Interest Rates

[Toast]

10 hours ago, Thorn said:

Surely it’s pointless because they are all bought millionaires?

Even if they weren't, your vote will never make a difference (no election here has been won by a single vote). Nevertheless, if I can presume to tell you what to do, you should vote, because it's a civic duty. The ineffectiveness of your vote might actually free you from nonsense like tactical voting: you can pick whatever party makes you least angry, even if it's never held a seat (or you can choose whatever other strategy you're philosophically happy with). I find that quite liberating.

[warrior88]

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Not in my experience.

They've took the savings from lower mortgage rates and blown it on crap, taking on much more expensive unsecured debt.

The context is personal unsecured loans, not, secured mortgage loans.

[Errol]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

Nevertheless, if I can presume to tell you what to do, you should vote, because it's a civic duty.

Disagree. People fought and died to give us the right to choose whether we vote or not (i.e. true freedom). This is why I disagree with any systems that force citizens to vote. 

[UnconventionalWisdom]

53 minutes ago, Errol said:

Disagree. People fought and died to give us the right to choose whether we vote or not (i.e. true freedom). This is why I disagree with any systems that force citizens to vote. 

I agree with this- it's all about choice. 

Bit like Sinn fein- they get voted in on the belief that they won't take their seats or vote on policies proposed by the UK government. It's about giving people the freedom to make choices. 

At the same time I wish we had proportional representation so voting for a smaller party gives a chance of it gaining some sort of power. 

[spyguy]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Disagree. People fought and died to give us the right to choose whether we vote or not (i.e. true freedom). This is why I disagree with any systems that force citizens to vote. 

Sortof.

Im OK with people being forced to vote providing there's a non of the above option which, if over say 30% triggers some sort of reduction in MPs salaries and numbers.

Ideally, halting any increased government spending.

Ideally people should be forced to vote for specifc policies.

The time of representaive democracy has long gone, Lets go for mass enfranchisement.

[frankvw]

3 hours ago, Toast said:

Even if they weren't, your vote will never make a difference (no election here has been won by a single vote). Nevertheless, if I can presume to tell you what to do, you should vote, because it's a civic duty. The ineffectiveness of your vote might actually free you from nonsense like tactical voting: you can pick whatever party makes you least angry, even if it's never held a seat (or you can choose whatever other strategy you're philosophically happy with). I find that quite liberating.

Agree in one sense but when voting becomes compulsory, as in some nations and most infamously, Soviet Russia and North Korea, then that becomes another issue. For one, compulsory voting had a suspicious motive - it forces people to be registered with the state at a fixed address. The state may want your absolute data for other reasons other than democracy. Secondly, by voting for a system you don't agree with, you legitamise it, allowing legislation to be made in your name.

Say in our country, you have informal groupings that everyone really knows is in power and how much real democracy is there? Whether that is the ancient plantagenet control and their sycophant functionaries like Boris, Cameron, Gideon, Bullingtons or the nulabor crowd who openly boasted about open immigration flood gates, in opposition to mainstream view, simply as a business stratergy  to increase their party voting base by altering British culture and social structures in their favor. I am not quoting Katie Hopkins or Henry Bolton's girlfriend there -  Mandelson openly said that later on in biographies and interviews, right in front of people's faces. Even though they were never put that into any of their election manifestos. So the arguments goes, by voting, you provide legitimacy to a structure of undemocratic systems and tribes, soft slavery if you like,  and so' not voting' becomes your only protest. When voting numbers fall low enough, it starts to become difficult for regimes to justify their policies and structures because then people can always say they operate on a minority vote and people do have stopped voting because people refute the system. Autocratic governments traditionally try to avoid that situation and that is why compulsory voting has always been most zealously pursued in autocratic states.

Also, many blokes down at McDonalds or the Pub don't give two hoots about this kind of stuff and will vote according to the daily mail or whatever freebees they are promised (i.e., policies like money printing and market subsidies to inflate house prices - for as long as they feel they benefit from it. There's your democracy, in reality, two wolves and a sheep voting over the lunch menu).

