snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 do you think advocating making saving money more attractive is the right way to go in a recession Do you think advocating making saving money more attractive will make any difference when we are not in a recession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 outside of a recession there is a good argument that saving is positive, defintelty, which is why 5 years ago I took out a cash ISA. in a recession it is nonsense to suggest saving is a cure as the Tories have done obviously we have to get lending moving that is the key and that will take time,s omething I guess people can not wait for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 outside of a recession there is a good argument that saving is positive, defintelty, which is why 5 years ago I took out a cash ISA. in a recession it is nonsense to suggest saving is a cure as the Tories have done Apart from saving means that banks have more deposits which ought to, in turn, put them in a better position to lend further down the line. Secondly, if you don't take the time and put in the effort to show people that saving is a good idea at a moment when people might actually take some notice then you have missed an opportunity which won't arise again for a while. In a few years time when things are picking up, very few will want to hear about the benefits of saving. obviously we have to get lending moving that is the key ... The key to what? Ah yes, the key to trying to rebuild the thing which has just collapsed. Catsles built on sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 well what else is there snowy, as much as you and I would like a different system, peopel have to buy stuff to keep other people employed, selling, moving and making it that is the system and frankly always has been ... therefore you have to obviously have demand, the question is whether we should set targets for economic growth to modest sones say 1% a year and like with inflation give BofE the power to keep to this good article though on was Bush to blame ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 obviously we have to get lending moving I'm afraid that lending levels contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. I cannot accept that increasing those levels will make everything alright I am also absoluetly gobsmacked, and this is not a comment directly at you, how the socialists cure for everything is to borrow. The advice given by this government over a number of problem area's in the last few months has been "it's OK borrow your way out of trouble" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 obviously we have to get lending moving I'm afraid that lending levels contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. I cannot accept that increasing those levels will make everything alright I am also absoluetly gobsmacked, and this is not a comment directly at you, how the socialists cure for everything is to borrow. The advice given by this government over a number of problem area's in the last few months has been "it's OK borrow your way out of trouble" Richard it is part of natural economic stabilisers that you borrow in a recession the Tories did in the 80's and 90's you then repay it back in the good times is George Bush a 'socialist' rememinder current American defceit - $1.2 TRILLION sso Richard do you think in a recession it is wish to adovcate polcies that encourage peopel to save ? and also to cut back on government spending ? do you believe in a recession you should leave thinsg as they are as the market will eventually resolve it no matter how much pain there is 'price worth paying' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Ian, I'm afraid I find it bizarre that someone who professes to disagree with the present system (which, frankly, has not always been) spends so much time promoting methods to reinvigorate it. good article though on was Bush to blame ?? Yes, not bad. Quite rightly saying that there were a good deal more people than gormless Dubya to blame, including Clinton, his administration and those who are making political capital out of it. Blimey sounds pretty much like the UK, doesn't it? What's the common ground between them all (Republican, Democrat, Labour, Conservative)? Their almost unquestioning loyalty to business, the market, economics based on growth and growth of production, &c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 sso Richard do you think in a recession it is wish to adovcate polcies that encourage peopel to save ? I think it is always wise to encourage people to save Ian, when it comes to paying back this debt, who do you think will do that? And with what? and also to cut back on government spending ? I think the level of debt (any debt be it yours , mine, BP or the Govt) has to be serviceable. It has to be paid back so that we live more to within our means and not over extend. I'm afraid that in order to pay this debt back then there will have to be a reduction in spending as well as higher taxes and as we are spending so much now on area's we haven't before (ie Bank bailouts) then the govt must look to pay for that within it's budget. It is truly frightening to see how much debt we have as a country, and not private debt but government debt. Really frightening I'm afraid and your points do not, to me, accept that there comes a day of reckonning very soon. do you believe in a recession you should leave thinsg as they are as the market will eventually resolve it no matter how much pain there is 'price worth paying' ? No I do not believe that. But I believe that the help that governments give in a recession should be better directed and more measured than just to over extend and encourage everyone else to borrow. For example not wasting £12.5Bn on a frankly useless VAT gimmick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Their almost unquestioning loyalty to business, the market, economics based on growth and growth of production, &c. totally 100% **** correct so if you do not base it on the market what can provide jobs for the workers in thsi country with enough money to provide for all we can not turn back the clock and I have no answers to that, nor do you I suspect so until we do we are stuck with the system