Is the end nigh for the Euro? [vol. 3]
Discussion
DJRC said:
We will see a .25% rate rise post election next yr and provably another .25% before Xmas. In 2016 you will see another 0.5 - 0.75% rise. That will be a useful balance between growth and managing increasing the rates.
This has no more credibility than the thread on here "... predicts hottest August for 300 years".fblm said:
Steffan, you say repeatedly that rates are unsustainably low. Why are they unsustainable? It supposedly wouldn't kill us if we had a rate rise, well conversely then why will it kill us if we don't? What metrics are you using to determine they are unsustainable? I'm quite prepared to accept they are historically low but that does not mean they are unstainable, yet.
Much as a I love fois gras, my view is that constantly being fed on free sweetcorn isn't good for general wellbeing of the goose in the long run. It swells the liver Edited by fblm on Thursday 21st August 21:26
. Still, a return to a normal diet of "solids" would be desirable; IMO the sooner the better.Edited by Andy Zarse on Friday 22 August 10:22
Claudia Skies said:
DJRC said:
We will see a .25% rate rise post election next yr and provably another .25% before Xmas. In 2016 you will see another 0.5 - 0.75% rise. That will be a useful balance between growth and managing increasing the rates.
This has no more credibility than the thread on here "... predicts hottest August for 300 years".
es around Europe milking all this to my best economic advantage. I don't really care what happens so long as I call it right for myself. So yes my figures might be wrong but I think that's roughly what will happen and I've structured thousands of pounds a month round it being like that for the next cpl of yrs. You of course are free to do something different.We are still waiting for your investment advice by the way. We continue to be agog...don't worry I game Neil Woodford on speed dial for you to give him the benefit of your advice as soon as you give it!
DJRC said:
We are still waiting for your investment advice by the way. We continue to be agog...don't worry I game Neil Woodford on speed dial for you to give him the benefit of your advice as soon as you give it!
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. Perhaps you are too young to have witnessed queues of people on the pavement outside Northern Rock and the utter collapse of the entire Icelandic banking sector.If you think retail savers shouldn't get interest I imagine you must be totally dumbfounded as to why gilts carry a coupon.
Claudia Skies said:
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. Perhaps you are too young to have witnessed queues of people on the pavement outside Northern Rock and the utter collapse of the entire Icelandic banking sector.
Remind us how much Northern Rock savers lost?Icelands banks obviously wern't risk free, funnily enough thats why they paid more interest. To idiots. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'risk return'? How about the FSCS?
fblm said:
Claudia Skies said:
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. Perhaps you are too young to have witnessed queues of people on the pavement outside Northern Rock and the utter collapse of the entire Icelandic banking sector.
Remind us how much Northern Rock savers lost?Icelands banks obviously wern't risk free, funnily enough thats why they paid more interest. To idiots. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'risk return'? How about the FSCS?
Regrettably the only reason that Northern Rock and the other banking disgraces did not leave their investors penniless in 2007 was because the poor taxpayers in the UK were saddled with the unaffordable debts of those business without advice, warning or consultation. Billions of pounds of liabilities were foisted onto the taxpayers in the UK. But for that decision there would have been a monumental collapse of many of the banks including Lloyds, the TSB and many other household names in Banking.
As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
Edited by Steffan on Friday 22 August 17:20
Steffan said:
Regrettably the only reason that Northern Rock and the other banking disgraces did not leave their investors penniless in 2007 was because the poor taxpayers in the UK were saddled with the unaffordable debts of those business without advice, warning or consultation. Billions of pounds of liabilities were foisted onto the taxpayers in the UK. But for that decision there would have been a monumental collapse of many of the banks including Lloyds, the TSB and many other household names in Banking.
As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
If there is an answer, a question, a point or a coherent thought in there I can't find it. I am well aware of why the banks were saved and by whom. Somewhere in there you yet again refer to unsustainable rates whilst not answering what that means and your later point about someone with £1m is so bizarre and misses the point of ZIRP by such a massive margin continuing this discussion would be a waste of both of our time.As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
Edited by Steffan on Friday 22 August 17:20
fblm said:
Steffan said:
Regrettably the only reason that Northern Rock and the other banking disgraces did not leave their investors penniless in 2007 was because the poor taxpayers in the UK were saddled with the unaffordable debts of those business without advice, warning or consultation. Billions of pounds of liabilities were foisted onto the taxpayers in the UK. But for that decision there would have been a monumental collapse of many of the banks including Lloyds, the TSB and many other household names in Banking.
