Granted, with the aim of selling publications, this lengthy video from [url=http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr-cut/PMYKPA01/?utm_source=taboola&h=trueMoneyWeek thinks so[/url.

For years I have had a strong feeling that the numbers don't add up. the smoke and mirrors of banking, the evasion of tax by the rich, the dwindling of manufacturing, the rise of unemployment, the burgeoning cost of the welfare state, an so forth. Unfortunately, there is a lot of stuff in there that rings chillingly true.

before you watch it and slit your wrists, in the interests of balance here is just one example of an [url=http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/moneyweek-and-their-end-of-britain.htmlargument from the other side of the fence[/url.

I am not an alarmist person, but sthe way it's looking, I reckon that the present economic shambles can only end in tears, and tend to the view that it's too late to do anything apart from tinkering at the edges now, and it is only a matter of time. In essence, I fear they're basically right.

So what do we do? All start prepping? Or do a Micawber? Or is everything actually really fine?

First saw this a few months ago. Seems to have resurfaced in recent weeks and is doing the rounds on social media.

A lot of it does indeed ring true, however I also began to wonder if it was nothing more than clever alarmist marketing.

Be interesting to hear from some who knows about these things...[size=70 (so no-one on here then

)[/size

This type of article bounces around every now and then, gets attention out of scare mongering, and appeals to the already paranoid (I'm sure Dally laps it up). It was produced by Money Week's marketing department and the aim is to get you to read Money Week. There are a few critiques of it out there, this is a well written one: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.e ... itain.html

This type of article bounces around every now and then, gets attention out of scare mongering, and appeals to the already paranoid (I'm sure Dally laps it up). It was produced by Money Week's marketing department and the aim is to get you to read Money Week. There are a few critiques of it out there, this is a well written one: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.e ... itain.html

Quote ="sally cinnamon"This type of article bounces around every now and then, gets attention out of scare mongering, and appeals to the already paranoid (I'm sure Dally laps it up). It was produced by Money Week's marketing department and the aim is to get you to read Money Week. There are a few critiques of it out there, this is a well written one: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.e ... itain.html'" Ah. You mean the same one I already posted the link to?

Quote ="sally cinnamon"This type of article bounces around every now and then, gets attention out of scare mongering, and appeals to the already paranoid (I'm sure Dally laps it up). It was produced by Money Week's marketing department and the aim is to get you to read Money Week. There are a few critiques of it out there, this is a well written one: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.e ... itain.html'" Ah. You mean the same one I already posted the link to?

I read a copy of MoneyWeek that I found on the train once, not many years back.
It told me to get my money into gold which was already priced at stratospheric levels but was going to carry on and on increasing in price, probably tripling that level.

It didn't.

According to Max Keiser the only thing stopping gold skyrocketing in price is deliberate manipulation of the gold markets by the debt pushing banksters. They actually talked about it on yesterday's show.

Assuming Dave does double the debt, why would interest payments on the amount of the extra borrowing rise when he would be borrowing at 0%. Taking inflation into account, he would actually be reducing the debt by borrowing more wouldn't he?

Government "borrowing" is done by selling government bonds, on which interest is paid over a specified period.
Let's say they were ten-year bonds ... if, at the end of that ten years, the government can't repay it will need to issue bonds for, say, another ten years (i.e. re-borrow the shortfall) ... but this time they could be at a higher rate of interest.

The bigger the risk for the investor (i.e. lender), the higher the interest rate.

[iMoneyWeek[/i are saying that interest rates WILL go up ... actually, that bit's a no-brainer, being as low as they are means that the only direction that rates can move is quite definitely up.

By [uhow much[/u they go up is the real issue and that depends on the market's view of how big a risk the UK is.

Where [iMoneyWeek[/i makes a big fib (or error) is by showing UK debt in £billions (how much we owe ... e.g. UK apparently worse off than Greece) rather than as a percentage of GDP (how able we are to pay it back ... e.g. UK much better off than Greece).

Also, [iMoneyweek[/i fails to take any account at all of the money we have in our share of the banks.
If/when we get that back, bingo, debt goes down ... and I really mean d-o-w-n ... bigtime.

Saw an advert on my way home for an app that helps you play the markets, stocks, shares etc.

It had a disclaimer at the bottom specifically using the phrase "spread betting" when warning of the risks.

Perhaps the most honest assessment I've seen.

The thrust of the argument is probably correct.

We, as a nation, have been living on credit for far too long.

Now someone has to pay for it.

...and its you, you miserable git.
Get your wallet out.

Meh, we'll live.