Gordon's Gamble...

[Canada Bob]

Here's the latest on how far Gordon is dragging the country into the mire, I didn't know it was this bad...

It's a few quid aint it...

Makes that betting slip I just ripped up {backed Wigan to beat Castleford} look like nowt at all, just a billionth of Gordon's Gamble...

[CaleyD]

These reporters should be hauled over the coals for their gross over exaggeration, it's bad enough without them trying to sensationalise it even more.

[starchief]

The Daily Mail - no surprise! Doesn't take in to account the value of the shares that part ownership gives and billions of pounds of assets the banks have. The best long-term investment anyone could make at this time is in the banks. Share price very low and what goes down...!

<rant>What really annoys me though is what's going to happen at the next election. The whole global climate cannot be discounted but there's an added effect of Brown's management of the economy. So what will people do at the next election? Vote Tory, yet it was Tory policies Gordon was following! Does anyone really believe the Tories would have regulated more, increased interest rates, denied more people the opportunity to buy their house etc etc??!! It's as bad as the people in the last election that voted Tory as they were anti the Iraq war. The Conservatives voted for the war!

In some ways, it's appropriate that this is on a football forum as that's how politics is treated. Socialists are still voting Labour. One-nation Europhiles are still voting Tory. Yet, these parties have changed dramatically from what they were but they're getting votes based on tradition rather than actuality. How about next election people look at what the parties will be doing and putting the 'X' in the box based on that rather than supporting a party. Isn't the future of the country more important than that?

And if you don't know who that should be - try this quiz (don't try to guess 'your' parties stance - answer honestly and with an open mind - you may find that you don't actually agree with everything 'your' party stands for)

http://www.activehistory.co.uk/Miscellaneo...05/frameset.htm

</rant>

[CaleyD]

?500bn of the debt being included by the scaremongers is in relation to mortage debt....in order for that debt to become a reality, everyone in this country with a mortgage would have to refuse to pay and everyone else would have to refuse to buy the properties (realising the asset value)....It's never going to happen.

They are also including things like pension liabilities and other finance initiatives, money which the government are not spending now so which they have no need to borrow for. As a "debt" is something you owe and/or are paying interest on, then how can they justify including borrowing which has not yet occurred? About half of the reported "debt" is not really a debt at all.

Actual National Debt is currently somewhere in the region of 50% of GDP at the moment. When you compare it to other countries we don't even fall into the top 30 worst "offenders". Japan is around 200%, America is approaching 80%....Germany, France, Canada, Italy are all worse than us. Our National Debt after WWII was over 150% of GDP and has been at current levels for most of the time between then and now, including spells as recently as the mid to late 90's.

The reason we're reacting so badly is because the current climb has (allegedly) been caused by huge screws up in the private sector, as opposed to incurring costs to allow us to engage in war/conflict etc. In fact, I'd bet that if we looked really closely at the actual figures we'd probably find a large portion of the debt from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan being "hidden" behind the banking crisis....probably little wonder then that the Government allow the press to continue to pedal the myths about debt levels and the cause.

Whatever way you paint it, things aren't as bad as we're being made to believe (although they are bad enough and worthy of some concern), and we've come through far, far worse in situations where we've not have the benefit of taking control of a large part of the countries commercial banking sector which will more than pay for itself.

[DAM]

The Daily Mail - no surprise! Doesn't take in to account the value of the shares that part ownership gives and billions of pounds of assets the banks have. The best long-term investment anyone could make at this time is in the banks. Share price very low and what goes down...!

<rant>What really annoys me though is what's going to happen at the next election. The whole global climate cannot be discounted but there's an added effect of Brown's management of the economy. So what will people do at the next election? Vote Tory, yet it was Tory policies Gordon was following! Does anyone really believe the Tories would have regulated more, increased interest rates, denied more people the opportunity to buy their house etc etc??!! It's as bad as the people in the last election that voted Tory as they were anti the Iraq war. The Conservatives voted for the war!

In some ways, it's appropriate that this is on a football forum as that's how politics is treated. Socialists are still voting Labour. One-nation Europhiles are still voting Tory. Yet, these parties have changed dramatically from what they were but they're getting votes based on tradition rather than actuality. How about next election people look at what the parties will be doing and putting the 'X' in the box based on that rather than supporting a party. Isn't the future of the country more important than that?

And if you don't know who that should be - try this quiz (don't try to guess 'your' parties stance - answer honestly and with an open mind - you may find that you don't actually agree with everything 'your' party stands for)

http://www.activehistory.co.uk/Miscellaneo...05/frameset.htm

</rant>

The way I remember it Starchief - the last time that Labour were in power they made a right f**kup of the economy then the Tories were elected, they sorted out the economy and along came Labour again, took over Tory policies (as you rightly said) and managed to f*** it up again.

[CaleyD]

I suggest your memory is slightly skewed then.

Tories were in power from 70 till 74, a period when our National Debt to GDP was in excess of what it is now (70% at one point and over 60% when passed to Labour)), they were then in power from 79 till 97 and despite getting the figure down to under 30% in the early 90's they handed it over to Labour in 97 at 45%...not far off what it is at the moment. Labour then managed to take the figure below 30% again and had held it below 40% (the level considered "safe") until the chit hit the fan with the global economy last year.

The truth of the matter is that none of of them are any better than the other and it wouldn't have mattered a jot who was in power at the moment, things would have panned out much the same.

[Canada Bob]

We'll never get it right while we're getting it wrong...

As long as we blaming each other, based on our personal political stripe, the ones who are responsible, that's the greedy b*stards who have just about ruined the country are laughing their b*llocks off. It's time to place the blame at their feet, or better still, a rope round their necks Years ago folks who did this much damage to the Nation would have been charged with Treason and hung, or worse...

Say what you like about the Daily Mail, {the paper for those who can read "joined up words"}, I haven't seen anyone suing them on this topic recently...

Here's what the other papers had to say...

The Torygraph...

Daily Mirror

The Guardian

The Times

Daily Expres

These reporters should be hauled over the coals for their gross over exaggeration, it's bad enough without them trying to sensationalise it even more.

Seems to me the papers got their info from here...

It's 2.1 Trillion, says the Office of National Statistics !!!

Looks like the Daily Mail was 100 Million quid out...

Couldn't even find any comment in the Sun or the Star, the top "search" in the Star was for Britney Spears, and my guess is readers of the Sun don't get much further than page 3.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Johnboy]

Well....

With interest rates at all time record low levels this isn't such a bad time to have a national debt up to, or in excess of ?2.0 Trillion.

[starchief]

The way I remember it Starchief - the last time that Labour were in power they made a right f**kup of the economy then the Tories were elected, they sorted out the economy and along came Labour again, took over Tory policies (as you rightly said) and managed to f*** it up again.

