Oh Darling,

[northwind]

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

No. All it does it reduce the debt by way of mega inflation. It's just promoting more foolish borrowing, and postpone the inevitable housing correction.

Savers NEED to be rewarded, not penalised.

Right, what has this got to do with savers?

Second, it seems you've misunderstood what they're suggesting here- they're NOT underwriting individual mortgages at all as you seem to think, they're underwriting mortgage bonds, which is a way of securing bank-level lending, not private lending.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by northwind

Right, what has this got to do with savers?

The whole government institution of "share everything out" ... oh then years later when someone's saved it, someone else has pi$$ed it against the wall ... share it out again!

Kinda off topic but gids post reminded me of that.

[BigFootIsBlurry]

Originally Posted by Ed

Big Foot me old cheese, you have a vote - use it. If everyone just wrung their hands and said 'ain't nothing I can do 'bout it' then nothing would ever change.

You can't build a different world with indifferent people.

...

I do use my vote (if voting lib dem counts that is), I'm firmly of the opinion that if you dont vote you shouldnt comment. What I meant was that actually right here and now on a day to day basis I cant make the economy better so I'm not going to spend all day counting my money and worrying about interest rates.

Originally Posted by northwind

Right, what has this got to do with savers?

Second, it seems you've misunderstood what they're suggesting here- they're NOT underwriting individual mortgages at all as you seem to think, they're underwriting mortgage bonds, which is a way of securing bank-level lending, not private lending.

It's pouring none existent money in at tax payers risk. Can you really see any benefit to this?!

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

So essentially what you're saying is that women should know their place and get back to the kitchen. That wouldn't have gone down very well then let alone now, so it's hardly Maggies fault for choosing not to commit political suicide.

Did I say that? Looks more like thats YOUR interpretation.

I dont care which parent (if there are 2) that stays home.

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

I dont care which parent (if there are 2) that stays home.

Bleh. Lesbians...

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Did I say that? Looks more like thats YOUR interpretation.

I dont care which parent (if there are 2) that stays home.

You didn't need to, that's what you've strongly implied whether you meant to or not. Otherwise you're expecting significant numbers of men to give up their careers instead which is even more unlikely, so my point stands.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

You didn't need to, that's what you've strongly implied whether you meant to or not. Otherwise you're expecting significant numbers of men to give up their careers instead which is even more unlikely, so my point stands.

Only in your gender-biased view

[northwind]

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

It's pouring none existent money in at tax payers risk. Can you really see any benefit to this?!

Heh, avoiding the question

Yes, I can see huge possible benefits. As long as we're trying to operate with the current financial system, the lack of inter-institution wholesale lending is a huge issue, it's killing companies. I know a lot of people on here would say "Who cares if the banks are having a hard time, they charged me £20 for an overdraft once so I hate them" but Woolworths would have had a buyer if the consortium involved had been able to get lending, and that would have (temporarily, at least) saved Zavvi, and so on.

We're not neccesarily talking huge sums here either... I'm dealing with companies going into administration daily just now, generally for short-term reasons. Some are lame dogs but some are profitable companies suffering a short-term crisis, who would usually be able to get loan cover, but currently can't.

Course, it could turn out in ten years that it's just piling up problems, but it's not a categorically stupid thing to do, and would definately have some benefits as well as the potential for problems. It's not an open and shut thing.

Originally Posted by northwind

Heh, avoiding the question

Yes, I can see huge possible benefits. As long as we're trying to operate with the current financial system, the lack of inter-institution wholesale lending is a huge issue, it's killing companies. I know a lot of people on here would say "Who cares if the banks are having a hard time, they charged me £20 for an overdraft once so I hate them" but Woolworths would have had a buyer if the consortium involved had been able to get lending, and that would have (temporarily, at least) saved Zavvi, and so on.

We're not neccesarily talking huge sums here either... I'm dealing with companies going into administration daily just now, generally for short-term reasons. Some are lame dogs but some are profitable companies suffering a short-term crisis, who would usually be able to get loan cover, but currently can't.

Course, it could turn out in ten years that it's just piling up problems, but it's not a categorically stupid thing to do, and would definately have some benefits as well as the potential for problems. It's not an open and shut thing.

But it will artificially hold house prices up, well above their worth just postponing the situation and elevating it to higher risk. If they want an influx of first time buyers, you have to give them the chance by allowing a correction of the housing market.

Raise interest rates so the banks can earn some money, cut stamp duty and then stop ****ing around. There would be far less turbulence if people knew that the Government wouldn't be changing the rules every 5 minutes.

As for savers, I was commenting that the government that is preaching prudence is then irresponsibly promoting even higher debt levels. Up interest rates, and don't devalue the pound.