we have but one that needs fixing badly because the present model of ultra deregulation was fatally flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 so until we do we are stuck with the system we have but one that needs fixing badly because the present model of ultra deregulation was fatally flawed So until someone comes up with a better suggestion, does one continue to put one's hand in the fire? Until someone comes up with a better solution for preventing someone else firing rockets at a country's population, should it still continue to do the same things which didn't solve the problem before and, arguably, helped to create and/or exacerbate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 sso Richard do you think in a recession it is wish to adovcate polcies that encourage peopel to save ? I think it is always wise to encourage people to save Ian, when it comes to paying back this debt, who do you think will do that? And with what? and also to cut back on government spending ? I think the level of debt (any debt be it yours , mine, BP or the Govt) has to be serviceable. It has to be paid back so that we live more to within our means and not over extend. I'm afraid that in order to pay this debt back then there will have to be a reduction in spending as well as higher taxes and as we are spending so much now on area's we haven't before (ie Bank bailouts) then the govt must look to pay for that within it's budget. It is truly frightening to see how much debt we have as a country, and not private debt but government debt. Really frightening I'm afraid and your points do not, to me, accept that there comes a day of reckonning very soon. do you believe in a recession you should leave thinsg as they are as the market will eventually resolve it no matter how much pain there is 'price worth paying' ? No I do not believe that. But I believe that the help that governments give in a recession should be better directed and more measured than just to over extend and encourage everyone else to borrow. For example not wasting £12.5Bn on a frankly useless VAT gimmick right so in a recession you adovcate cutting back spening in the bigger proption of GDP which is the government so that will lead to more job losses, more unemployment benefit, less tax and the circle decreases does it not ? People decry the VAT increase but iit was sure way of pumping money in, direct tax cuts would have led to people saving it and not benefiting it otherwise what is the choice and that is the only body big enough to encourage spending or do you question the validity of the market based economy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 so until we do we are stuck with the system we have but one that needs fixing badly because the present model of ultra deregulation was fatally flawed So until someone comes up with a better suggestion, does one continue to put one's hand in the fire? Until someone comes up with a better solution for preventing someone else firing rockets at a country's population, should it still continue to do the same things which didn't solve the problem before and, arguably, helped to create and/or exacerbate it? I am totally open for a better solution snowy - fire away ... tell me in broad terms your thoughts on turning from a market economy to another that can still pay for the thinsg we need , Health, education police etc. but does not base it self on what we have now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 right so in a recession you adovcate cutting back spening in the bigger proption of GDP which is the government Thats exactly what I have said. Not People decry the VAT increase but iit was sure way of pumping money in, direct tax cuts would have led to people saving it and not benefiting it Because it encourages people to borrow, borrow , borrow? I'm afraid saving 40p on £16 is not going to encourage me to spend more money on the economy, and thats why it's fecking useless. Look at the sales figures for December. How much did 2.5% help Ian? or do you question the validity of the market based economy ? Sorry but I just do not get the link that you are making Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 right so in a recession you adovcate cutting back spening in the bigger proption of GDP which is the government Thats exactly what I have said. Not People decry the VAT increase but iit was sure way of pumping money in, direct tax cuts would have led to people saving it and not benefiting it Because it encourages people to borrow, borrow , borrow? I'm afraid saving 40p on £16 is not going to encourage me to spend more money on the economy, and thats why it's fecking useless. Look at the sales figures for December. How much did 2.5% help Ian? or do you question the validity of the market based economy ? Sorry but I just do not get the link that you are making well Richard it is simple you are taking the Tory line on this ... the line is one that government reduces the spending next year to pay for tax cuts, is that not correct ? so you reduce spending in the hope all the money goes to private companies when in relaity a fair bit will go into savings (also what the tories wish to encourage) and the GDP fgoes down again so you except do you not that to create and keep jobs you need economic growth ? so therefore how does the two polices square up ? if not please tell me on a general basis how you stop this kind of recession which is world wide despite what you may think and int he next week we will see $800bn pumped in the form of tax cuts and public spending in America also you say borrowing is a socialist answer, so is GEorge Bush a socialist, he took Clinton's balanced budget and within a few years we saw massive defeicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 well Richard it is simple you are taking the Tory line on this ... Or I have an opinion that is different to yours and the governments. Does that mean you are taking the Labour Line? or another line? the line is one that government reduces the spending next year to pay for tax cuts, is that not correct ? I'm afraid that spending will have to be reduced at some point, frankly the debt is just way to large now to be paid for by tax increases alone. so you reduce spending in the hope all the money goes to