Then you're forgetting not one but two recessions in the last Tory government. You're also treating Britain as a whole, when the economy was split into areas of deep depression and areas of high prosperity. Ken Clarke and Gordon Brown were virtually interchangeable as Chancellors.

[Canada Bob]

Well....

With interest rates at all time record low levels this isn't such a bad time to have a national debt up to, or in excess of ?2.0 Trillion.

You want to get on that horse before they change the odds, the thing is the low interest rates are a result of panic by the Government, not knowing what else they can do, other than throw money at everything as the ship sinks..

Once their money runs out, and it will, the folks who are left holding money will be the ones who "come to our rescue" and at that point they'll set the interest rate, and it'll be nearer 15% or as high as 30% if/when they lend it out.

It wouldn't surprise me if the b*stards who have stolen the Nations wealth are the only ones left with any money at the end of all this, ask yourself how much meat they'll want off yer bones if we finish up begging off them.

This is a dangerous game, one that is almost impossible to win, the best thing to do when times get bad is to keep yer head down, make sure that you get rid of as much debt as you can, before it comes back to haunt you.

IF the low interest rates prevail it'll still take 25 years for the Nation to pay off the debt, but, if interest rates rise then it'll take 70 years or more to pay it off. During this time you can expect that every service, benefit or pension provided by the Government will be reduced {to say the least}.

The bottom line is, every man, woman and some children turning out for work today could be working for the rest of their life in an attempt to pay off this horrendous debt.

My guess is that at some point in the next year or so, we'll wake up to be told...

"The ? is no more, but this doesn't affect the ? in your pocket, we have adopted the Euro, at a rate of ?2 to 1 Euro, there is no need to panic, this measure will help us get back on our feet and to export British product",, at that point you'll know yer goose has been cooked, cooked most likely by that Banking Law they just passed, the one that they won't let anyone see, not even via the Freedom of Information Act.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Canada Bob

[CaleyD]

So Bob, you're argument in support of what the press is saying is to quote even more press? Give me a break!!!

You're an intelligent man in your own right, and I'm sure you understand the basic concepts of balancing the books. If we choose to include things like mortgage debt, then surely that needs to be balanced off against the fact those mortgages are secured against assets...and, you can't include borrowing/debt that is yet to happen. That's like saying a person is in debt because they've got ?1000 owing on their credit card and ignoring the fact they have ?5000 in the bank or saying a person is in debt simply because they have a credit card and might use it. The concept is laughable.

You talk about people being charged with Treason and hung if this had happened years ago....it did happen years ago, on several occasions and it was many times worse than it is now. In fact, when you look at comparable figures (not the grossly exaggerated ones), then the current "recession" isn't much worse than it was in the mid 90's and it's a damn site less than it was from the late 60's to the mid 70's. If you then go back to the end of WWII you're looking at a recession that was off the scale at 150% of GDP....a figure that would be around 300% if you used the calculations being banded around in the press today....god forbid we go back to the late 20's when a comparable collapse of the banking system caused real problems.

People need to learn to think for themselves more instead of taking what the papers and press print as fact, and the press need to be held more accountable for the nonsense they print. Look at the whole "bird flu" thing, if you believed what was in the press then Armageddon was imminent...the reality was a few cases dotted around the country and Bernard Mathews getting some free press. It's the exact same thing that's happening now, yes the National Debt has taken a bit of a hike but it's still easily within manageable range...a fact born out by us recovering fairly quickly from much worse situations in the past.

It didn't take us anything like 30 years to recover from far larger recessions brought about by either WWI or WWII, nor did it take us 30 years to recover from larger recessions of the late 60's into the 70's, and problems during the 90's which saw National Debt at comparable levels to what they are now were cleared up in 5 or 6 years....so where anyone gets the idea that it could take 30 to 75 years to recover from the current situation is beyond me.

The more people listen to the scaremongers the worse it gets and that allows the scaremongers to paint a blacker picture still, which makes people even more scared and the whole thing feeds on itself unnecessarily.

[Canada Bob]

So Bob, you're argument in support of what the press is saying is to quote even more press? Give me a break!!!

Yea but, No but, I also go on to show you where they got their information from, the Office of National Statistics, they aren't paid to lie...

You're an intelligent man in your own right, and I'm sure you understand the basic concepts of balancing the books.

I think we are now into unchartered waters Don, no one knows what to do, or how this will all end, more than likely if not in Blood and Sweat {as the jobs are gone}, but most likely in Tears...

If we choose to include things like mortgage debt, then surely that needs to be balanced off against the fact those mortgages are secured against assets...and, you can't include borrowing/debt that is yet to happen. That's like saying a person is in debt because they've got ?1000 owing on their credit card and ignoring the fact they have ?5000 in the bank or saying a person is in debt simply because they have a credit card and might use it. The concept is laughable.

IF the situation that we face was that simple, or anywhere near it, we wouldn't be in the shyte we're all in now, when we're talking about Trillions it's like Black Holes, our sums don't add up anymore..

You talk about people being charged with Treason and hung if this had happened years ago....it did happen years ago, on several occasions and it was many times worse than it is now. In fact, when you look at comparable figures (not the grossly exaggerated ones), then the current "recession" isn't much worse than it was in the mid 90's and it's a damn site less than it was from the late 60's to the mid 70's.

This recession has come out of the blue, hardly anyone saw it coming, neither did anyone expect the speed, or the momentum that it carries. Believe me, this will be the worst recession in living memory, we are already seeing thousands of jobs per day lost, not to mention 200 homes repossessed every day !!! this nightmare has only just begun...

If you then go back to the end of WWII you're looking at a recession that was off the scale at 150% of GDP....a figure that would be around 300% if you used the calculations being banded around in the press today....god forbid we go back to the late 20's when a comparable collapse of the banking system caused real problems.

The 150% you quote can't be compared to where we are now. The War Debt seemed high because it was being measured against a low GDP. Employment was very low {after the war}, so that skewed the ratio.

Believe me, looking into the rear view mirror won't tell you what's ahead of us, there are no charts for these waters, nor can anyone credibly even guess how long we will be in them...

People need to learn to think for themselves more instead of taking what the papers and press print as fact,

I'm all for people thinking, yet the reason that we are in the shyte now is because they didn't "think" in the first place, they just voted for the colour rather than the man or his policies, and for the most part they'll do the same again...

and the press need to be held more accountable for the nonsense they print.

Kinell Don, some of the papers print nowt but bollocks, single syllable bollocks at that, who holds them accountable for dumbing the Nation down to it's Lowest Common Denominator... Then again, what the papers printed re the 2 Trillion is easily traced back to a credible source...

