Cost of living crisis.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Great take in theory, but people around my age have never known anything different. At what point does something go from being normalised to actually being normal. 

 

For all the people who would like to see house prices drop or make a few quid in savings accounts, seeing people unable to afford their mortgages isn't great. 

Not saying it is great for anyone (savers excluded), but what you just said is akin to me saying they were at 6.5% (far better than my parents struggling with 14% ) when I took my first mortgage, so why isn`t that the norm?

 

Market forces will always dictate it (the markets are the absolute pits and uber reactive when there is upheaval), butin the global situation currently, we just cannot be view interest rates as surprising unfortunately, not normal in a contemporary setting sure, but unsurprising nonetheless. 

[filthyfox]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Great take in theory, but people around my age have never known anything different. At what point does something go from being normalised to actually being normal. 

 

For all the people who would like to see house prices drop or make a few quid in savings accounts, seeing people unable to afford their mortgages isn't great. 

I am 40.

I bought a flat in 2007, my mortgage rate was 5.3%.

In 2000, interest rates for a box standard loan was 7.9%.

The rates now ARE normal. 

However, since 2009, my wages have lost 30% of their value due to inflation. So, even i, on £30k (UK's average wage apparently) will now be struggling owing to the cancellation in the 19p income tax rate and energy cap .

God knows how people on lower wages will cope.

 

[grobyfox1990]

Yeh, there’s absolutely no point talking about theory or doing a historical overview of where rates once were to try and justify this incompetence. We have a failed leadership which lost credibility in markets before they even took office, a tanking £ with HUGE shorts still in place, inflation accelerating with no long term plan to combat it, wages staying firm, a tight labour market, effects of brexit yet to hit and public services stretched to the limit with CIPFA stating there is to ‘fat’ left to cut. It’s the first time ever organisations from the IMF down to Ryanair are in agreement that we have a failed leadership 
 

I don’t care about 1979 or my economics theory textbook, this is a long way from the ‘soft landing’ in rates the BoE wanted, this is failed state territory. Unprecedented 

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh, there’s absolutely no point talking about theory or doing a historical overview of where rates once were to try and justify this incompetence. We have a failed leadership which lost credibility in markets before they even took office, a tanking £ with HUGE shorts still in place, inflation accelerating with no long term plan to combat it, wages staying firm, a tight labour market, effects of brexit yet to hit and public services stretched to the limit with CIPFA stating there is to ‘fat’ left to cut. It’s the first time ever organisations from the IMF down to Ryanair are in agreement that we have a failed leadership 
 

I don’t care about 1979 or my economics theory textbook, this is a long way from the ‘soft landing’ in rates the BoE wanted, this is failed state territory. Unprecedented 

Thats your choice of course, but the past is relevant, it shows that rates can rise, but they do recover - have this lots exacerbated the rate rises? God yes, massively due to utter imcompetence, but...there are ALSO other factors contributing. Right now its crap, but what choice do we have but to sit tight, and ride it out? Changing goverrnment tomorrow would solve nothing in this regard.

[RobHawk]

The thing is, interest rate were always going to rise of the next couple of years. Between Brexit and covid it was inevitable. 

 

The problem we have is that rates have risen so dramatically because the current government have ****ed up big time. With such a steep rise, it's not just a case of mortgages going up, but there was no way to plan for it either. 

 

I've stated on this board before how lucky I have been as I fixed my mortgage in July for 10 years. But as an example of how quickly the rates have risen, the interest rate I'm paying on a 10 year fix taken out in July 2022 is 1.83%. You'd be lucky to get anything under 6% just a few months later. 

 

The Tories well and truly ****ed it with trussonomics and there's no quick way to fix it unfortunately. 

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Thats your choice of course, but the past is relevant, it shows that rates can rise, but they do recover - have this lots exacerbated the rate rises? God yes, massively due to utter imcompetence, but...there are ALSO other factors contributing. Right now its crap, but what choice do we have but to sit tight, and ride it out? Changing goverrnment tomorrow would solve nothing in this regard.

The problem is that rates are rising at a ferocious rate, real rates are prob far higher than anything the BoE have forecast, together with an unprecedented house price rise in the last few decades. This is not a soft landing, and has not occurred in the past after low rate periods. Of course other factors have contributed, but that’s the job of govt, to manage the other factors. Whichever angle you look at it, weak and inept leadership has destroyed decades of progress in the country.

 

The worst thing we can do now is sit tight and ride it out. I’m watching that happen at lcfc and it doesn’t end well for anyone. We need action, a credible short, medium and long term plan and complete honesty about the situation we face. 

[dsr-burnley]

10 hours ago, filthyfox said:

I am 40.

I bought a flat in 2007, my mortgage rate was 5.3%.

In 2000, interest rates for a box standard loan was 7.9%.

The rates now ARE normal. 

However, since 2009, my wages have lost 30% of their value due to inflation. So, even i, on £30k (UK's average wage apparently) will now be struggling owing to the cancellation in the 19p income tax rate and energy cap .