[Toast]

2 hours ago, Errol said:

Disagree. People fought and died to give us the right to choose whether we vote or not (i.e. true freedom). This is why I disagree with any systems that force citizens to vote. 

I didn't make myself clear. By saying "you should vote" I was making a personal appeal, not expressing a desire for voting to be compulsory. I am trying to take a consistent position against apathy. If you feel that not voting is the only way to make a protest about the electoral system, them I'm perfectly happy with that as a considered position. What I don't like (and again, I have no desire to recruit the state apparatus to back my prejudices; you're free to tell me where to go) is people disengaging from politics because they have given up. I think we all have a civic duty to take part in democracy by thinking through our position and acting on it. Personally, I find there is usually someone to vote for, even if it's a joke party. I would also be very happy with a "re-open nominations" (RON) box on the paper, and even more so if there were consequences if RON were to win.

[Unmoderated]

43 minutes ago, frankvw said:

Agree in one sense but when voting becomes compulsory, as in some nations and most infamously, Soviet Russia and North Korea, then that becomes another issue. For one, compulsory voting had a suspicious motive - it forces people to be registered with the state at a fixed address. The state may want your absolute data for other reasons other than democracy. Secondly, by voting for a system you don't agree with, you legitamise it, allowing legislation to be made in your name.

Say in our country, you have informal groupings that everyone really knows is in power and how much real democracy is there? Whether that is the ancient plantagenet control and their sycophant functionaries like Boris, Cameron, Gideon, Bullingtons or the nulabor crowd who openly boasted about open immigration flood gates, in opposition to mainstream view, simply as a business stratergy  to increase their party voting base by altering British culture and social structures in their favor. I am not quoting Katie Hopkins or Henry Bolton's girlfriend there -  Mandelson openly said that later on in biographies and interviews, right in front of people's faces. Even though they were never put that into any of their election manifestos. So the arguments goes, by voting, you provide legitimacy to a structure of undemocratic systems and tribes, soft slavery if you like,  and so' not voting' becomes your only protest. When voting numbers fall low enough, it starts to become difficult for regimes to justify their policies and structures because then people can always say they operate on a minority vote and people do have stopped voting because people refute the system. Autocratic governments traditionally try to avoid that situation and that is why compulsory voting has always been most zealously pursued in autocratic states.

Also, many blokes down at McDonalds or the Pub don't give two hoots about this kind of stuff and will vote according to the daily mail or whatever freebees they are promised (i.e., policies like money printing and market subsidies to inflate house prices - for as long as they feel they benefit from it. There's your democracy, in reality, two wolves and a sheep voting over the lunch menu).

You can vote in the UK even if you do not have a registered address. However, most people in the UK with an address are also paying council tax, or registered with their doctor, employer for PAYE or HMRC for tax returns etc. 

Whether you vote, or don't the laws still apply. You do not escape the law of the land because you didn't vote. 

What protest is not voting? If enough people don't vote will that change things? It's like saying I'm not going to go on that march because I'm doing a silent pointless protest. 

Many blokes down the pub or at McDonalds probably do give a hoot about a lot of things that concern them directly. Besides, what % of the electorate are blokes down at McDonalds or at the Pub?

 

[warrior88]

On 11/02/2018 at 00:47, warrior88 said:

UK personal loan rates are still the cheapest they have ever been. Saving here for analyis in a year's time.

• £1,000 – £1,999: from 7.9% APR.
• £2,000 – £2,999: from 6.9% APR.
• £3,000 – £4,999: from 5% APR.
• £5,000 – £7,499: from 3.3% APR.
• £7,500 – £15,000: from 2.8% APR.
• £15,000 – £20,000: from 3% APR.
• £20,000 – £25,000: from 3% APR.
• £25,000 and over: from 3.3% APR.