Look at the whole "bird flu" thing, if you believed what was in the press then Armageddon was imminent...the reality was a few cases dotted around the country and Bernard Mathews getting some free press. It's the exact same thing that's happening now, yes the National Debt has taken a bit of a hike but it's still easily within manageable range...a fact born out by us recovering fairly quickly from much worse situations in the past.

Fair comment, but, folks who have a functioning brain can usually sort wheat from chaff, add to that Don, some of the Editors play with the minds of the readers {same as the Government does, you know, weapons of Mass Destruction, London could be wiped out in 8 minutes, and all that}, well the Editors know what their readers thrive on, so they churn the shyte out for them... I don't suppose you've ever wound some ****er up in your time ? I think we've all done that...

It didn't take us anything like 30 years to recover from far larger recessions brought about by either WWI or WWII, nor did it take us 30 years to recover from larger recessions of the late 60's into the 70's,

Don't forget that it took us 60 years to pay the Yanks back what we owed them. But, you're talking about recession when I'm talking about the National Debt, it don't really matter how long the recession lasts, it'll still take at least 30 years to pay off Gordon's Gamble.

There is a sting in the tail though, lets say that the recession lasts just one year, and then things get back to some sort of normality, you know when interest rates go back to {say} 6%, that means that we'll have to pay the 4.2 Trillion in 12 years or less to get rid of it ! A mighty burden that would be, but if we close a few Hospitals, cut back on the NHS in general, and all the other Government services, I suppose we could do it, {I am being facetious}.

At just 6% the 2.1 Trillion doubles every 12 years, if interest rates go up to say 10% the debt doubles every 7 years, I'm b*ggered if I can see how it can be paid off.

It's like a bad two horse race really, one horse is carrying 2 Trillion on it's back when unemployment is heading for 3 Million, so although interest rates are low, there's less fekkin workers to pay the debt off.

The other horse with 2 Trillion in the saddle finds better going, with a Million more people employed, but interest rates have gone up to 6%.

I don't know which horse I'd like to see my wages on...

and problems during the 90's which saw National Debt at comparable levels to what they are now were cleared up in 5 or 6 years....so where anyone gets the idea that it could take 30 to 75 years to recover from the current situation is beyond me.

According to Official Statistics the National Debt during the 90's was never higher than 45% most years it was a lot less than that, the worst we have seen in living memory was 1970/71 when the debt ran up to 71% check the chart below, we are already over 100% of GDP and gaining speed. To make it worse, we're going into a recession where Debt will go up and GDP will drop like a stone, making the weight of debt a terrible burden to the Nation, and everyone in it...

National Debt Ratio

I've not made the chart up meself, I got it from here...

History of the National Debt...

The more people listen to the scaremongers the worse it gets and that allows the scaremongers to paint a blacker picture still, which makes people even more scared and the whole thing feeds on itself unnecessarily.

You've no been drinking with that r sole Mandelson have you, he says that we can't say anything or even think anything unless it meets with his approval...

It's not true, and even if it is, you've not to talk about it !!

What's this Banking Act they have just brought in ? why is it Secret ? I've never known a Law to be passed in the UK that the content has been withheld ! you can't even get a copy of it via the Freedom of Information Act. They say "it's just to protect the Banks" but, they have already done that, and if that's all this Act / Law is about then what makes it secret ?

Wouldn't surprise me if we all wake up one day to be told, "We have abandoned the ?, it's now an obsolete currency, but don't worry, this wont affect the ? in your pocket, you can take that down to RBS where we will exchange them for Euro's at a rate of ?2 for 1 Euro". Fair enough they couldn't do that now, they'd have to bring in a New Law, and if they did that we'd know about it wouldn't we, unless they kept it Secret...

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth, here's what they think in Canada...

They think we're knackered...

Edited February 24, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Heilandee]

I prefer the view through Caley D's spectacles,rose tinted or otherwise,negativity only breeds negativity.

Things can only get better!!! .....they should try that as a catchy slogan.

Onwards and upwards

[Johnboy]

I prefer the view through Caley D's spectacles,rose tinted or otherwise,negativity only breeds negativity.

I think that rose tinted outlook stems from supporting Caley Thistle, H/Dee...

You should try it sometime.... Think of the savings you would make in petrol/diesel!!

[Canada Bob]

I don't know if any of you have actually read the report {linked above} by the guy in Canada but if you have and you don't see the writing on the wall you never will.

I've followed this guy for years now, not for "investment" advice as such, nor for tips on shares or bonds etc, but to get a weather eye on how currencies are trading against each other.

Ever since we went to Canada 27 years ago we held money in sterling and {obviously} in Cnd $'s, but when I started trading {in perfumes & cosmetic products} with companies in the US we also kept a considerable amount in US $'s. If you don't keep a watch on how these currencies trade against each other if can cost you a fortune. I was lucky enough to read an article by this guy some years back, and he's been spot on as to how currencies have traded, this lad knows his game.

After reading his latest report I honestly think that Gordon will sink the ship, mind you I think Gordon's lifeboat will be at hand if/when he needs it.

Heilandee, we would all like to see the future through rose coloured glasses, but I fear that those who don't see what's coming will be the ones who suffer most from it.

We are already at the point where the British Government can't speak openly and honestly to us, they'd much prefer to put a spin on everything they do. "Quantitative Easing" sounds a lot better than "We are going to print more money", so that's the phrase that falls on your ears.

If folks allow their ears to be spun off, and their eyes to be shaded, how can they know what's really going on ?

Most of us prefer to look on the bright side, and in most instances that helps us, even through difficult times, but

if we can't recognise an iceberg looming up ahead of us then we deserve what we get.

A few days ago I thought this would simply be a rough ride, after reading that last report and then speaking into the late hours with my accountant in Canada, I've got rid of the ? notes that I had changing them to Euro's.

I believe that Gordon is skating on VERY thin ice, it's a fair bet that quantitative easing will start to devalue the ?

the more money Gordon prints the less each ? will be worth. Printing money is a desperate gamble, and if you get it wrong then you could cripple the currency.

I have zero confidence in Gordon, and not much more in any of the others in Westminster, it's not a team that I fancy betting on. I have reason to believe that there's a good chance that the gamble will go wrong, the ? could become obsolete, overnight, we could well wake up one Sunday morning to find that "the ? in our pocket" has gone the way of the dodo. If that happens your ? notes could be exchanged {for you} at a rate set by Gordon, I'd rather pick me own rate than wake up one day to find that's happened.

I'd advise anyone who has a fair bit of money to get into Euro's now, what's to lose ? you can have an account in Euro's and still draw all the Sterling you want from a Bank or an ATM, the benefit of being in Euro's is, as the ? sinks

your money becomes worth more. The reverse could happen, the ? could rise in value against the Euro, but if you think that's going to happen you'd be better opening an account with BetFair than any Bank.