God knows how people on lower wages will cope.

 

Yes, the rates are now normal.  It has become normal, both on a national level and often on an individual level, to borrow as much as possible and spend it as if it was earned.  The problem is that that "normal" can't be done any longer.  The government, no more than any indivudual, can no longer borrow at 1% or 2% because no-one will lend to them at that rate.  Printing money has kept rates down for a time, but at the cost of rising inflation, and if they continue keeping rates down by those means we will get hyperinflation.

 

The government has been living like the individual who takes out a new credit card every year to repay and to add to the old one.  Eventually, the roundabout has to stop.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Yes, the rates are now normal.  It has become normal, both on a national level and often on an individual level, to borrow as much as possible and spend it as if it was earned.  The problem is that that "normal" can't be done any longer.  The government, no more than any indivudual, can no longer borrow at 1% or 2% because no-one will lend to them at that rate.  Printing money has kept rates down for a time, but at the cost of rising inflation, and if they continue keeping rates down by those means we will get hyperinflation.

 

The government has been living like the individual who takes out a new credit card every year to repay and to add to the old one.  Eventually, the roundabout has to stop.

If this is true (and it might be), then what has changed in recent times to make it so, compared to difficult times in the past?

 

I don't see the justification for economic cutting back leading to social and developmental regression when such hasn't really happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - in spite of some very, very difficult periods during the intervening time.

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true (and it might be), then what has changed in recent times to make it so, compared to difficult times in the past?

 

I don't see the justification for economic cutting back leading to social and developmental regression when such hasn't really happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - in spite of some very, very difficult periods during the intervening time.

The need to feed the beast at whatever cost??1st get both parents working 2nd rack up debt 3rd stop saving 4th work harder 5th become over reliant on cheap immigration 6th work longer (often for less).Cutting back on the easy targets like health and education services affect those at the bottom most and well tough luck.

 

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

The need to feed the beast at whatever cost??1st get both parents working 2nd rack up debt 3rd stop saving 4th work harder 5th become over reliant on cheap immigration 6th work longer (often for less).Cutting back on the easy targets like health and education services affect those at the bottom most and well tough luck.

 

I'm still not seeing the necessity of pulling up the drawbridge and essentially letting a great many people suffer.

[fox_up_north]

There isn't one but it feels very much like some people know the game is up and are trying to cash out. We are now at the point where fossil fuels can run out in our lifetimes. It's certainly possible that by the time I get to 80 (50 ish years) that there won't be petrol for cars. That runs the world, really and the richest are those in energy.

 

So, rather than diversify or try to make it last, they're pulling up the drawbridge. 

 

The thing to remember is that the types of people who seek to be this wealthy and powerful, are not nice people. 

[yorkie1999]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true (and it might be), then what has changed in recent times to make it so, compared to difficult times in the past?

 

I don't see the justification for economic cutting back leading to social and developmental regression when such hasn't really happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - in spite of some very, very difficult periods during the intervening time.

This country become wealthy off the back of the industrial revolution and lived off that wealth, reputation etc for many years, the decline started in the 70's and 80's and has gradually got worse. We now have a country that has nothing to offer to the rest of the world and we live off credit and borrowing. Pushing money around in a big circle and making money for nothing only lasts so long.  

[Jon the Hat]

29 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

There isn't one but it feels very much like some people know the game is up and are trying to cash out. We are now at the point where fossil fuels can run out in our lifetimes. It's certainly possible that by the time I get to 80 (50 ish years) that there won't be petrol for cars. That runs the world, really and the richest are those in energy.

 

So, rather than diversify or try to make it last, they're pulling up the drawbridge. 

 

The thing to remember is that the types of people who seek to be this wealthy and powerful, are not nice people. 

Are you mad? Cars won't run on petrol.  We won't be burning fossil fuels for power.

[yorkie1999]

40 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Are you mad? Cars won't run on petrol.  We won't be burning fossil fuels for power.

And where we're going, we don't need roads.

[filbertway]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:24, Dahnsouff said:

Give free school meals to all, but allow people to opt out - not means testing.

Same should have been done for the energy subsidy policy

You're vastly overestimating how many people will make the effort to opt out of something that is free to them I think. You'd get closer the actual number needed by making it available to all, but requiring them to opt in.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

You're vastly overestimating how many people will make the effort to opt out of something that is free to them I think. You'd get closer the actual number needed by making it available to all, but requiring them to opt in.

That is good thinking.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, filbertway said:

You're vastly overestimating how many people will make the effort to opt out of something that is free to them I think. You'd get closer the actual number needed by making it available to all, but requiring them to opt in.

I have no doubt you are correct, but I find that a staggeringly sad indictment of the human condition, especially in the current environmental climate, where such selflessness is required

[HighPeakFox]

11 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I have no doubt you are correct, but I find that a staggeringly sad indictment of the human condition, especially in the current environmental climate, where such selflessness is required

Ever witnessed the school run? 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

This country become wealthy off the back of the industrial revolution and lived off that wealth, reputation etc for many years, the decline started in the 70's and 80's and has gradually got worse. We now have a country that has nothing to offer to the rest of the world and we live off credit and borrowing. Pushing money around in a big circle and making money for nothing only lasts so long.  