Source: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loans/cheap-personal-loans

 

Time for the 2019 update: smaller loans rates has increased for larger loans rates have decreased. (same source)

·  £1,000 – £1,999: from 9.9% APR

·  £2,000 – £2,999: from 9.4% APR

·  £3,000 – £4,999: from 6.7% APR

·  £5,000 – £7,499: from 3.4% APR

·  £7,500 – £15,000: from 2.8% APR

·  £15,000 – £20,000: from 2.8% APR

·  £20,000 – £25,000: from 2.9% APR

·  £25,000 or over: from 3.3% APR

[winkie]

On 15/02/2018 at 11:48, spyguy said:

Sortof.

Im OK with people being forced to vote providing there's a non of the above option which, if over say 30% triggers some sort of reduction in MPs salaries and numbers.

Ideally, halting any increased government spending.

Ideally people should be forced to vote for specifc policies.

The time of representaive democracy has long gone, Lets go for mass enfranchisement.

So having none of the above is not voting.......so many now are politically homeless, even some politicians are politically homeless. 

[spyguy]

7 hours ago, warrior88 said:

Time for the 2019 update: smaller loans rates has increased for larger loans rates have decreased. (same source)

·  £1,000 – £1,999: from 9.9% APR

 

·  £2,000 – £2,999: from 9.4% APR

 

·  £3,000 – £4,999: from 6.7% APR

 

·  £5,000 – £7,499: from 3.4% APR

 

·  £7,500 – £15,000: from 2.8% APR

 

·  £15,000 – £20,000: from 2.8% APR

 

·  £20,000 – £25,000: from 2.9% APR

 

·  £25,000 or over: from 3.3% APR

 

Its he 'from' bit I d worry about.

Those figures, ifyou can get them, might look small, but they are expensive when your real take home has been negative for years.

 

 

[warrior88]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Its he 'from' bit I d worry about.

Those figures, ifyou can get them, might look small, but they are expensive when your real take home has been negative for years.

 

 

 

That doesn't stop the plebs taking the loans though .. some of which might be debt consolidation anyway (reducing larger rates to smaller)

[hurlerontheditch]

Minutes from the latest US Federal Reserve policy meeting show that policymakers felt there was very little risk to halting interest rate rises.

Instead, the Fed felt this would give it time to assess the effects of a global slowdown and how rate rises so far have effected the US economy. 

"Many participants suggested that it was not yet clear what adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate may be appropriate later this year," the minutes said.

"Several of these participants argued that rate increases might prove necessary only if inflation outcomes were higher than in their baseline outlook."

Policymakers also felt that it would be good to stop reducing the bonds on its balance sheet before the end of 2019.

 

 

looks like that’s the end of interest rates rise in the USA 

[zugzwang]

11 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

Minutes from the latest US Federal Reserve policy meeting show that policymakers felt there was very little risk to halting interest rate rises.

Instead, the Fed felt this would give it time to assess the effects of a global slowdown and how rate rises so far have effected the US economy. 

"Many participants suggested that it was not yet clear what adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate may be appropriate later this year," the minutes said.

"Several of these participants argued that rate increases might prove necessary only if inflation outcomes were higher than in their baseline outlook."

Policymakers also felt that it would be good to stop reducing the bonds on its balance sheet before the end of 2019.

 

 

looks like that’s the end of interest rates rise in the USA 

The Fed has to print again or U.S. stock markets are going to tank hard.

But even that may not be enough.

https://northmantrader.com/2019/02/19/the-lost-war/

[warrior88]

55 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The Fed has to print again or U.S. stock markets are going to tank hard.

But even that may not be enough.

https://northmantrader.com/2019/02/19/the-lost-war/

Cant seem to see the charts on my browser, a bit weird.

[hurlerontheditch]

https://twitter.com/robyounguk/status/1099927030697807872

 

Quote

UK interest #rates could be cut to below zero for the first time in history if there is a no-deal #Brexit, a former Bank of England policymaker has warned. @D_Blanchflower told @PA policymakers may be left with little option if a #NoDealBrexit hits the #economy.

what a doozy... negative interest rates.. pound will go down the pan..

 

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

https://twitter.com/robyounguk/status/1099927030697807872

 

what a doozy... negative interest rates.. pound will go down the pan..

 

Not when everyone else is doing it - which they will. ECB -0.4%; Sweden - 0.5%.

[scottbeard]

On ‎14‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 21:34, Sancho Panza said:

I don't vote for anyone these days but didn't Blair bring in the £3000 p.a. loans? So basically, Tories robbin a bit more than Labour.

Let's not mix up tuition fees and loans here.

Blair's government introduced tuition fees (at £1k) and increased them (to £3k).  They increased to £9k following a review by Lord Browne.  This review was commissioned in 2009 (under Labour) even though it reported back in 2010.  Not sure that counts as the Tories robbing more, especially as Lord Browne was very much a New Labour man.

But the other big difference is that the rate of interest on the loans used to be RPI, so in real terms you only paid back what you borrowed, but was increased in 2012 to be RPI + 3%pa.  That's shocking in my view - I'm not sure whose idea it was but clearly the Coalition government was in power when it happened.

[hurlerontheditch]

22 minutes ago, crouch said:

Not when everyone else is doing it - which they will. ECB -0.4%; Sweden - 0.5%.

sooner or later it is all going to go pop

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

sooner or later it is all going to go pop

Yes. The looming recssion won't help.

[zugzwang]

20 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Let's not mix up tuition fees and loans here.

Blair's government introduced tuition fees (at £1k) and increased them (to £3k).  They increased to £9k following a review by Lord Browne.  This review was commissioned in 2009 (under Labour) even though it reported back in 2010.  Not sure that counts as the Tories robbing more, especially as Lord Browne was very much a New Labour man.

But the other big difference is that the rate of interest on the loans used to be RPI, so in real terms you only paid back what you borrowed, but was increased in 2012 to be RPI + 3%pa.  That's shocking in my view - I'm not sure whose idea it was but clearly the Coalition government was in power when it happened.

The Coalition weren't obliged to listen Browne's recommendations let alone administer them. Infamously, the Lib Dems had campaigned to abolish tuition fees in the 2010 GE.

[ebull]

11 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The Coalition weren't obliged to listen Browne's recommendations let alone administer them. Infamously, the Lib Dems had campaigned to abolish tuition fees in the 2010 GE.

I wonder why lib dems are not angry at Clegg for basically destroying them when they were really on the up. All so that he personally had 10 mins at the top table.

IMO even worse than the tuition fees betrayal was the failure to get something akin to pr as a garanteed precondition of their participation.

[scottbeard]

39 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The Coalition weren't obliged to listen Browne's recommendations let alone administer them. Infamously, the Lib Dems had campaigned to abolish tuition fees in the 2010 GE.

No indeed not.  The Coalition government could have stopped this, but I'm just noting that I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Tories when

- Labour instituted the review

- A joint Conservative / Lib Dem administration implemented the findings

At the very least, all the major parties have some blame there.

[hurlerontheditch]

26 minutes ago, ebull said:

I wonder why lib dems are not angry at Clegg for basically destroying them when they were really on the up. All so that he personally had 10 mins at the top table.

IMO even worse than the tuition fees betrayal was the failure to get something akin to pr as a garanteed precondition of their participation.

but they did agree for a referendum on FPP with an "alternative vote" ,which was rejected in the referendum

[mrtickle]

1 hour ago, ebull said:

IMO even worse than the tuition fees betrayal was the failure to get something akin to pr as a garanteed precondition of their participation.

They negotiated hard to come up with the coalition agreement, but sadly the best they could get was the guarantee of a referendum - which the tories honoured.

Another chance for me to remind everyone that if LABOUR had not campaigned HARD against AV, with the 2015 Election run under AV then Ed Miliband would almost certainly be Prime Minister now, and we would have had no 2016 EU referendum, no 2016 General Election, no Corbyn, etc.