I started my comments off {a couple of weeks ago} with some concern, I'm now seriously concerned as to what's going on in the UK, the least I can do is flag it so that folks might have a closer look at what's going on, in the hope that it may save a few folks from the full force of what I think is heading towards us.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Canada Bob

[CaleyD]

No rose tinted specks here, I'm just looking at the facts/stats and calculating things based on the same formula that's been used to determine National Debt for years and not doing as the press and others are doing now and coming up with a whole new one which makes the situation look far worse than it actually is.

I worked in financial services from the day I left school and worked my way from being an office junior for a small local company to a senior analyst/project manager within RBS in under 10 years and did a spell as a compliance auditor enforcing FSA rules and regulations in between....so you don't need to tell me about past and future performance, nor do I need any lessons on how to work the figures.....certainly not from the press.

The press etc may be getting their figures from the national statistics office, but it's how they are using those figures that's the problem. For the most part they are taking the countries balance sheet and ignoring the assets column, they're then adding possible future debt on top of that figure and coming up with the magical 2 Trillion. As I said previously, using that formulae you could show just about anyone as being in debt to their eyeballs.

Even if you do accept the figures being churned out by the press, you also have to look at the make-up of them. In past situations were national debt has climbed it has, for the most part, been the result of overspending on areas where the taxpayer will have to foot the cost of repayment. That's not the case here as the country has taken large holdings in the companies they are bailing out and these companies will give a return that will go towards paying off the debt. Aside from dividend payments from the shareholding, even if the RBS share price only recovered to half of it's previous value the country could still cash in and get back 4 or 5 times what they've paid out.

I'm not saying that we don't have a problem, I'm just saying that there's no need to compound the problem with creative, over exaggerated figures to make it look any worse than it is. I'm also saying that everything needs to be taken in context.

Not sure why you think the new bank act is so secret. The only "secret" part about it is that any help given to banks will/can be kept under wraps. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Causing panic and a run on banks on serves to make matters worse and together with the other parts of the act it helps create a network whereby banks will support each other if/when any of them get into a sticky situation. It is, in effect, about as close to nationalisation of the banking sector in the UK as we can expect to see at the moment and it allows proper decisions to be made on the sustainability of individual organisations as opposed to decisions brought about by media/public frenzy. It is, IMO, the regulation and control that should already have been in place, and if it had been in place may have prevented the current situation getting to the stage it has.

the idea of the UK selling out sterling at a rate of 2 for 1 to the Euro is heading from the ludicrous to the ridiculous. The current economic issues are not limited to the UK, they are widespread and many of the large banking countries in Europe are in similar, if not worse, state than us. Gordon Brown might be incompetent, but I don't think he's mental.

[starchief]

If you don't keep a watch on how these currencies trade against each other if can cost you a fortune.

Tell me about it. I've two bank accounts, one in USD, the other GBP. I've been losing money hand over fist on one. Just trying to decide when's the best time to switch over the GBP account to USD (or Euros). There's a lot of money to be had but a lot to be lost if you get it wrong.

I know there'll be people thinking 'yeah, well at least it's credit not debt' but it wasn't always that way.

[DAM]

I suggest your memory is slightly skewed then.

Tories were in power from 70 till 74, a period when our National Debt to GDP was in excess of what it is now (70% at one point and over 60% when passed to Labour)), they were then in power from 79 till 97 and despite getting the figure down to under 30% in the early 90's they handed it over to Labour in 97 at 45%...not far off what it is at the moment. Labour then managed to take the figure below 30% again and had held it below 40% (the level considered "safe") until the chit hit the fan with the global economy last year.

The truth of the matter is that none of of them are any better than the other and it wouldn't have mattered a jot who was in power at the moment, things would have panned out much the same.

ok CaleyD, perhaps I didn't put it very well. The point I was trying to make was that I seem to remember when inflation was in excess of 20% and I think Labour were in power then.

By the way, I have no time for either Tory or Labour Party incase you think otherwise.

[starchief]

I won't be voting for either party either but I worked in mortgages when the Tories had interest rates at 15% (remember Norman Lamont's 'green shoots of recovery' and 'unemployment is a price worth paying for low inflation'?) - try punching 15% interest into a mortgage calculator. On a 100,000 mortgage over 25 years, the monthly repayment is ?1289.16, whilst the 4% (roughly what Labour has managed) is ?533.43. The boom trade was in the repossession department. Couldn't take on enough temps to cover!

As it is, I'd welcome massive interest rates as I'm a saver rather than a spender

Neither of those parties has the answer. Do any others?

[Canada Bob]

No rose tinted specks here,

You sure about that, how's that saying go, "when everyone around you is panicking, and you're not, it's because you don't know what's going on", I hope you pick up on the intended humour there Don, no disrespect intended.

I'm just looking at the facts/stats and calculating things based on the same formula that's been used to determine National Debt for years and not doing as the press and others are doing now and coming up with a whole new one which makes the situation look far worse than it actually is.

I guess you have your own facts then ? let's forget what the papers say, but how can we ignore what the Office of National Statistics reports, or that guy in Canada, he's the Ronaldhino of the Financial world, with almost as many fans these days...

I worked in financial services from the day I left school and worked my way from being an office junior for a small local company to a senior analyst/project manager within RBS in under 10 years and did a spell as a compliance auditor enforcing FSA rules and regulations in between....so you don't need to tell me about past and future performance, nor do I need any lessons on how to work the figures.....certainly not from the press.

Don, if you insist on saying the Press have got it wrong then you show me figures that disqualify the Office of National Statistics. The only reason that I have quoted the media is because few of us ever source directly from folks like the Office of National Statistics, but most of us do read the papers, or at lest watch the BBC. The media have simply reported the alarming facts, from a credible source. IF the facts {from the same source} hadn't been so bad, would it be OK with you if we believed them then ?

The press etc may be getting their figures from the national statistics office, but it's how they are using those figures that's the problem. For the most part they are taking the countries balance sheet and ignoring the assets column, they're then adding possible future debt on top of that figure and coming up with the magical 2 Trillion. As I said previously, using that formulae you could show just about anyone as being in debt to their eyeballs.

The problem is Don, the Debts are REAL, we know the exact amount of debt, but we don't know the value of the so called assets !!! How the hell can you put a value on potentially toxic loans, or the value of mortgages on homes when prices are falling 20-30% per year. Let's put it this way, much of these so called "assets" will finish up either written off {at the Tax payers expense}, or they'll be hived off into {what are they calling it} a Toxic Bank, FFS !!!

Even if you do accept the figures being churned out by the press, you also have to look at the make-up of them. In past situations were national debt has climbed it has, for the most part, been the result of overspending on areas where the taxpayer will have to foot the cost of repayment.