That sounds about right tbh.

 

I'm not sure trying to revive secondary manufacturing industries is a solution at this time in history, though.

 

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I have no doubt you are correct, but I find that a staggeringly sad indictment of the human condition, especially in the current environmental climate, where such selflessness is required

 

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Ever witnessed the school run? 

Yep.

 

Any matter not based on short term self interest really perhaps shouldn't be decided by direct democracy.

 

That's sad, but the evidence speaks for itself there.

[grobyfox1990]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That sounds about right tbh.

 

I'm not sure trying to revive secondary manufacturing industries is a solution at this time in history, though.

 

 

Yep.

 

Any matter not based on short term self interest really perhaps shouldn't be decided by direct democracy.

 

That's sad, but the evidence speaks for itself there.

I don't think that's what Yorkie meant. Secondary manufacturing industries are dead, but we have fiercely competitive goals towards a transition to net zero and a massive skills gap, continually highlighted by orgs like the green alliance. There is no reason the UK cant become a market leader in the green transition and export these skills around the globe. Yorkie is right, we have nothing to offer anybody, but we can if we invested in these skils

[leicsmac]

56 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I don't think that's what Yorkie meant. Secondary manufacturing industries are dead, but we have fiercely competitive goals towards a transition to net zero and a massive skills gap, continually highlighted by orgs like the green alliance. There is no reason the UK cant become a market leader in the green transition and export these skills around the globe. Yorkie is right, we have nothing to offer anybody, but we can if we invested in these skils

Well, I'd agree with that, the caveat that such skills and solutions would need to be applied across the world regardless of cost/profit and location of development because not doing so would inevitably result in a far higher world cost aside.

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I don't think that's what Yorkie meant. Secondary manufacturing industries are dead, but we have fiercely competitive goals towards a transition to net zero and a massive skills gap, continually highlighted by orgs like the green alliance. There is no reason the UK cant become a market leader in the green transition and export these skills around the globe. Yorkie is right, we have nothing to offer anybody, but we can if we invested in these skils

The problem is, it's nothing new and there's nothing to sell, for example, all our wind farms aren't ground breaking and exclusive to the UK, it's bought in and maintained by companies like siemens. The industrial revolution was an age of inventions and pioneering ideas, which was sold and consequently copied all around the world, it's impossible to re-create anything like that because of globilization. There's nothing new to discover that can't be discovered by anyone else and it seems everything is just a re-hash of something that's already been done before, apart from nuclear fusion, the country that solves that problem will be the country that rules the world.

Edited 19 October 2022 by yorkie1999

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The problem is, it's nothing new and there's nothing to sell, for example, all our wind farms aren't ground breaking and exclusive to the UK, it's bought in and maintained by companies like siemens. The industrial revolution was an age of inventions and pioneering ideas, which was sold and consequently copied all around the world, it's impossible to re-create anything like that because of globilization. There's nothing new to discover that can't be discovered by anyone else and it seems everything is just a re-hash of something that's already been done before, apart from nuclear fusion, the country that solves that problem will be the country that rules the world.

Given the massive advantages it would bestow on pretty much anyone, I'd agree.

 

You wonder why governments, even nationalist ones, don't take it more seriously.

[grobyfox1990]

14 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The problem is, it's nothing new and there's nothing to sell, for example, all our wind farms aren't ground breaking and exclusive to the UK, it's bought in and maintained by companies like siemens. The industrial revolution was an age of inventions and pioneering ideas, which was sold and consequently copied all around the world, it's impossible to re-create anything like that because of globilization. There's nothing new to discover that can't be discovered by anyone else and it seems everything is just a re-hash of something that's already been done before, apart from nuclear fusion, the country that solves that problem will be the country that rules the world.

You're only talking about power needs though. There's lots of reports out there, from the likes of the green alliance, which state every major sector in the UK has a significant skills gap to close to enable them to reach net zero. There are huge skills shortages especially in housing and land use. There are millions of jobs that need to be filled in the green space and multiple new industries that will come out of this, e.g. assuring esg credentials and data manipulation. Leicsmac often talks about needing to do this despite the financial cost, because the human cost will be worse. You don't have to care about the human cost, any capitalist should be investing in the transition and associated skills. There are huge sums of money to be made, far more of a stable revenue stream than gas and oil exploration.

 

edit - this is the report - https://green-alliance.org.uk/publication/closing-the-uks-green-skills-gap/

Edited 19 October 2022 by grobyfox1990

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Given the massive advantages it would bestow on pretty much anyone, I'd agree.

 

You wonder why governments, even nationalist ones, don't take it more seriously.

Probably because they get voted out before there's any sort of result, so it's not in their interest. Don't forget though, technical achievements during the 18th century were down to private individuals and their inventions.