UK debt crisis is imminent. What happens to the economy ?

In message , abelard writes

Been there done that. Best 21 months of my entire existence!!!!

Why is wind soothing despite its ferocity?

Now unwarranted noise draws out my drugged side.

I've now forsaken my car for the most part. No registration number.

Upset me now!!!

"It was a mad bloke on a bike that did it"

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:26:21 +0200, abelard mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

^^^^^ Still not fixed yet I see.

Yes you did. See above. Your comment suggests the debt is contained in large dollops, which it isn't. It's widespread.

IF you didn't mean to say what your words suggested, then it makes them irrelevant to the debate. Which is it?

Quite possibly but consumer debt as I said is widespread, so the risk to the banks is reduced. In the case of mortgages, banks carry ~80% insurance and always have the asset to sell if the borrower quits.

Where?

A social crises ...ask those who lost their homes.

So you will have some chance of keeping up?

Does the consumer debt of £1 trillion include mortgages?

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:53:14 +0100, "John Redman" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Or at the very least they could introduce a variable pension based upon equity and other savings. That would be a classic Labour trick.

"Richard Faulkner" wrote

Yep. Roughly 82% is mortgages and the balance is credit cards and other personal loans. It has doubled since 1997 while the economy has only grown by about a third to a half. Subtract the debt out and you have negative growth.

In message , John Redman wrote

How much of the debt on credit cards actually paid off each month? On average I owe the credit card companies around £300 throughout the year but I pay the full amount when presented with a monthly statement. I guess the £300 is actually included in the debt figures but I'm just using the card instead of readily available cash because its more convenient.

it makes no odds....tens of thousands of small bankruptcies has a similar effect to hundreds of large ones.... you're just innumerate....

it is you being innumerate again...

if the market goes into negative equity the asset sales will not necessarily cover the paper debts....that happened to the banks on a large scale last time on the roundabout...

can't be bothered to dig it out for you....

they are still eating buzzy...that is a poor use of the word 'crisis...

no....so's i have less effort correcting and educating you... others could then take over the time consuming and sometimes onerous duty.

negative growth of what? all you seem to be claiming is higher property prices are funded on a debt basis....

you are not claiming the uk is producing less potatoes or even building less houses....

you are increasingly giving me the impression you don't understand inflation...

you need to understand government better...esp socialist government....

first they steal everything by one means or another....eg they call it 'nationalisation'.... then they sell it back to you and call it 'privatisation'..... then they steal it again.....

it's about power....it is about keeping you on a treadmill..... it is not about money....

Usually it's called taxation

Or use it hire people to enforce tax collection. Called 'police' or 'army'

Indeed. Someone has to pay for the state

More about the power to take money

And who owns the insurance companies?

In message , abelard writes

And they carry on regardless - I dont think we need to worry about the banks, do we?

He wrote:

See

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:40:25 +0200, abelard mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Neat diversion or you can't read too well. I was referring to the consequences of a few bad debts on the banks, not on the consumers. Re-read my comments to understand them.

Not as bad as you it seems.

Another neat diversion.

You do not know that. It depends on how the shake out occurs. eg - if a borrower quits when his home is still worth 90% of the purchase price, the banks will recover all of their lending from insurance and by selling the asset. Things change when the owner quits later on in a falling market but even so the banks don't lose that much. They rarely do.

In your opinion. It's a relative term.

yawn.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:32:12 +0100, Jonathan Bryce mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

It varies but usually shareholders. Why?

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:48:06 +0200, abelard mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Er no. I believe I understand socialist government as well or better than most. Do carry on.....

Not true. You obviously don't understand socialist govt as well as you claim. Labour have hardly privatised anything since 1997 and virtually nothing before.

Agreed.

To some extent but more importantly it's to make you dependent on the state for your wellbeing to keep you in check and under control.

Ooh yes it is. It's about them taxing and building socialist icons of power.

Well, for example, Direct Line is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

A lot of banks own insurance companies, so they would still have to pay the claims out themselves.

indeed....

regards...

at least you live in the real world!!

regards....