What makes you think that you can see what's coming by looking in the rear view mirror ? what's happening now is a whole new ball game...

That's not the case here as the country has taken large holdings in the companies they are bailing out and these companies will give a return that will go towards paying off the debt. Aside from dividend payments from the shareholding, even if the RBS share price only recovered to half of it's previous value the country could still cash in and get back 4 or 5 times what they've paid out.

The chances of the Taxpayer ever getting their money back from RBS is slim to say the least, to expect to show a profit from buying shares in a sinking ship is ludicrous... Look at it this way, IF bailing out the Banks was such a great idea how come the ONLY investors are the Tax payers ? I don't see any "Money Men" or "Investment Houses" or any other Governments wanting to back a dead horse...

I'm not saying that we don't have a problem, I'm just saying that there's no need to compound the problem with creative, over exaggerated figures to make it look any worse than it is. I'm also saying that everything needs to be taken in context.

Let's put it this way, there's no one who denies that bailing out RBS and the other Banks has cost the Tax payers 1.3 Trillion to date, that we know of, if that alone doesn't put things into perspective then what will. My bet is that most folks don't even have a clue as to what a Trillion is, in fact I'd bet that 90% of folks would have difficulty writing enough 0's down to arrive at a Trillion.

Not sure why you think the new bank act is so secret. The only "secret" part about it is that any help given to banks will/can be kept under wraps.

Now that's clever Don, the content of this Banking Act is Secret, but you know what the content is, or you think you do.

If it was as "innocent" as you describe then WTF have they denied access to it, to the extent that you can't even invoke the Freedom of Information Act. I'd venture to say that Gordon has evoked in you {and many others} exactly what he wanted you to think, it's not a good idea to be thinking what "they" want you to think, rather than thinking for yourself, isn't that what you advised us we should be doing a bit earlier ? yet when we do think for ourselves we are branded as

alarmists ?

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

It's rarely a good thing when Governments hide things from people, they aren't short on telling us what they want us to believe, but they seem to fall short when it comes to telling us the truth.

Causing panic and a run on banks on serves to make matters worse

You sure you're not morphing into Lord Mendelson ? sounds like the song he sings...

and together with the other parts of the act it helps create a network whereby banks will support each other if/when any of them get into a sticky situation.

That's a JOKE, and a bad one at that, you can't really believe that, even Gordon and the rest of his tribe have been complaining about that. Even though the Banks have been refloated with "our" money they still won't lend it to each other !!! let alone lend it back to business or individuals.

It is, in effect, about as close to nationalisation of the banking sector in the UK as we can expect to see at the moment and it allows proper decisions to be made on the sustainability of individual organisations as opposed to decisions brought about by media/public frenzy. It is, IMO, the regulation and control that should already have been in place, and if it had been in place may have prevented the current situation getting to the stage it has.

It's a wise man, or a fool Don who thinks he knows what's going on, it's not long ago that Alan Greenspan said {in a Senate Inquiry} that he didn't know what was going on, or what would happen, if he don't know, I don't know, but I know enough to keep my head down for a while...

the idea of the UK selling out sterling at a rate of 2 for 1 to the Euro is heading from the ludicrous to the ridiculous.

Obviously I was being a tad facetious Don, but you know yourself that this scenario could well arise, when it does, remember where you heard it first.

The current economic issues are not limited to the UK, they are widespread and many of the large banking countries in Europe are in similar, if not worse, state than us.

Is that why the ? is going down the drain ?

I guess you have conceded that the debt in the 90's in terms of the GDP wasn't even close to the debt we are in now ?

Gordon Brown might be incompetent, but I don't think he's mental.

To be honest I doubt it would make much difference if Gordon was either incompetent or mental, either way it won't stop this ship sinking. If you want to survive this Perfect Storm, it's time to find out where the life boats are, or at least grab a life jacket. I'll no be "dancing to the Band" with water round my ankles...

Edited February 24, 2009 by Canada Bob

[CaleyD]

No rose tinted specks here,

You sure about that, how's that saying go, "when everyone around you is panicking, and you're not, it's because you don't know what's going on", I hope you pick up on the intended humour there Don, no disrespect intended.

Humour perhaps, but I find it a tad patronising all the same.

I'm just looking at the facts/stats and calculating things based on the same formula that's been used to determine National Debt for years and not doing as the press and others are doing now and coming up with a whole new one which makes the situation look far worse than it actually is.

I guess you have your own facts then ? let's forget what the papers say, but how can we ignore what the Office of National Statistics reports, or that guy in Canada, he's the Ronaldhino of the Financial world, with almost as many fans these days...

Not at all, I've never said the figures coming from the Office of National Statistics are wrong, what I'm saying is that it's how those figures are being manipulated that is highly inaccurate.

I worked in financial services from the day I left school and worked my way from being an office junior for a small local company to a senior analyst/project manager within RBS in under 10 years and did a spell as a compliance auditor enforcing FSA rules and regulations in between....so you don't need to tell me about past and future performance, nor do I need any lessons on how to work the figures.....certainly not from the press.

Don, if you insist on saying the Press have got it wrong then you show me figures that disqualify the Office of National Statistics. The only reason that I have quoted the media is because few of us ever source directly from folks like the Office of National Statistics, but most of us do read the papers, or at lest watch the BBC. The media have simply reported the alarming facts, from a credible source. IF the facts {from the same source} hadn't been so bad, would it be OK with you if we believed them then ?

If the media were simply reporting the facts from the Office of National Statistics then we'd all be far better placed to make up our own minds, but that's not what they are doing. As I said above, they are taking the figures and then twisting them to sensationalise events. It's not the facts that are bad, it's how they are being used.

The press etc may be getting their figures from the national statistics office, but it's how they are using those figures that's the problem. For the most part they are taking the countries balance sheet and ignoring the assets column, they're then adding possible future debt on top of that figure and coming up with the magical 2 Trillion. As I said previously, using that formulae you could show just about anyone as being in debt to their eyeballs.

The problem is Don, the Debts are REAL, we know the exact amount of debt, but we don't know the value of the so called assets !!! How the hell can you put a value on potentially toxic loans, or the value of mortgages on homes when prices are falling 20-30% per year. Let's put it this way, much of these so called "assets" will finish up either written off {at the Tax payers expense}, or they'll be hived off into {what are they calling it} a Toxic Bank, FFS !!!

Of course the debts are real, your balance on your credit card is real, but it takes no account of what you might have in the bank. ?400bn in apparent "Toxic Loans"....or for those not up to speed on the current set of media buzzwords...unsecured loans or loans secured against assets which don't cover the borrowing. The government has not taken on this debt, nor do they intend to. What they are doing is underwriting it. They don't have to borrow a penny to do that, just like they don't have to borrow a penny to underwrite the mortgage debt (?500bn). The only time they will be liable to shell out a single penny against any of that is if those who have borrowed are unable to pay up. Not sure what the overlap is in those two figures (how much falls into both categories) but if you believe media reports it's two separate things and they've added it as a total of ?900bn to our apparent national debt, not a kick in the erse of half of what they are reporting the total to be. By the time you then take into consideration future pension liabilities (not future, not current, no current borrowing and no interest or repayment being paid to anyone as well as some of the future PFI liabilities (some are already included as contracts are complete and deals done, they've just not kicked into existence yet in terms of the accounts).

So, yes, the Office of National Statistics will kick out all the figures for the above, and those in the press who either don't understand them fully or choose to twist them intentionally just keep pressing the plus button on the calculator because the bigger the number the bigger the headline.

A more responsible take on the ONS Statistics

Even if you do accept the figures being churned out by the press, you also have to look at the make-up of them. In past situations were national debt has climbed it has, for the most part, been the result of overspending on areas where the taxpayer will have to foot the cost of repayment.

What makes you think that you can see what's coming by looking in the rear view mirror ? what's happening now is a whole new ball game...

"Past performance is is not a reliable guide to future performance and should not be the main or sole factor taken into account in investment decisions"...a statement I read on dozens of documents every day and one which leads most people down the line that past perfromance should be ignored. That's not true and it's not how the FSA intended it to be used. Past perfromance is the only factualy information we have to go on in these circumstances, and should certainly not be ignored. As well as showing the potential benefits, it can also be used as a useful yardstick to show people what happens if things go wrong. This countries "past perfromance" when it comes to National Debt shows that there's a variety of things that can lead to problems, but it also shows us that we are capable of coming through them. It also shows that we've come through far worse and that we are far from heading towards economic oblivion. On this occasion we can draw some fairly direct comparisons with what happened in the banking collapse of the late 20's.

That's not the case here as the country has taken large holdings in the companies they are bailing out and these companies will give a return that will go towards paying off the debt. Aside from dividend payments from the shareholding, even if the RBS share price only recovered to half of it's previous value the country could still cash in and get back 4 or 5 times what they've paid out.

The chances of the Taxpayer ever getting their money back from RBS is slim to say the least, to expect to show a profit from buying shares in a sinking ship is ludicrous... Look at it this way, IF bailing out the Banks was such a great idea how come the ONLY investors are the Tax payers ? I don't see any "Money Men" or "Investment Houses" or any other Governments wanting to back a dead horse...

Your first comment there is total speculation, and a fairly wild speculation at that. As to the rest of it, private investors were not/would not have been able to perform a bail out on this scale. They might have had the capital to buy shares but they would not have had the assets required to underwrite the liabilities and bring any confidence back to the market.

I'm not saying that we don't have a problem, I'm just saying that there's no need to compound the problem with creative, over exaggerated figures to make it look any worse than it is. I'm also saying that everything needs to be taken in context.

Let's put it this way, there's no one who denies that bailing out RBS and the other Banks has cost the Tax payers 1.3 Trillion to date, that we know of, if that alone doesn't put things into perspective then what will. My bet is that most folks don't even have a clue as to what a Trillion is, in fact I'd bet that 90% of folks would have difficulty writing enough 0's down to arrive at a Trillion.

I'll deny it!!! It's cost the taxpayer in the region of ?50bn, the rest of that figure is (as I'm getting tired of saying) simple underwriting. We (taxpayer) do not own that debt, nor are we servicing that 1.3trillion.

Not sure why you think the new bank act is so secret. The only "secret" part about it is that any help given to banks will/can be kept under wraps.

Now that's clever Don, the content of this Banking Act is Secret, but you know what the content is, or you think you do.

If it was as "innocent" as you describe then WTF have they denied access to it, to the extent that you can't even invoke the Freedom of Information Act. I'd venture to say that Gordon has evoked in you {and many others} exactly what he wanted you to think, it's not a good idea to be thinking what "they" want you to think, rather than thinking for yourself, isn't that what you advised us we should be doing a bit earlier ? yet when we do think for ourselves we are branded as

alarmists ?

They haven't denied access to the act, the only thing they are denying access to is details of any future bail outs/rescue bids...and even then it is at their discretion.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

It's rarely a good thing when Governments hide things from people, they aren't short on telling us what they want us to believe, but they seem to fall short when it comes to telling us the truth.

See above.

Causing panic and a run on banks on serves to make matters worse

You sure you're not morphing into Lord Mendelson ? sounds like the song he sings...

Very much my own person, I'm all for taking action where it's needed, but I'm not one for encouraging mass hysterics in order to sell a few papers.

and together with the other parts of the act it helps create a network whereby banks will support each other if/when any of them get into a sticky situation.

That's a JOKE, and a bad one at that, you can't really believe that, even Gordon and the rest of his tribe have been complaining about that. Even though the Banks have been refloated with "our" money they still won't lend it to each other !!! let alone lend it back to business or individuals.

My description is perhaps a little simplistic, but it essentially amounts to the same thing. Banks are at a stage where they can't afford to see each other going to the wall, so the only way forward is to work together.

It is, in effect, about as close to nationalisation of the banking sector in the UK as we can expect to see at the moment and it allows proper decisions to be made on the sustainability of individual organisations as opposed to decisions brought about by media/public frenzy. It is, IMO, the regulation and control that should already have been in place, and if it had been in place may have prevented the current situation getting to the stage it has.

It's a wise man, or a fool Don who thinks he knows what's going on, it's not long ago that Alan Greenspan said {in a Senate Inquiry} that he didn't know what was going on, or what would happen, if he don't know, I don't know, but I know enough to keep my head down for a while...

I've been accused of being both on many occasions.

the idea of the UK selling out sterling at a rate of 2 for 1 to the Euro is heading from the ludicrous to the ridiculous.

Obviously I was being a tad facetious Don, but you know yourself that this scenario could well arise, when it does, remember where you heard it first.

Maybe the press think they are just being a tad fecetious as well? It all adds up to the same thing, and that's the fact that the current situation is being blown out of all proportion.

The current economic issues are not limited to the UK, they are widespread and many of the large banking countries in Europe are in similar, if not worse, state than us.

Is that why the ? is going down the drain ?

Tough one to call. I'm not convinced printing cash is the long term answer, but suffering a bit of a knock on the exchange to get people spending locally again could work. I'm just not sure I trust the decision makers to know when to turn the presses off.

I guess you have conceded that the debt in the 90's in terms of the GDP wasn't even close to the debt we are in now ?

It's within 5 or 6%, that's fairly close in the grand scheme of things.

Gordon Brown might be incompetent, but I don't think he's mental.

To be honest I doubt it would make much difference if Gordon was either incompetent or mental, either way it won't stop this ship sinking. If you want to survive this Perfect Storm, it's time to find out where the life boats are, or at least grab a life jacket. I'll no be "dancing to the Band" with water round my ankles...

I think we've taken a knock and are letting on water, but I don't think it's a lost cause...far from it. I think we've pretty much bottomed out, and thankfully we've done so in shallow water. People can roll their sleeves up and assist with the recovery or they can scuttle off to find the next ship.

[Canada Bob]

I hope you pick up on the intended humour there Don, no disrespect intended.

Humour perhaps, but I find it a tad patronising all the same.

It's hard enough telling a joke in the Pub at times Don, let alone trying to inject a bit of humour via text, it's just too easy to get on the wrong side of what's being said... no offence was meant...

The only time they will be liable to shell out a single penny against any of that is if those who have borrowed are unable to pay up.

Looks like that could be this Thursday then...

This countries "past perfromance" when it comes to National Debt shows that there's a variety of things that can lead to problems, but it also shows us that we are capable of coming through them. It also shows that we've come through far worse and that we are far from heading towards economic oblivion.

I guess that using that logic we could take heart from how Germany went on, a wheel barrow full of money for a loaf of bread, and look how they recovered. So recovery is almost a certainty, well, let's say survival is, but do we want to see that for the next 10 years ?

Your first comment there is total speculation, and a fairly wild speculation at that.

How can you say that my comments are "wild speculations" based on no more than what you prefer to believe ?

that's a false foundation for credibility Don.

As to the rest of it, private investors were not/would not have been able to perform a bail out on this scale. They might have had the capital to buy shares but they would not have had the assets required to underwrite the liabilities and bring any confidence back to the market.

So do you think ANY of them would have put their money into this pending fiasco ?

They haven't denied access to the act, the only thing they are denying access to is details of any future bail outs/rescue bids...and even then it is at their discretion.

LOL, get me a copy of it then Don, I'll know your right when I see it in black & white, things that are hidden usually have a reason for being hidden...

Causing panic and a run on banks on serves to make matters worse

You sure you're not morphing into Lord Mendelson ? sounds like the song he sings...

Very much my own person, I'm all for taking action where it's needed, but I'm not one for encouraging mass hysterics in order to sell a few papers.

Don, how can you be your own person when [due to being at one time an employee of RBS} you go so eagerly to defend their position ? add to that, with all due respect, you then go on to voice the Governments line ? how does this make you your own man ?

I'm not convinced printing cash is the long term answer,

Aye, well, you differ from Gordon there...

but suffering a bit of a knock on the exchange to get people spending locally again could work.

How much money can 7 Million people without any income spend ? no, that's not a typo, that's how many people between 16-64 aren't turning out to go to work in the UK right now, where do they get their money.

Add to that the estimated hundreds of thousands of folks who will lose their jobs this year, how can they or even those who manage to keep their jobs help float the boat ? do you know anyone who's not already close to being skint ?

I'm just not sure I trust the decision makers to know when to turn the presses off.

At least we agree on that...

I guess you have conceded that the debt in the 90's in terms of the GDP wasn't even close to the debt we are in now ?

It's within 5 or 6%, that's fairly close in the grand scheme of things.

Are you looking at the same thing as me ? the National Debt {that you said was worse in the 90's} was never more than 45% of GDP, we now have a National Debt that has already passed 100% of GDP ! How do you get that down to 5 or 6% it's actually over 100% more than it was in the 90's !!! more than that in real terms rather than simply ratios.

I think we've taken a knock and are letting on water, but I don't think it's a lost cause...far from it.

The same logic prevailed on the Titanic Don...

I think we've pretty much bottomed out, and thankfully we've done so in shallow water.

"Bottoming Out" !!! yer the only bloke in the UK who thinks that then, we are nowhere near bottoming out...

People can roll their sleeves up and assist with the recovery Tell you what Don, when the folks who have buggered the Banks up turn up with their sleeves rolled up, I'll be right there with them...

or they can scuttle off to find the next ship.

That's already been done Don, they didn't leave in lifeboats, they left in Yachts, well before the sh*t hit the fan.

What they don't want... you can have...

Anyway, I guess that we have opposing views and no amount of debate will ever persuade either of us towards the others point of view. The only thing that will "tell it like it is" will be time, with that in mind I'd appreciate a one liner from you as to where you think we'll be by the end of 2009.

I'll nail this prediction to my mast...

Unemployment over 2.5 Million by the end of the year, a 20% devaluation of the ? IF the ? is still around, and house prices down a further 15%.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Canada Bob

[CaleyD]

As to the rest of it, private investors were not/would not have been able to perform a bail out on this scale. They might have had the capital to buy shares but they would not have had the assets required to underwrite the liabilities and bring any confidence back to the market.

So do you think ANY of them would have put their money into this pending fiasco ?

Yes, and they already are....the share price has already increased by near 75% in the last month, that doesn't happen if there's no confidence in the comany and people aren't trading and investing in the stock.

They haven't denied access to the act, the only thing they are denying access to is details of any future bail outs/rescue bids...and even then it is at their discretion.

LOL, get me a copy of it then Don, I'll know your right when I see it in black & white, things that are hidden usually have a reason for being hidden...

Copy of the Act here

Explanatory Memo Here

Causing panic and a run on banks on serves to make matters worse

You sure you're not morphing into Lord Mendelson ? sounds like the song he sings...

Very much my own person, I'm all for taking action where it's needed, but I'm not one for encouraging mass hysterics in order to sell a few papers.

Don, how can you be your own person when [due to being at one time an employee of RBS} you go so eagerly to defend their position ? add to that, with all due respect, you then go on to voice the Governments line ? how does this make you your own man ?

RBS just about sent me to my grave in my late 20's, so whatever you might interpret as an eagerness to defend them has nothing to do with the fact that I am a past employee. I'm not defending RBS and I'm not defending the government, what I am doing is stating that the situation is not as bad as it is being portrayed....that's not to say we don't have a problem, it's just not oblivion.

but suffering a bit of a knock on the exchange to get people spending locally again could work.

How much money can 7 Million people without any income spend ? no, that's not a typo, that's how many people between 16-64 aren't turning out to go to work in the UK right now, where do they get their money.

Add to that the estimated hundreds of thousands of folks who will lose their jobs this year, how can they or even those who manage to keep their jobs help float the boat ? do you know anyone who's not already close to being skint ?

The thing is, I am of the opinion that if people carried on as normal instead of stashing tenners under the mattress and jumping ship and taking money out of the UK economy then we'd have no need for increased unemployment. You yourself were condeming people for shipping money overseas in another thread and saying how that is crippling the country, but on here you're encouraging that they do just that. It's that kind of scaremongering which is causing the problem.

I'm just not sure I trust the decision makers to know when to turn the presses off.

At least we agree on that...

I guess you have conceded that the debt in the 90's in terms of the GDP wasn't even close to the debt we are in now ?

It's within 5 or 6%, that's fairly close in the grand scheme of things.

Are you looking at the same thing as me ? the National Debt {that you said was worse in the 90's} was never more than 45% of GDP, we now have a National Debt that has already passed 100% of GDP ! How do you get that down to 5 or 6% it's actually over 100% more than it was in the 90's !!! more than that in real terms rather than simply ratios.

Prior to the banking issue National Debt was at about 35% of GDP (in the region of $500Bn), the bank bail out has cost about ?50bn and then there's a couple of other places where government have issued rescue packages, bringing total borrowing so far this year to around ?67 Million....an increase of about 12.5%, taking ND as % of GDP to about 47.5% (within 5% figure I stated). In order for the debt to have gone beyond 100% then the government would need to have borrowed about ?930bn....which they haven't, they have simply underwritten the banks liabilities at that level....it's not the same thing, and that's the confusion that the press are creating.

The Government may have to borrow to meet some of those liabilities in the future, but as I've stated already, unless everyone with borrowing defaults and the value of assets seized as a result is zero then the ND will never rise to anything like the 2 Trillion people are yabbering on about. The government have basically become a guarantor in much the same way as you might go guarantor for someone on a loan. It only becomes your debt if the person who's taken the loan defaults.

Anyway, I guess that we have opposing views and no amount of debate will ever persuade either of us towards the others point of view. The only thing that will "tell it like it is" will be time, with that in mind I'd appreciate a one liner from you as to where you think we'll be by the end of 2009.

I don't think are point of view is a world apart, I just think that you're reading the figures in a totally different manner....one which makes things look worse than I believe they are. Trust me, if I thought things were as bad as you think then I wouldn't be arguing with a word you've said.

I'll nail this prediction to my mast...

Unemployment over 2.5 Million by the end of the year, a 20% devaluation of the ? IF the ? is still around, and house prices down a further 15%.

I might agree with the unemployment figure...but as it sits at about 2 Million already then an increase of between 1% and 1.5% (of population of working age) in the next 12 months wouldn't be totally unexpected.

The Euro is, IMO, artificially high at the moment and as the recession takes a tighter grip across Europe then I don't think we'll see much difference to what it sits at now (in relation to sterling) in 12 months as it has still to take the hit we've just had. If anything I would expect the ? to show stronger again....provided we don't get silly with printing cash at the moment.

House prices....depends on what, if any, steps Gordon Brown takes in order to get people buying again. Ironically the best way forward would be the re-introduction of MIRAS (or more accurately setting it at a level above zero, as it technically still exists)...however, as he was the man who abolished it claiming it was a "middle class perk" then I'm not convinced he's capable of making a u-turn on that decision. If he does nothing, then yeah, it's possible/likely we could see a repeat of the drops witnessed in the last year or so, but there's already signs of some recovery in house sales (up 2% for January) despite the falling prices so it looks like people are starting to take advantage of the situation....which dispells the "everyone's broke" theory a little....and so long as that continues then I think it might stave off a total collapse of the market and keep the falling prices "under control". Some tax breaks on mortgages, especially for new buyers, could vastly improve the situation....afterall, it's better that the government take a little tax from something than no tax from nothing.

[Canada Bob]

First of all I believe that there is more to the Banking Act than we see in what they have published, I believe that now that this Act had been passed that the Government will have the authority to abandon sterling, at a moments notice, if need be.

As far as me telling people to take their money offshore, that's not the case, I'm advising people to exchange their money to Euro's at a rate they find acceptable, not a "compulsory purchase" rate imposed by Gordon. Right now Interest rates in the Banks are less than 1% on sterling, if sterling goes down against the Euro, then it's costing folks to hold on to what I believe is becoming an obsolete currency.

If folks put their money into a Euro account {at their local branch}, they can access as many ? notes as they want, either across the counter or from any ATM, so I'm not telling folks to ship their cash offshore.

Say someone has ?10,000 in what's left of RBS or the like, where rates as low as 0.1% are paid, that gives a return of

?10 per YEAR !!! if sterling goes down 10% against the Euro in the next 12 months they lose approx ?1,000 of let's call it "buying power", in other words their ?10,000 has become worth approx ?9,000, plus that tenner they gave you for backing their donkey. Do you realise that if folks lose ?1,000 in one year it would take them 100 years at the counter rates offered now to get their money back !!!

Currencies compete every day in the world markets, but in the race between ? notes and Euro's it looks to me as though the jockey on sterling has just taken the wrong course {printing money}, add to that he's riding 2 Trillion lbs overweight. Anyone who thinks that the Euro is going to come out second best in this event has lost the plot.

I've nailed my "one liner" to my mast Don, I'd appreciate it if you would give me your "one liner" in specific terms, rather than in general terms of "if Gordon does this, or if Gordon does that" leaving it to your call vs my call, no matter who does what. Nail your colours to the mast as to where unemployment will be a year from now, where house prices will be, and where the ? will be against the Euro.

[absent friend]

To dilute this 'head2head' banter, although I applaud both of you, your knowledge of the subject matter and appreciate your differing view points, can we all join in?

My guestimate?

3.3 mil/ -10% on todays figure/current 1.1/1 will prevail.

3.3 mil will mask the true figure as many will have gone from our shores - they only came because of easy money.

-10% will only harm the more recent purchasers as the historic rise in value will accommodate the negative value issue and also provided the repos are not sold at knock down prices, as in the old days, with the resultant valuations being tainted by the low figure.

1.1/1 will be a reflection of the Euro getting it's bum felt. If individual countries could change the Euro value, believe me, the Irish would be first in line! I'm sure the Punt would not be trading 1.1/1 if it was still in existence. I think maybe there would be a few wet ones in circulation by now. I feel at a time like this maybe the breadth of the Euro is a hindrance and a collective movement could be too little too late. Hence my feeling that we will still have this same ratio in 12 months time.

The Positives

Due to GREED the market when it returns will come back with a bang!

All the punters will be buying up underpriced shares/businesses/building sites in the knowledge that they can maybe double/ treble there holding value in a short period of time, with little risk!

The confidence will motivate the buyer/seller of property and they will create a market.

The banks, I did mention greed, will be in there to get their fair share of the spoils.

AND, todays situation will be reversed, lending will be back/employment will be up/ confidence will be up and so will the base rate, so you savers will be happy punters too!