private companies when in relaity a fair bit will go into savings (also what the tories wish to encourage) and the GDP fgoes down again Do you think people shouldn't save money Ian? I mean if not now, then when because when it comes to paying it back "in the good times" then they wont have enough money to save and pay back the debt? So when do people save ? or do they go around not expecting to pay their way and wanting someone else to pick up the tab (sounds like Labour to me) so you except do you not that to create and keep jobs you need economic growth ? Yes. I do not feel that the governments current policies will do that. so therefore how does the two polices square up ? By having a different set of policies designed to correct the situation and not put us back to where we were in June 2008 if not please tell me on a general basis how you stop this kind of recession which is world wide With the country expected to have the roughest time and the deepest recession widely predicted to be the UK also you say borrowing is a socialist answer, so is GEorge Bush a socialist, he took Clinton's balanced budget and within a few years we saw massive defeicts. George Bush is an idiot not a socialist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 what is your answer to this crisis Richard in the last post I can detect an answer which states what you believe will get us out, Ok slam Labour thats fine but to claim your line is not exactly the same as Tory line is stupid, every word you have said about saving is what they have said and their polcies would lead to a reduction in GDP even further, you can not as as an indivdual or a government save in a recession because it will only deepen it ... richard is a recession a 'price worth paying' to allow the market to work ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 but to claim your line is not exactly the same as Tory line is stupid, every word you have said about saving is what they have sa Ian, I have my own opinions. The fact that it closely resembles Tory thinking would sort of back up why I am a memebr of the party. Hwoever your suggestion that I am blindly following a party line is not true mate. Let me explain something to you. People tend to join parties that they broadly share the same mindset with. Is that a shock to you? richard is a recession a 'price worth paying' to allow the market to work ? What are you on about here. Have I ever said or intimated that? I would rather none of us had to suffer this at all. Unfortunately we have to and in no small part thei givt has made it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Ian, I have my own opinions. The fact that it closely resembles Tory thinking would sort of back up why I am a member of the party .. when the London Mayor thingy was on Sky news did a "game" where they gave you the 3 parties view on 12 policies but didn't tell you who they belonged to ..I seem to recall i was 9 boris , 3 Lib dem :shock: and 0 Ken .... so it kinda echos what Richard is saying , although i'm not a member of any party ... I don't think the Government have handled things very well , a view that seems to be shared by the majority of the population ... Maybe Brown Is Batman and the UK is Rachel and the World is Harvey Dent ... Brown wanted to save the UK , but saved the world by mistake ..... If the Govt are trying to kick start the economy by getting people to spend , fine it may help business and the government coffers ..who then bails out the public who spent more than they could afford on credit cards charging 46% APR ... Peoples responsibility has to be to their own situation and for that reason they ought to be saving and should be encouraged to do so As I said in the banking thread the other day , people are struggling to pay debts , rates are coming down and yet the credit card companies are putting their rates UP .. shocking behaviour and ought to be regulated ... though i suspect it already is ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Iceland buys 51 Woolworths stores Frozen food retailer Iceland has bought 51 former Woolworths stores, and said it plans to create 2,500 new jobs. The announcement comes just three days after the final 200 Woolworths stores closed their doors for the last time. "We are confident we can help to support the local community in these towns who have lost a major High Street retailer in Woolworths," said Iceland. Woolworths went into administration in November, but was unable to find a buyer to take on the company. Previous bid Iceland first made an offer to buy all of Woolworths' 815 stores last August, but Woolworths rejected the bid, for an unconfirmed amount, calling it "unacceptable". Around three quarters of the 51 Woolies stores Iceland has bought are in the south of England, including 10 in London. Iceland currently has 682 outlets. Founded in 1970, the firm was bought in 2005 by a consortium led by Icelandic investment group Baugur. WOOLIES STORES BOUGHT Alton, Barnsley, Belper, Bethnal Green, Bexhill On Sea, Bicester, Billericay, Blandford Forum, Bodmin, Boreham Wood, Bow, Braintree, Broadstairs, Devizes, Exmouth, Fraserburgh, Frome, Greenford, Hackney, Hailsham, Harold Hill, Haverhill, Herne Bay, Hexham, Highgate, Honiton, Kilburn High Road, Leyton, Malvern, Matlock, Mill Hill, Minehead, Monmouth, Morpeth, Morriston, Newtownards, Palmers Green, Pinner (Rayner's Lane), Palmers Green, Plumstead, Pontypool, Poplar, Portslade, Ringwood, St Neots, Stoke Newington, Strood, Sudbury, Swaffham, Wakefield, Wallington, Whitstable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I am totally open for a better solution snowy - fire away ... tell me in broad terms your thoughts on turning from a market economy to another that can still pay for the thinsg we need , Health, education police etc. As you have asked me to devise a completely new economic system (on my own without the years studying as an economist or without policy think tanks and academic research to back me up, &c.) you'll have to forgive me as I consider my response... p.s. Why can someone not hold the valid opinion that doing one thing is wrong (and as a result not work tirelessly to perpetuate it) without having to devise a replacement system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts