger of savers comes from knowing that they did the "right thing" by being thrifty

According to whom?

What is the law that says that deferring consumption by lending to a bank will produce a real rate of return ad infinitum?

Is it the same law that says houseprices always go up?

Edited by R K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to whom?

What is the law that says that deferring consumption by lending to a bank will produce a real rate of return ad infinitum?

Is it the same law that says houseprices always go up?

Savers as a group are people who defer expenditure now to provide a cushion for themselves & their families in the future. It's not really that they want a 'super' return but a fair one...... rpi plus a couple of %. The system has been stacked against the prudent..... to the benefit of the reckless and the feckless

I would distinguish between savers, investors and speculators: savers defer expenditure now to provide for the future (hopefully a better one), investors are prepared to risk their capital for hopefully a larger return. Speculators are basically gamblers, weighing up risk & reward.

Depending on our age / position in life we all vary our risk profile - you might 'save' for a holiday, save for a house deposit. Alternatively you might invest in (your own) business. Alternatively you might gamble all on shares, currency etc. You pays yer money!

Edited by browneconomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Savers as a group are people who defer expenditure now to provide a cushion for themselves & their families in the future. It's not really that they want a 'super' return but a fair one...... rpi plus a couple of %. The system has been stacked against the prudent..... to the benefit of the reckless and the feckless

I would distinguish between savers, investors and speculators: savers defer expenditure now to provide for the future (hopefully a better one), investors are prepared to risk their capital for hopefully a larger return. Speculators are basically gamblers, weighing up risk & reward.

Depending on our age / position in life we all vary our risk profile - you might 'save' for a holiday, save for a house deposit. Alternatively you might invest in (your own) business. Alternatively you might gamble all on shares, currency etc. You pays yer money!

Just out of interest, if the "reckless and the feckless" don't borrow money who provides the savers with their return ?

Words like "fair" are subjective and nonsensical. You get the price for your money that the market dictates, minus the slice for Mr. Fat Banker of course. If that isn't to your liking then there is always the opportunity to go somewhere else.

Some people rent out houses, others rent out money. Don't see the difference between either myself. Both parties expect returns for doing nothing and both positions are about those using power and wealth to extract income from those without it IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, if the "reckless and the feckless" don't borrow money who provides the savers with their return ?

Words like "fair" are subjective and nonsensical. You get the price for your money that the market dictates, minus the slice for Mr. Fat Banker of course. If that isn't to your liking then there is always the opportunity to go somewhere else.

Some people rent out houses, others rent out money. Don't see the difference between either myself. Both parties expect returns for doing nothing and both positions are about those using power and wealth to extract income from those without it IMO.

If there were no price inflation, then I'm sure many/most savers would be happy to receive no interest ('rent') on their savings.

Edit to add: Savers in general are not in a psoition of power. The banks are the powerful and both savers and borrowers accept the deals dictated by the banks.

Q

Edited by Quicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Savers as a group are people who defer expenditure now to provide a cushion for themselves & their families in the future. It's not really that they want a 'super' return but a fair one...... rpi plus a couple of %. The system has been stacked against the prudent..... to the benefit of the reckless and the feckless

I'd settle for interest set at rpi. + a % would potentially be taking the biscuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were no price inflation, then I'm sure many/most savers would be happy to receive no interest ('rent') on their savings.

Edit to add: Savers in general are not in a psoition of power. The banks are the powerful and both savers and borrowers accept the deals dictated by the banks.

Q

Hmmm. I don't think the message got through.

It's not about what you're happy with. I'd be happy with 1 million quid a year salary. But guess what ?

Question, after paying huge student fees, car insurance, rent and cost of living (petrol, food), how much money have people got left over to pay interest on borrowed money (that's the money that they borrowed from the savers, via the banks) ?

Saving is like any other investment, you don't like the returns, you walk. Savers have power in this respect, much more so than borrowers.

I am a saver (I guess a lot of people here are). if I was not happy with the returns the bank gives me I would stick two fingers up at them and take it somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, if the "reckless and the feckless" don't borrow money who provides the savers with their return ?

Non-reckless borrowing and investment? It's this crazy new idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving is like any other investment, you don't like the returns, you walk. Savers have power in this respect, much more so than borrowers.

I am a saver (I guess a lot of people here are). if I was not happy with the returns the bank gives me I would stick two fingers up at them and take it somewhere else.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. The market is rigged - as we know from the recent debacle re LLoyd's 'selling' off a couple of 100 branches - to protect oligopoly of the big 4. Until we have true competition (dreaming!), or a state 'peoples' bank, we have a corrupt system where the profits are privatised and any losses socialised.

Personally I think it could be legislated so that savers - if we had one state peoples bank*- get rpi plus say 2% borrowers pay this plus the banks margin.

As a fellow saver what can one do? Accept paltry below inflation returns or enter the brave new world of 'investment' or 'speculation' I posted earlier.

* older members may remember an informal version of a peoples bank aka the Building Society movement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, if the "reckless and the feckless" don't borrow money who provides the savers with their return ?

Words like "fair" are subjective and nonsensical. You get the price for your money that the market dictates, minus the slice for Mr. Fat Banker of course. If that isn't to your liking then there is always the opportunity to go somewhere else.

Some people rent out houses, others rent out money. Don't see the difference between either myself. Both parties expect returns for doing nothing and both positions are about those using power and wealth to extract income from those without it IMO.

Not really got a problem with people who rent out money or rent out houses per se. My objection is when people borrow money to buy & rent out houses ie btl.

You don't get the price for your money as dictated by the market but by the price determined by a corrupt market system (BoE & bankers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fellow saver what can one do? Accept paltry below inflation returns or enter the brave new world of 'investment' or 'speculation' I posted earlier.

^ this. Fill your boots.

No-one owes your fully insured savings deposit a single brown penny in interest. Once upon a time this was understood (at least in the US), back in the '30s, and insured current accounts were not allowed to earn any interest, BY LAW.

The future will shortly teach you, as RK and others pointed out above, that deferral of consumption even at 0% real return is not a right or even the natural state of the world.

High time people like you got taught a proper lesson because it's your lot that are ultimately responsible not only for this raging depression, but also in the final analysis for most of the bias towards speculation and gaming that you are banging on about from your soapbox.

For 40 years central banks have made sure that savers pretty much got a positive rate of real return no matter what*, and this is the reason why the whole world has debt stuffed into its every orifice.

* In the century preceding that, real rates were very regularly negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ this. Fill your boots.

No-one owes your fully insured savings deposit a single brown penny in interest. Once upon a time this was understood (at least in the US), back in the '30s, and insured current accounts were not allowed to earn any interest, BY LAW.

The future will shortly teach you, as RK and others pointed out above, that deferral of consumption even at 0% real return is not a right or even the natural state of the world.

High time people like you got taught a proper lesson because it's your lot that are ultimately responsible not only for this raging depression, but also in the final analysis for most of the bias towards speculation and gaming that you are banging on about from your soapbox.

For 40 years central banks have made sure that savers pretty much got a positive rate of real return no matter what*, and this is the reason why the whole world has debt stuffed into its every orifice.

* In the century preceding that, real rates were very regularly negative.

You've got it all round the wrong way.

Savers responsible for pushing nearly the whole of the manufacturing workforce abroad - not a chance in hell - that'll be the bankers playing games with the economy to enhave their bonuses and egos and as a result making this country (and others) woefully uncompetitive and an expensive, shite plave to do competitive business.

My plans for investing in this country are finished - I'm not pissing away what should be investment and profit into expensive floorspace (other than housing to house me and my family). the work will be sent abroad andthat is it decision made and sealed with the latest rounds of QE and manipulation.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I don't think the message got through.

It's not about what you're happy with. I'd be happy with 1 million quid a year salary. But guess what ?

Question, after paying huge student fees, car insurance, rent and cost of living (petrol, food), how much money have people got left over to pay interest on borrowed money (that's the money that they borrowed from the savers, via the banks) ?

Saving is like any other investment, you don't like the returns, you walk. Savers have power in this respect, much more so than borrowers.

I am a saver (I guess a lot of people here are). if I was not happy with the returns the bank gives me I would stick two fingers up at them and take it somewhere else.

But you can't! There is nowhere to go, they are all offering below inflation returns, every bank or BS. This is partly due to FLS !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't normally post on the main forum, because 99% of the time someone cleverer than me makes my point better than I could, so be gentle with me! On on this occasion however I will bite...

^ this. Fill your boots.

No-one owes your fully insured savings deposit a single brown penny in interest. Once upon a time this was understood (at least in the US), back in the '30s, and insured current accounts were not allowed to earn any interest, BY LAW.

O.K., fair enough. But equally I don't think I should get a negative return unless there's a jolly good reason, like a natural event (meteor strike/weather event etc.) or energy crunch or something which reduces the human race's ability to look after itself in the standard to which it has become accustomed (which I don't believe will- or at least needs to, if we're smart- happen, for the record).

The future will shortly teach you, as RK and others pointed out above, that deferral of consumption even at 0% real return is not a right or even the natural state of the world.

To subject your argument to reducto ad absurdum, surely what you're arguing is that, say, a subsistence farmer, rather than storing his annual crop to see him through the winter, should instead attempt to eat it all as soon as it's harvested?!

That wouldn't, IMO, be sensible :P . Now, to take it another step, say that said subsistence farmer is capable of farming in a year twice as much food as he needs to survive on. If he had a way of preserving that food in edible condition indefinitely, then he would only need to work for half of his lifetime. I see no reason why he should continue to work even when he has more than enough food to eat for the rest of his life?

In the first world, we still to my knowledge don't really have ways of preserving all the components of a balanced diet for 30+ years...but we have modern mechanised methods of food production that mean that one person can, in fact, grow enough food for 20 people, leaving the other 19 free to persue other endeavours, be they productive or otherwise. We need shelter too of course, but I can't imagine more than 3 total man-years are tied up in the making of a nice house, even including the making of the raw materials needed to build it. If all anyone requires are food to eat and a roof over their head, then nobody should really need to work more than 5-10 hours a week. Obviously we like having healthcare, roads and all the other things the state provides, so add on another (say) 15 hours for that. If a person chooses to work 40 hours, then the balance is 'added value', and in a sensible system they should be able to save the difference so that they don't need to work until they die. Monetary savings are, IMO, a perfectly sensible store of that added value.

By following this course of action, people can add enough value in their working life that they don't need to work at the end of it, when they're far more likely to be suffering some infirmity that prevents them from being an effective worker, but doesn't prevent them eating and sitting about watching telly, or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of people being able to build up such a large pot of money that they expect to be able to live purely off the interest and still leave a large inheritance- but retirees spending the savings they've accrued over their working lives are still active participants in the economy, and that money naturally gets redistributed to the working population whom they are paying for goods and services, such that they can, in turn, accrue savings of their own.

Since we (in the first world at least) live in a sufficiently advanced society that we don't need to work full time just to stay alive, to argue against the ability to 'front load' that work into the first 65 (or whatever) years of our lives is IMO to cut off our nose to spite our face.

For 40 years central banks have made sure that savers pretty much got a positive rate of real return no matter what*, and this is the reason why the whole world has debt stuffed into its every orifice.

* In the century preceding that, real rates were very regularly negative.

As I say, I would be perfectly happy with a zero rate of return; negative, not so much. And also, as I say, I'm also not that clever a chap, so if I've misrepresented your argument please put it down to a lack of comprehension (which I'll trust you to correct) rather than malice ;) .

Edited 2 mins after posting for clarity.

Edited by Rave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we just call them debt hoarders so all can see them for what they are. If I borrow £1000 into existence and spend it in the economy and then someone else saves it, itis now impossible for me to pay it back. They are the classic rentiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we just call them debt hoarders so all can see them for what they are. If I borrow £1000 into existence and spend it in the economy and then someone else saves it, itis now impossible for me to pay it back. They are the classic rentiers.

The few times I have borrowed money it has been

1) To buy a car so that I can get to work. Overall I was better off and paid back the money. Investment.

2) Bought somewhere to live. Mortgage payments similar to rent payments - fed up with cr@p landlords. Was paying it back until I sold it.

'Spend it in the economy' - big difference whether the money is spent on bling or something useful.

Suit, work shoes, tools, veg seeds are very different from buying an iPhone or branded clothes for boasting, social oneupmanship or a mild feeling of happiness before buyers/debtors remorse hits.

From the Save Our Savers website:-

"The vast majority of savers are not rich but save by deliberately living within their budget. They cut down on luxuries. They will manage without. They are striving for security and self-reliance focusing on the long term rather than the short. You may be saving to meet household bills, unexpected emergencies, the cost of Christmas, a holiday, a car, a university education, a house or for your old age. whatever the reason you are demonstrating what government and politicians only ever pay lip service to, a commitment and responsibility to the future."

Security and self-reliance. Sounds reasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Savers as a group are people who defer expenditure now to provide a cushion for themselves & their families in the future. It's not really that they want a 'super' return but a fair one...... rpi plus a couple of %. The system has been stacked against the prudent..... to the benefit of the reckless and the feckless

I would distinguish between savers, investors and speculators: savers defer expenditure now to provide for the future (hopefully a better one), investors are prepared to risk their capital for hopefully a larger return. Speculators are basically gamblers, weighing up risk & reward.

What a load of naive bobbins. There is no such things as savers in the financial sense. Your "savings" are a bank's liability, your debt (if you have any) their asset. The interest on the liability derives from the income from their assets. I.e. the interest rate your savings get directly correlates to the amount of income they can get off their debt. Basically what you are saying is you want a risk-free return of RPI plus several percent. Where in the name of all that is holy do you think a bank can that from? It's laughable. And people on here bang on about the UK's entitlement culture.....

O.K., fair enough. But equally I don't think I should get a negative return unless there's a jolly good reason, like a natural event (meteor strike/weather event etc.) or energy crunch or something which reduces the human race's ability to look after itself in the standard to which it has become accustomed (which I don't believe will- or at least needs to, if we're smart- happen, for the record).

That's nice too. Again, where do you think that return comes from?

I think that many people on here who read my posts may think that I like the current situation. I don't. I too would like a cheap house, a strong risk free real return on my savings and a nice fat pension. I'd like to buy a house in the 1970s like my parents did and watch the mortgage inflated to nothing within several years. Unfortunately that is not the way the world works. The government is able to manipulate the market and create the situation it desires for a very long time. It has been 5 years since the crisis, house prices have been static for 3 years, ZIRP is entrenched. This is it, this how it is going to be for the foreseeable. You can believe in some sort of rapture-style event where interest rates go up and you get a house for a song, or you can adjust to the sodding facts and work out how to the play to the established rules of the game, rather than whining about how you want the rules to change. The rules aren't going to change, unless your needs end up matching those of the elites. Even they are ultimately constrained by resources and demographics.

When I first came on here, I used to learn a great deal - not something that I could say now. Many of the tropes of this site have been proved wrong by events, yet people cling to the same old talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of naive bobbins. There is no such things as savers in the financial sense. Your "savings" are a bank's liability, your debt (if you have any) their asset. The interest on the liability derives from the income from their assets. I.e. the interest rate your savings get directly correlates to the amount of income they can get off their debt.

What's the alternative? Spend the money and have nothing for when the SHTF?

Two ways of spending for me:-

1) Things, consumables - don't get a kick out of most treats or luxuries. Interesting and unusual experiences I enjoy.

2) Buying a house - sod all choice out there, even if willing to overpay against own judgement of value. I guess this is heading towards a point when people buy any asset at whatever price as no faith in banks, currency etc? At this point either productive land (rental or food) or gold would be best. The UK would probably not be a good place to be at that point.

I think I'll settle abroad rather than the UK. Savings are mostly out of UK currency already. In fact have positioned myself to be quite flexible - so a Euro collapse might see me buying a farm/smallholding in France, Ireland or elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is able to manipulate the market and create the situation it desires for a very long time. It has been 5 years since the crisis, house prices have been static for 3 years, ZIRP is entrenched. This is it, this how it is going to be for the foreseeable.

I have no idea what's coming next, but £120bn budget deficits and London house prices rising rapidly from already eye-watering levels are not things that can be sustained for "a very long time". The pressures in the system are building up very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the alternative? Spend the money and have nothing for when the SHTF?

Two ways of spending for me:-

1) Things, consumables - don't get a kick out of most treats or luxuries. Interesting and unusual experiences I enjoy.

2) Buying a house - sod all choice out there, even if willing to overpay against own judgement of value. I guess this is heading towards a point when people buy any asset at whatever price as no faith in banks, currency etc? At this point either productive land (rental or food) or gold would be best. The UK would probably not be a good place to be at that point.

I think I'll settle abroad rather than the UK. Savings are mostly out of UK currency already. In fact have positioned myself to be quite flexible - so a Euro collapse might see me buying a farm/smallholding in France, Ireland or elsewhere.

I am not saying spend all your money - indeed, I am sitting on a large(ish) cash pile. I am not however expecting other people to give me RPI plus several % in return for it, that's my point. Don't whine about ZIRP, please. I'd recommend abroad - I live in Asia myself.

I have no idea what's coming next, but £120bn budget deficits and London house prices rising rapidly from already eye-watering levels are not things that can be sustained for "a very long time". The pressures in the system are building up very quickly.

Have you seen Japan's deficits and Tokyo house prices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K., fair enough. But equally I don't think I should get a negative return unless there's a jolly good reason, like a natural event (meteor strike/weather event etc.) or energy crunch or something which reduces the human race's ability to look after itself in the standard to which it has become accustomed (which I don't believe will- or at least needs to, if we're smart- happen, for the record).

Or a looming demographic crisis. Or perhaps, simply the fact that borrowers in the developed world are simply not capable of absorbing more savings.

or, all your reasons plus the additional two I just listed.

To subject your argument to reducto ad absurdum, surely what you're arguing is that, say, a subsistence farmer, rather than storing his annual crop to see him through the winter, should instead attempt to eat it all as soon as it's harvested?!

The point is, a farmer has the option to store his own produce for later (after all, he does own it), but he would not expect a positive rate of return on that. If the produce is a soft commodity it will have a shelf life. If it is a bulky hard commodity it has a cost of storage in terms of land area, building maintenance and security.

All the worlds output, goods and services must be consumed more or less immediately less that which can sit around as unsold inventory like unsold cars in dealer lost and cans of beans. Unused human labour may not be stored.

SNIP...

By following this course of action, people can add enough value in their working life that they don't need to work at the end of it, when they're far more likely to be suffering some infirmity that prevents them from being an effective worker, but doesn't prevent them eating and sitting about watching telly, or whatever.

Only under conditions of growth. If the output of society is likely to fall in future for whatever reason, then by the time you get older and that day arrives there will be less to go around. Thus you cannot expect to defer consumption now and have the same amount N years in the future, unless there has been growth (when you might expect a return on saving).

Likewise, as so many have repeatedly observed, it is not possible to accumulate financial savings of any kind unless a suitable individual or institution care to issue a promise about what they will give you back in the future which you can hold is an asset with zero carry cost.

'Savings' which don't have a real person or institution which has promised to redeem them with their own labour or capital at some future time have no meaning. You should see that it is possible that there may arise a situation where the supply of persons and institutions willing to make such promises at the terms on offer (e.g. redemption at par for zero real return) may dry up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of naive bobbins. There is no such things as savers in the financial sense. Your "savings" are a bank's liability, your debt (if you have any) their asset. The interest on the liability derives from the income from their assets. I.e. the interest rate your savings get directly correlates to the amount of income they can get off their debt. Basically what you are saying is you want a risk-free return of RPI plus several percent. Where in the name of all that is holy do you think a bank can that from? It's laughable. And people on here bang on about the UK's entitlement culture.....

That's nice too. Again, where do you think that return comes from?

I think that many people on here who read my posts may think that I like the current situation. I don't. I too would like a cheap house, a strong risk free real return on my savings and a nice fat pension. I'd like to buy a house in the 1970s like my parents did and watch the mortgage inflated to nothing within several years. Unfortunately that is not the way the world works. The government is able to manipulate the market and create the situation it desires for a very long time. It has been 5 years since the crisis, house prices have been static for 3 years, ZIRP is entrenched. This is it, this how it is going to be for the foreseeable. You can believe in some sort of rapture-style event where interest rates go up and you get a house for a song, or you can adjust to the sodding facts and work out how to the play to the established rules of the game, rather than whining about how you want the rules to change. The rules aren't going to change, unless your needs end up matching those of the elites. Even they are ultimately constrained by resources and demographics.

When I first came on here, I used to learn a great deal - not something that I could say now. Many of the tropes of this site have been proved wrong by events, yet people cling to the same old talking points.

If I put my money into a bank then it seems reasonable that I should get the value of my money back, in real terms plus a small (and taxed) profit - if negative interest rates are the new norm (over any length of time) then obviously there is no incentive to save. No point in providing for your own future. At the moment there are many borrowers (the large banks being a case in point) paying negative interest rates (ie tracker mortgages at 0.5%) . That is surely a market abomination? But remember borrowers are only the indirect beneficiaries of Government / BoE policies ie to bail out those banks that should have been allowed to fail. Mind you, a ZIRP has been followed in Japan for a couple of decades, hasn't done them any good (demographics being the difference between UK & Japan)

Surely no one should expect to borrow money at below inflation over any length of time- it's moronic to think that is an entitlement. Deflation by interest rates!

I think the quote by NorthamptonBear earlier bears repetition:

QUOTE From the Save Our Savers website:-

"The vast majority of savers are not rich but save by deliberately living within their budget. They cut down on luxuries. They will manage without. They are striving for security and self-reliance focusing on the long term rather than the short. You may be saving to meet household bills, unexpected emergencies, the cost of Christmas, a holiday, a car, a university education, a house or for your old age. whatever the reason you are demonstrating what government and politicians only ever pay lip service to, a commitment and responsibility to the future."

Security and self-reliance. Sounds reasonable to me. END QUOTE

I agree with the principal but the SoS message has been lost because it is a quiet one. Maybe a drubbing by UKIP over the Coalition might focus a few minds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 244 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.