Forums

Tradefair & Financials

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
art
10 Aug 10 13:38
Joined:
Date Joined: 25 Sep 01
| Topic/replies: 184 | Blogger: art's blog
fasten seatbelts
Pause Switch to Standard View double dip recession
Show More
Loading...
Report Splicer Keats August 10, 2010 3:12 PM BST
Always on the cards, and more severe than the first one.
Report 1st time poster August 10, 2010 3:48 PM BST
lets hope so the 1st one was a big let down and had been and gone before 90% of the country had noticed
Report jayyceee August 10, 2010 4:51 PM BST
So what exactly are the advantages you are looking for?
Report jayyceee August 10, 2010 4:52 PM BST
...hoping for.
Report Splicer Keats August 10, 2010 6:45 PM BST
short term, increase in interest rates to realistic levels, ie 4% plus to get a decent return for savers, long term property returning to affordable levels and able to sustain growth for an indefinite period, the medicine must be taken first tho, and the next 2 years will be painfull for many.
Report Kriskin August 10, 2010 10:10 PM BST
Splicer - well said
Report Banwana August 11, 2010 7:08 AM BST
Obv hoping that inflation does not get out of hand and the time is not right for a (or many) currency devaluation.
Report V4 Vendetta August 11, 2010 8:28 AM BST
Also agreed with Splicer, but no chance of it happening...  I'm keeping my bullion for now!
Report Splicer Keats August 11, 2010 2:58 PM BST
While we insist on defering a real property crash by keeping unrealistic interest rates, we will not solve any of the problems, merely defer them, medicine now for a couple of years, or the country stagnates for 10, take your pick coalition.
Report cornubia August 12, 2010 12:03 AM BST
Which problems exactly does a property crash solve?
Report V4 Vendetta August 12, 2010 6:27 AM BST
It's not so much that the crash solves the problems as such, just that the medicine to solve problems would cause one which is why the politicians are chickening out.  Another reason to remove such power from the state.
Report Splicer Keats August 12, 2010 1:59 PM BST
The whole economy has been property driven for years, i know i am in the industry and have felt a huge reversal of fortune, propertyneeds to bottom to get realistic prices out there to people who want to get on the ladder, if they were affordable people would buy them,there are 4m people on housing waiting lists apparently, simples.
Report Live4 August 12, 2010 4:35 PM BST
The problem is if average property values do drop say 20% in the next two years where will that leave the banks?

Whether or not we have a double dip is immaterial, growth is important but it has to be the right kind of growth.  It's no use growing the economy by importing foreign goods, or by taking on more debt, or through temporary stimulus. 

It has to be real growth.
Report V4 Vendetta August 12, 2010 8:10 PM BST
Let the banks go.  State it now - ban bailouts.  This would go hand in hand with higher rates.  We'd cut down the number of banks to what's necessary and capital would be 'respected' again, innit.
Report Sir Denis Eton-Hogg August 13, 2010 1:08 AM BST
'real growth' hasnt occured since north sea oil peaked at the turn of the century
Report gatespeed August 13, 2010 5:39 AM BST
Which problems exactly does a property crash solve?

a property crash, huge defaults in consumer credit and the subsequent failure of the banking system is probably the only thing that can shake sense into our modern farcical view of economics.

Its impossible to have any long term increased standards of living when the banks are lulled into misallocating capital to useless consumer credit and mortgages when it should be allocated towards business and entrepreneurs that actually make our lives better.

Surely that is pretty obvious?
Report jayyceee August 13, 2010 8:33 AM BST
And you think a property crash, huge defaults in consumer credit and the subsequent failure of the banking system will result in capital being allocated as you suggest?!
Report V4 Vendetta August 13, 2010 2:30 PM BST
Yes.  The first thing it would do is encourage savings rather than consumerism.  A pre-requisite for investment.
Report Washington Irving August 13, 2010 3:28 PM BST
What about the paradox of thrift?
Report V4 Vendetta August 13, 2010 3:32 PM BST
Well, if we all save more money, total revenues decline, yes but that doesn't mean lower growth.  Productivity is determined by the consumption-investment ratio, and the demand for money only tells us the degree to which people prefer the utility of money to the utility of goods.

Suppose that we squirrel so much that the level of spending in the economy fell by half. If the remaining spending is still divided into the old consumption-investment ratio, then all prices would simply fall by half and productivity would remain unchanged.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com