As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
If there is an answer, a question, a point or a coherent thought in there I can't find it. I am well aware of why the banks were saved and by whom. Somewhere in there you yet again refer to unsustainable rates whilst not answering what that means and your later point about someone with £1m is so bizarre and misses the point of ZIRP by such a massive margin continuing this discussion would be a waste of both of our time.As a result these poor taxpayers in the UK will be still replying the debt and interest on the debt for literally generations. I am at a loss to understand how you cannot appreciate that this was what actually saved these failing banks and not the other UK Lenders in the same business sorting out their black sheep which should have been the solution. Which those banks could not afford to do. The Taxpyers were the mugs who lost out and the investors in those banks would have been in penury had that rescue not taken place. This was not a success story it was a disaster for the UK taxpayers.
A semblance of normality has returned to banking because of the bolstering by the taxpayers. However massive losses are being made by the taxpayers, as the banks are refloated or sold off cheaply which underlines the disaster that this is for all taxpayers. There has never been a collapse like this in the Western world post war and we must recognise this for what it is.
Proclaiming that the investors did not lose out when you yourself must realise this was entirely due to the taxpayers unwittingly bailing the banks out seems to be an attempt to pretend that all is well when in fact you must be aware that in the Uk all is not well and will not be for another several decades. If you are are a taxpayer. Who have collectively lost billions.
You asked why I believe that interest rates are not sustainable at the daft rates that they are now at. For the same reasons that I now distrust the banking system today. These rates are reflecting the results of the collapse of the banks and the huge doubts that remain in banking as a safe dependable system and are not economically viable rates in my opinion. They are necessary to sustain a credit boom that has resulted in massively excessive personal borrowing. The ECB is actually cutting rates even further.
If we can only run this banking system with wholly unsustainable low rates of less than 0.25% (ECB Rate) then the system is being artificially sustained in my view. We are staring at the point where money has no worth directly in the face. The man with a £1,000,000 in the bank is only £2500 better off than the penniless spendthrift with nothing in the bank. That is an a very unsafe position IMO. And reflects the serious problems within the systems which have not as yet been addressed.
Edited by Steffan on Friday 22 August 17:20
Claudia Skies said:
DJRC said:
We are still waiting for your investment advice by the way. We continue to be agog...don't worry I game Neil Woodford on speed dial for you to give him the benefit of your advice as soon as you give it!
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. DJRC said:
Claudia Skies said:
DJRC said:
We are still waiting for your investment advice by the way. We continue to be agog...don't worry I game Neil Woodford on speed dial for you to give him the benefit of your advice as soon as you give it!
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. 
fblm said:
Remind us how much Northern Rock savers lost?
Icelands banks obviously wern't risk free, funnily enough thats why they paid more interest. To idiots. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'risk return'? How about the FSCS?
Oh dear, perhaps you thought the UK government bailouts didn't "cost" anything.Icelands banks obviously wern't risk free, funnily enough thats why they paid more interest. To idiots. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'risk return'? How about the FSCS?
Anyway, fortunately I have better things to do than participate in your incestuous nonsense-fest with Digga and DRJC.
Bye for now,
Claudia
fblm said:
Claudia Skies said:
Oh dear, perhaps you thought the UK government bailouts didn't "cost" anything.
How the hell you inferred that from anything I have ever said I don't care to know. Very strange. Bye bye.Mermaid said:
DJRC said:
Claudia Skies said:
DJRC said:
We are still waiting for your investment advice by the way. We continue to be agog...don't worry I game Neil Woodford on speed dial for you to give him the benefit of your advice as soon as you give it!
I think my investment advice would probably be to do exactly the opposite of anything you suggest. It seems to me someone who thinks bank savers should get no interest because their deposits are "risk free" is plain bonkers. Steffan said:
fblm said:
Claudia Skies said:
Oh dear, perhaps you thought the UK government bailouts didn't "cost" anything.
How the hell you inferred that from anything I have ever said I don't care to know. Very strange. Bye bye.ds win suckers pay. You know this aswell as I do.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff