FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 5000 new jobs and a new £70 million HQ in the UK.
5000 new jobs and a new £70 million HQ in the UK.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
.
I am sure there will be some bad news along the way and some that will be blamed on brexit whether it has anything to do with it or not, but most things since the vote have been positive IMVHO of course | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high "I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets? | |||
"were doomed,doomed I tell you .
I am sure there will be some bad news along the way and some that will be blamed on brexit whether it has anything to do with it or not, but most things since the vote have been positive IMVHO of course "Well there was a thread in the lounge forum the other day about an elderly person with a walking stick being refused entry to a swingers Club. One poster blamed it on Brexit.  | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets? "why are wages for many decreasing? | |||
| |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets?
why are wages for many decreasing?"I should have said 'money in pockets'; factor in salary freezes, rising costs for fuel, utilities etc and many people are effectively worse off than they were five or so years ago. It is a commonly known fact. | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets?
why are wages for many decreasing?
I should have said 'money in pockets'; factor in salary freezes, rising costs for fuel, utilities etc and many people are effectively worse off than they were five or so years ago. It is a commonly known fact. "Both Food and motor fuel are cheaper than five years ago and tax allowances are higher,mortgage rates are cheap, the big area that needs controlling is rents for housing they are massively too high | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets?
why are wages for many decreasing?
I should have said 'money in pockets'; factor in salary freezes, rising costs for fuel, utilities etc and many people are effectively worse off than they were five or so years ago. It is a commonly known fact.
Both Food and motor fuel are cheaper than five years ago and tax allowances are higher,mortgage rates are cheap, the big area that needs controlling is rents for housing they are massively too high "Lower waged families are struggling with utility bills and grocery bills. Transport costs for non-car owners are at a record high. Child benefit will soon be capped, tax credits are being reduced. We could tit for tat for hours over this. Prosperity surely depends upon which side of the fence someone finds themselves. | |||
| |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78" . What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout" Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets?
why are wages for many decreasing?
I should have said 'money in pockets'; factor in salary freezes, rising costs for fuel, utilities etc and many people are effectively worse off than they were five or so years ago. It is a commonly known fact. "It is also commonly known that despite being cheaper than others aldi quality can often be better | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
I suppose you can't see the dichotomy though that Aldi is doing well because wages for many are decreasing and thus they are forced to shop at discount supermarkets?
why are wages for many decreasing?
I should have said 'money in pockets'; factor in salary freezes, rising costs for fuel, utilities etc and many people are effectively worse off than they were five or so years ago. It is a commonly known fact.
It is also commonly known that despite being cheaper than others aldi quality can often be better"That I would agree with and their sell by dates are longer! | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. " . No it would hurt the richest, were hurting the poorest now. . Windfall tax on banks will not get you anything close to 1.5 trillion.... And last time I looked there all insolvent anyhow, your proposal will make them more leveraged and less willing to lend. . What we should have done the first time was let them go under and guaranteed the first 30k to customers, everything else is lost and you start again with a lesson, a costly one but definitely a lesson. What we actually did is bail out the wealthiest people, everybody with a big mortgage and big houses and people with lots of money in the bank, they all got bailed out and then to compound that error we then decided on pointless austerity on poor people for the sake of a small reduction in deficit spending. . Where was the problem.... Too much debt.... How do we propose to solve it.... With more debt.... When that fails we decide we can take chunk change from benefits to pay off the massive debt, which in reality only served to contract gdp further giving more debt, we know this is true, you can look to Greece who did massive austerity and ended up with twice as much debt. The solution was wiping the debt off and that means creditors have to pay.... High inflation is exactly that, it's the medicine for being naughty. Bank bonuses, sure cut back on them, stop them all together, break up the banks to small banks, the outcome is still the same... Extend and pretend like an ostrich | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. " The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders . | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78" If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on." I would say after utility bills and rent there is not much left for food for the poorest in the uk. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on." Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders ." No, the loan is paid at a zero interest rate, meaning the government will never recoup the cost. RBS paid out 400 million in the year after their bailout. Hardly immaterial. Any investor knows their money is at risk. There are far too many apologists on these forums for the wealthy and far too few empathists for the poor. It is sickening. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. . No it would hurt the richest, were hurting the poorest now. . Windfall tax on banks will not get you anything close to 1.5 trillion.... And last time I looked there all insolvent anyhow, your proposal will make them more leveraged and less willing to lend. . What we should have done the first time was let them go under and guaranteed the first 30k to customers, everything else is lost and you start again with a lesson, a costly one but definitely a lesson. What we actually did is bail out the wealthiest people, everybody with a big mortgage and big houses and people with lots of money in the bank, they all got bailed out and then to compound that error we then decided on pointless austerity on poor people for the sake of a small reduction in deficit spending. . Where was the problem.... Too much debt.... How do we propose to solve it.... With more debt.... When that fails we decide we can take chunk change from benefits to pay off the massive debt, which in reality only served to contract gdp further giving more debt, we know this is true, you can look to Greece who did massive austerity and ended up with twice as much debt. The solution was wiping the debt off and that means creditors have to pay.... High inflation is exactly that, it's the medicine for being naughty. Bank bonuses, sure cut back on them, stop them all together, break up the banks to small banks, the outcome is still the same... Extend and pretend like an ostrich" You've explained that much better, in language I understand. Thanks for that. I am no economist and cannot comment further on your contention. That doesn't mean I won't comment in the thread overall though  | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders . No, the loan is paid at a zero interest rate, meaning the government will never recoup the cost. RBS paid out 400 million in the year after their bailout. Hardly immaterial. Any investor knows their money is at risk. There are far too many apologists on these forums for the wealthy and far too few empathists for the poor. It is sickening. " My understanding was that the government would eventually make money from some of the bailouts once the shares were sold , so there is no overall loss to the taxpayer and probably a net gain. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout" That's just staggeringly dim | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders . No, the loan is paid at a zero interest rate, meaning the government will never recoup the cost. RBS paid out 400 million in the year after their bailout. Hardly immaterial. Any investor knows their money is at risk. There are far too many apologists on these forums for the wealthy and far too few empathists for the poor. It is sickening. My understanding was that the government would eventually make money from some of the bailouts once the shares were sold , so there is no overall loss to the taxpayer and probably a net gain." Unsurprisingly, you are misinformed then. The National Audit Offices believes we will not know for many years if a profit or loss will be realised. Common sense would dictate however that if I borrowed £10 from you in 2008 and repaid you £10 in 2018 that you have rexeiced a real time loss on your investment. Info from the NAO, which I would hope you might consider, in order to better inform yourself: It is likely that a substantial proportion of these schemes and investments will be with us for some time and the eventual profit or loss to the taxpayer will not be known until all the support is removed, the loans repaid and the shares sold. How much the taxpayer will receive will depend on a number of different factors: The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The shares in RBS were purchased for £46 billion. The shareholding comprised ordinary shares, B shares and a single Dividend Access Share. In August 2015 some of the ordinary shares in RBS were sold for around £2.1bn reducing the holding to 72% from 79%. In March 2016, the final Dividend Access Share dividend payment of £1.2 billion was received, bringing the total receipts to £1.5 billion and retiring the Dividend Access Share. All B shares were converted to ordinary share for market value during the 15-16 financial year. As at 31 March 2016 the remaining ordinary shares had a market value of £18.8 billion. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash loss of around £23.6bn from its shareholding in RBS. The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds). The shares in Lloyds were purchased for £20.5 billion. The shareholding comprised solely ordinary shares. The shareholding in Lloyds has been reduced through sales, the first being September 2013. The sales raised a total of £16.6 billion and reduced the taxpayers’ shareholding from 39 per cent to 9 per cent. HM Treasury received dividends for the first time during the 15-16 financial year, the total dividend receipts were around £0.2 billion. The remaining shares had a market value of £4.4 billion as at 31 March 2016. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash gain of around £0.5 billion, excluding dividends, from its shareholding in Lloyds. However, the cash gain does not take account of the cost of funding the purchases of the shares. The money needed to buy the shares was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts, government bonds on which interest is payable. The final return from Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. The Treasury expects to recover the cash lent to Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley from the cash flows generated during their wind-down. These cash flows will principally comprise interest, repayments and redemptions arising from the mortgages and other loans to customers together with the proceeds from asset sales such as the sale of a £13 billion portfolio of NRAM loans in November 2015. As at 31st March 2016, the loan balance outstanding was £28.4bn. Any unrecovered loans. The Treasury has impaired various loans made to support depositors in failed banks on the basis that the administrators for the failed institutions are uncertain that there will be available monies to pay the creditors in full. The Treasury has stated its intention to continue to pursue these loans in full. Treasury made loans of £2.2 billion and is currently forecasting to recover £2.1 billion. Costs arising from the additional government borrowing raised to finance the purchase of the shares and loans.. The money needed to make the interventions was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts (interest-bearing government bonds purchased by investors for periods of up to 50 years), at a cost of just under 3% a year. The fees and income received. As at 31 March 2016, the Treasury had received a total of around £19 billion in fees and interest for providing the support and assuming the risks covered by the guarantees since 2008. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. " Luckily I get feedback from people that I come into contact daily from a small businness that I run in addition to feedback from colleagues at work. In addition as I provide extensive assistance to someone who is disabled I am probably better informed rhan most as to what a life on benefits is like . The botton line is that everything you have in life has to be earned . Nothing is handed to you on a plate. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. Luckily I get feedback from people that I come into contact daily from a small businness that I run in addition to feedback from colleagues at work. In addition as I provide extensive assistance to someone who is disabled I am probably better informed rhan most as to what a life on benefits is like . The botton line is that everything you have in life has to be earned . Nothing is handed to you on a plate. " Who mentioned benefits? Yet again, your own prejudice has reared its head. It is most unbecoming. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders . No, the loan is paid at a zero interest rate, meaning the government will never recoup the cost. RBS paid out 400 million in the year after their bailout. Hardly immaterial. Any investor knows their money is at risk. There are far too many apologists on these forums for the wealthy and far too few empathists for the poor. It is sickening. My understanding was that the government would eventually make money from some of the bailouts once the shares were sold , so there is no overall loss to the taxpayer and probably a net gain. Unsurprisingly, you are misinformed then. The National Audit Offices believes we will not know for many years if a profit or loss will be realised. Common sense would dictate however that if I borrowed £10 from you in 2008 and repaid you £10 in 2018 that you have rexeiced a real time loss on your investment. Info from the NAO, which I would hope you might consider, in order to better inform yourself: It is likely that a substantial proportion of these schemes and investments will be with us for some time and the eventual profit or loss to the taxpayer will not be known until all the support is removed, the loans repaid and the shares sold. How much the taxpayer will receive will depend on a number of different factors: The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The shares in RBS were purchased for £46 billion. The shareholding comprised ordinary shares, B shares and a single Dividend Access Share. In August 2015 some of the ordinary shares in RBS were sold for around £2.1bn reducing the holding to 72% from 79%. In March 2016, the final Dividend Access Share dividend payment of £1.2 billion was received, bringing the total receipts to £1.5 billion and retiring the Dividend Access Share. All B shares were converted to ordinary share for market value during the 15-16 financial year. As at 31 March 2016 the remaining ordinary shares had a market value of £18.8 billion. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash loss of around £23.6bn from its shareholding in RBS. The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds). The shares in Lloyds were purchased for £20.5 billion. The shareholding comprised solely ordinary shares. The shareholding in Lloyds has been reduced through sales, the first being September 2013. The sales raised a total of £16.6 billion and reduced the taxpayers’ shareholding from 39 per cent to 9 per cent. HM Treasury received dividends for the first time during the 15-16 financial year, the total dividend receipts were around £0.2 billion. The remaining shares had a market value of £4.4 billion as at 31 March 2016. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash gain of around £0.5 billion, excluding dividends, from its shareholding in Lloyds. However, the cash gain does not take account of the cost of funding the purchases of the shares. The money needed to buy the shares was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts, government bonds on which interest is payable. The final return from Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. The Treasury expects to recover the cash lent to Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley from the cash flows generated during their wind-down. These cash flows will principally comprise interest, repayments and redemptions arising from the mortgages and other loans to customers together with the proceeds from asset sales such as the sale of a £13 billion portfolio of NRAM loans in November 2015. As at 31st March 2016, the loan balance outstanding was £28.4bn. Any unrecovered loans. The Treasury has impaired various loans made to support depositors in failed banks on the basis that the administrators for the failed institutions are uncertain that there will be available monies to pay the creditors in full. The Treasury has stated its intention to continue to pursue these loans in full. Treasury made loans of £2.2 billion and is currently forecasting to recover £2.1 billion. Costs arising from the additional government borrowing raised to finance the purchase of the shares and loans.. The money needed to make the interventions was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts (interest-bearing government bonds purchased by investors for periods of up to 50 years), at a cost of just under 3% a year. The fees and income received. As at 31 March 2016, the Treasury had received a total of around £19 billion in fees and interest for providing the support and assuming the risks covered by the guarantees since 2008." Thanks for thw quote. That is of course on spin on the scenario. The only real problem is that it os taking the share price of RBS longer to recover than expected . When this does eventally recover there will be loss to the taxpayer . The true losses have been borne by pension funds and shareholders who havd seen their dividend income collapse as has their asset value . | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. Luckily I get feedback from people that I come into contact daily from a small businness that I run in addition to feedback from colleagues at work. In addition as I provide extensive assistance to someone who is disabled I am probably better informed rhan most as to what a life on benefits is like . The botton line is that everything you have in life has to be earned . Nothing is handed to you on a plate. Who mentioned benefits? Yet again, your own prejudice has reared its head. It is most unbecoming. " I make no apology for mentioning benefits as I have extensive expwrience of assisting someone who suffers from a disability . | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout That's just staggeringly dim" Unfortuanately it is true the ONLY way world debt will ever be paid down is through inflation, the hard part is keeping it at a level thats doesnt do more harm than good | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. Luckily I get feedback from people that I come into contact daily from a small businness that I run in addition to feedback from colleagues at work. In addition as I provide extensive assistance to someone who is disabled I am probably better informed rhan most as to what a life on benefits is like . The botton line is that everything you have in life has to be earned . Nothing is handed to you on a plate. Who mentioned benefits? Yet again, your own prejudice has reared its head. It is most unbecoming. I make no apology for mentioning benefits as I have extensive expwrience of assisting someone who suffers from a disability . " And? I don't see the link with what I was talking about (the WORKING poor). Illogical to introduce it. | |||
"My apologies to all those merchants of doom and gloom who are searching for any news that may be detrimental to the UK economy . Aldi will be creating 5000 new jobs here plus a new head quarters . These are of course in addition to those announced by Google , Apple and ING group. Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high "Aldi and ING... hmmm should we thank our EU friends for this? One Dutch one German company. All good for the UK. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. The elephant in the room is the debt we've built up bailing out banks,like it or not that needs to be dealt with first because we can't pay it back at todays zero interest rates, and zero interest rates are fucking awful for capitalism. . 50% inflation over ten years means higher prices for stuff and that means hardship for many don't get me wrong it's not ideal but that's what has to happen, that's means cheapening our currency, and sucking it up, we can also ensure that wages rise with inflation to lessen the burden on people, however the real losers will be people with cash, that's me to be honest, we've got cash in the bank and it in reality it means we lose half of it, that's called a bail out by those that can afford it, those with assets already like houses and cash... And to be honest the creditor class(me) will winge and moan like fuckers and we'll vote for parties that offer alternatives like bailing us out like the last banking bailouts... So millennials it's up to you to start voting for somebody who honest enough to tell you the situation your in is dire, your screwed unless we the creditors(that's everybody with money) pay for the bailout Is that the only option, really? Windfall tax the banks. Remove the bankers bonuses, which should have been stopped by the Labour government as a condition of bailout. Make the banks responsible for their recklessness when it came to making decisions on credit in the first place. Your proposal would hurt the poorest the most. As per usual. The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders . No, the loan is paid at a zero interest rate, meaning the government will never recoup the cost. RBS paid out 400 million in the year after their bailout. Hardly immaterial. Any investor knows their money is at risk. There are far too many apologists on these forums for the wealthy and far too few empathists for the poor. It is sickening. My understanding was that the government would eventually make money from some of the bailouts once the shares were sold , so there is no overall loss to the taxpayer and probably a net gain. Unsurprisingly, you are misinformed then. The National Audit Offices believes we will not know for many years if a profit or loss will be realised. Common sense would dictate however that if I borrowed £10 from you in 2008 and repaid you £10 in 2018 that you have rexeiced a real time loss on your investment. Info from the NAO, which I would hope you might consider, in order to better inform yourself: It is likely that a substantial proportion of these schemes and investments will be with us for some time and the eventual profit or loss to the taxpayer will not be known until all the support is removed, the loans repaid and the shares sold. How much the taxpayer will receive will depend on a number of different factors: The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The shares in RBS were purchased for £46 billion. The shareholding comprised ordinary shares, B shares and a single Dividend Access Share. In August 2015 some of the ordinary shares in RBS were sold for around £2.1bn reducing the holding to 72% from 79%. In March 2016, the final Dividend Access Share dividend payment of £1.2 billion was received, bringing the total receipts to £1.5 billion and retiring the Dividend Access Share. All B shares were converted to ordinary share for market value during the 15-16 financial year. As at 31 March 2016 the remaining ordinary shares had a market value of £18.8 billion. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash loss of around £23.6bn from its shareholding in RBS. The eventual proceeds from the disposal of the shareholdings in Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds). The shares in Lloyds were purchased for £20.5 billion. The shareholding comprised solely ordinary shares. The shareholding in Lloyds has been reduced through sales, the first being September 2013. The sales raised a total of £16.6 billion and reduced the taxpayers’ shareholding from 39 per cent to 9 per cent. HM Treasury received dividends for the first time during the 15-16 financial year, the total dividend receipts were around £0.2 billion. The remaining shares had a market value of £4.4 billion as at 31 March 2016. If the remaining shares were sold at market price on that date the government would make a cash gain of around £0.5 billion, excluding dividends, from its shareholding in Lloyds. However, the cash gain does not take account of the cost of funding the purchases of the shares. The money needed to buy the shares was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts, government bonds on which interest is payable. The final return from Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. The Treasury expects to recover the cash lent to Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley from the cash flows generated during their wind-down. These cash flows will principally comprise interest, repayments and redemptions arising from the mortgages and other loans to customers together with the proceeds from asset sales such as the sale of a £13 billion portfolio of NRAM loans in November 2015. As at 31st March 2016, the loan balance outstanding was £28.4bn. Any unrecovered loans. The Treasury has impaired various loans made to support depositors in failed banks on the basis that the administrators for the failed institutions are uncertain that there will be available monies to pay the creditors in full. The Treasury has stated its intention to continue to pursue these loans in full. Treasury made loans of £2.2 billion and is currently forecasting to recover £2.1 billion. Costs arising from the additional government borrowing raised to finance the purchase of the shares and loans.. The money needed to make the interventions was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts (interest-bearing government bonds purchased by investors for periods of up to 50 years), at a cost of just under 3% a year. The fees and income received. As at 31 March 2016, the Treasury had received a total of around £19 billion in fees and interest for providing the support and assuming the risks covered by the guarantees since 2008. Thanks for thw quote. That is of course on spin on the scenario. The only real problem is that it os taking the share price of RBS longer to recover than expected . When this does eventally recover there will be loss to the taxpayer . The true losses have been borne by pension funds and shareholders who havd seen their dividend income collapse as has their asset value ." Yes, a lot of public sector pension funds have suffered due to this. | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78 If the use of food banks is at an all time high, we would need to understand in further detail what people are exactly spending their money on. Booze and fags and bingo I suppose? You can't alwaya be so dispassionate surely? Some people are working poor and struggle to make ends meet. You might not be one of them, but don't just making a sweeping statement that makes you sound cold. I've noticed this is a theme with you. It isn't nice. Whatever happened to caring Conservatism?* *Clue: it doesn't exist. Luckily I get feedback from people that I come into contact daily from a small businness that I run in addition to feedback from colleagues at work. In addition as I provide extensive assistance to someone who is disabled I am probably better informed rhan most as to what a life on benefits is like . The botton line is that everything you have in life has to be earned . Nothing is handed to you on a plate. Who mentioned benefits? Yet again, your own prejudice has reared its head. It is most unbecoming. I make no apology for mentioning benefits as I have extensive expwrience of assisting someone who suffers from a disability . And? I don't see the link with what I was talking about (the WORKING poor). Illogical to introduce it. " I would think it is entirely relevant as you were talking about food banks ?. Do posters have to seek your permission before they are allowed to post ? I was unaware of this new control. | |||
" The banks are held to account already for their so called recklessness. All the bailout money has to be repaid . It is currently only a loan. The people who have lost out as a result of the banking crisis are the shareholders who have seen both the value of their investment and associated dividend income fall. Many of these investors were either pensioners or pension funds who depend on the banks for dividend income . The bonuses paid are immaterial in the overall scheme of things and in any event the schemes are monitored by shareholders ." . Your wrong on a few things. The bailout money is immaterial, the real cost of the bailout was the hundreds of billions in QE this is effectively a transfer of bad debt from the banks to the central bank, this will not be repaid by the banks but by the people!. There's an old saying that you invest in stocks and get yields from bonds, bonds are on their arse because of the QE and subsequent lowering of interest rates (we couldn't possibly afford the interest repayments on the national debt at sensible interest rates).... The main buyers of govt bonds are the pension companies, the pensions have gone down because yields from bonds are on the floor (pension companies have a legal responsibility to only invest in highly secure debt ie gov bonds). Today the spectre has reversed to stocks for yields and bonds for investment leaving pension companies in a dilemma. . . People who have nothing in the bank and no assets were not bailed out by a bank bailout, it's just not possible as they had nothing to bail out | |||
| |||
" Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high "pat... this is becoming boring because people have told you why the FTSE is at an all time high.... it is because most of the FTSE are multi-national companies who do all their financial reporting in $US Dollars!!! so therefore with the drop in the value of the pound (i will get back to this is relation to aldi) it means that all of their "profits" go up on the same value of money..... so.... aldi already announced all this pre brexit.... and since they are a german company and report in euros, because of again the drop in the value of the pound, the investment becomes cheaper for them to do (than before they had planned pre brexit vote)......... | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. " you are right... we do need inflation... but not 5%..... that why the Bank of England govenor has a 2% inflation target set by the chancellor also it doesn't help having having a 2% inflation target if the government are only giving public sector workers a 1% increase, as you are making people worse off..... the biggest mover of inflation in the next couple of months is when the drop in the pound (a recurring theme) makes it thru the cycle with things priced in US dollars.... most electronic gadgets, petrol, gas and electricity, lots of foodstuffs (for example coffee... orange juice.... sugar!) | |||
"I also meant to add that use of food banks in the UK is at an all time high... Got this also from the FT, although it is what months old, it does appear to contradict the contention about food costs being at an all time low: https://www.ft.com/content/96d1c6b8-91e4-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78. What we need, no what we have to have in this country first and foremost is inflation, and not crappy little inflation, we need 5% a year for ten years. you are right... we do need inflation... but not 5%..... that why the Bank of England govenor has a 2% inflation target set by the chancellor also it doesn't help having having a 2% inflation target if the government are only giving public sector workers a 1% increase, as you are making people worse off..... the biggest mover of inflation in the next couple of months is when the drop in the pound (a recurring theme) makes it thru the cycle with things priced in US dollars.... most electronic gadgets, petrol, gas and electricity, lots of foodstuffs (for example coffee... orange juice.... sugar!)" . Your right, we can't get inflation going primarily because we're not getting the money out at the bottom, instead we're ploughing it in at the top with the vain hope of it trickling down!!. The 2 % inflation target was 2% in the good times when debt was 35% of GDP and with good growth?. The world creditors have an obsession with zero percent interest rates for a reason? | |||
" Just to add to the good news the FTSE is at an all time high
pat... this is becoming boring because people have told you why the FTSE is at an all time high....
it is because most of the FTSE are multi-national companies who do all their financial reporting in $US Dollars!!!
so therefore with the drop in the value of the pound (i will get back to this is relation to aldi) it means that all of their "profits" go up on the same value of money.....
so.... aldi already announced all this pre brexit.... and since they are a german company and report in euros, because of again the drop in the value of the pound, the investment becomes cheaper for them to do (than before they had planned pre brexit vote)........."Hi. Thanks for the advice and everyone is of course welcome to express an opinion. However I am not compelled to accept anyones explanations that these are due to exchange gains . Most of those who are so keen to use the explanation of exchange gains for the rise support remain. I prefer to obtain my information. for a detailed analysis of movement in share prices from specialist investment publications to which I subscribe , not from comments on a swingers forum. The only sligbt distortion might be the recent substantial gains in miners shares . Your explanation is of course much appreciated as is that of other contributors . However no one is compelled to accept another posters opinion. | |||
| |||
"Anyone who knows anything about retail will understand that Brexit has had a real influence here - but not the way Pat thinks, obviously. Aldi were already planning this expansion before Brexit, of course...but the fact the useful idiots of Brexit have sent the value of the pound into free fall by driving our economy towards the cliff edge means they have been able to move the expansion forwards. If a Brexit voter ever manages to understand anything about economics, it will be nothing short of a miracle. " Hahahahahahaha As very few of the doom and gloom predictions of the remain voters,has come to pass. I've noticed they've now taken too grasping at straws Depreciating every post Brexit success, Whilst exaggerating,and misrepresenting,even the most minor of blips. They have been shown to be highly dishonest, And To have a crass, disrespect for democracy. It's about time,they stopped whinging,and whining, And started accepting the democratic vote. More Especially now that the EU is increasingly looking like a sinking ship,springing leaks all over the place, and the UKs decision to jump on the first life boat, increasingly more apt,and prudent.  | |||
"Here is The Guardian reporting on Aldi's plans to invest £70M on expanding their headquarters, and also their intention of doubling the number of UK stores to create all these new jobs. When did they report this? What do you know, it was back in September 2014! https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/11/aldi-extend-uk-hq-70m-pounds Well well well. I suppose they must have heard the news that you have just got from your specialist publications Pat, then jumped in a time machine in order to undermine your Brexit-tinted view of the world, eh? "Aldi did say this a while back but it was Lidl who announced this news this week | |||
The truth of it is, just like the Google 'announcement' that was also two years old and reheated in the Brexit oven, these are stories being re-spun to give people some hope that the government aren't currently sending the UK economy into a black hole. But people who want 'evidence' to 'prove' they haven't just voted to slit the throat of UK PLC will lap up any old toss. | |||
| |||
"Here is The Guardian reporting on Aldi's plans to invest £70M on expanding their headquarters, and also their intention of doubling the number of UK stores to create all these new jobs. When did they report this? What do you know, it was back in September 2014! https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/11/aldi-extend-uk-hq-70m-pounds Well well well. I suppose they must have heard the news that you have just got from your specialist publications Pat, then jumped in a time machine in order to undermine your Brexit-tinted view of the world, eh? "While it may have been talked about in 2014 it was actually cinfirmed this week. If Brexit waa bad news they would have pulled out . | |||
"No wonder poor Pat is confused. Two German cut price supermarkets both spending £70M on two different headquarters...it must be getting his specialist investment mags in a right spin! As for Lidl, their expansion is also nothing to do with post-Brexit confidence, naturally - they announced they were investing £1.5 BILLION in the UK, yes you guessed it, back in 2015. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/11/lidl-expansion-stores-self-checkouts-toilets That Remainer time machine at The Guardian is getting a right work out!
The truth of it is, just like the Google 'announcement' that was also two years old and reheated in the Brexit oven, these are stories being re-spun to give people some hope that the government aren't currently sending the UK economy into a black hole. But people who want 'evidence' to 'prove' they haven't just voted to slit the throat of UK PLC will lap up any old toss."They are hardly re spun stories if companies are cinfirming their intentions . If Brexit waa bad news , they would hsve cancelled their investment . Instead they have confirmed it . | |||
