Every Week 2,000 People Go Bust
Gordon likes to talk about stability and prudence, but rising indebtedness and rising interest rates have led to people going bust and losing everything at the rate of 2,000 a week. Individuals are losing homes and businesses at an astonishing rate - triple that seen during the 1991/92 recession. Hardly evidence of a strong economy...Insolvencies England & Wales
Source : Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Insolvency Service and Companies House Executive Agencies.
50 comments:
Hardly surprising if you are aware of how difficult it is to run a small or medium sized company in Gordon's Britain !
One of my competitors fired all his staff, liquidated his company and just does cash only jobs. The rest he passes on to other companies. He says he's never been so well off and stress free.
Thats when you know the economic system has gone hopelessly wrong, when wealth creation has become less profitable than not paying tax.
Not often that you see an upward curve that shows more than exponential growth. Is this the stability that Brown has delivered?
IVA will crater the economy. its so easy to go bust and not pay back why wouldnt you. heard a story the other day of a bloke who ran up 20,000 of debts so just went bust. he borrowed the money to pay teh IVA adviser on a credit card!
Surely this a cause, as well as an effect, of our current economic situation?
If our nation's people are giving less of a shit about staying solvent, what hope has the country got?
things have never been so good.
most people have got an expensive house,free healthcare, education. and if we need any more cash,the Chinese will lend it to us as long as we buy their plastic ducks.this new economic way of life will never end.
even if it does,we can just get some more off the tree in gordos back yard.you know the one he uses for the public sector pensions.
socialism rocks
Easy loan, easy spend. Why save to be taxed?, why pay IHT?, why be frugal when the state creates dependancy.
If the finance houses are free with their money, that's their lookout and they cannot go crying over dud loans and debts.
Bankruptcies are the legacy of NuLab, go bust and become a parasite, everyone else is. You may as well act as an illegal migrant/asylum seeker and get back that that you've paid.
Screw NuLab and Gordo, literally and metaphorically.
You ain't seen nuthin' yet -- wait till people have to remortgage in large numbers because their fixed rate deals have expired. The same people who have offloaded their credit card debts onto their mortgages. The same moronic, snivelling bastards who will start squealing about the unfairness of it all and expect other, more far-sighted and, yes, prudent people to bail them out. Which El Gordo and his chums will duly do on our behalf whether we want them to or not.
The ancient Greeks' version of democracy was better. No women, no slaves, no chavs and no Micks were allowed to vote. (I added the last category just to get up Guido's nose.)
Well, house prices have risen so high, that for most people, negative equity won't be as much an issue. Those houses can and will be sold and will have to lose an awful lot in value not to cover failing mortgages and debts.
Look for the rental market to gain an uptick though...
Praguetory said...
"Not often that you see an upward curve that shows MORE THAN EXPONENTIAL GROWTH."
That is a meaningless statement. You obviously don't know what Exponential Growth is.
Somebody recently made the point that it was only worth being either very poor or very rich in Flash's Britain. We in the middle have become the Lumpen Proletariat. And as the very rich pay relatively less tax and there are always fewer of them than of the very poor, you can bet the simony,nepotism & gerrymandering as practised by NuLab will rule.
Can't really talk right now, Gordon's cock is in my rectum.
3.21 oh please do explain how exponential growth can't be exceeded at any point.
Well I can't talk because I'm being tag teamed by the Miliblands in front of a statue of Uncle Gordon (which they are saluting as they ream me)
Mandelson,whilst at the (then)DTI made bankruptcy a softer option "to encourage Entrepreneurs".Of course all it did was to encourage financial irresponsibilty which ultimately will have to be bailed out by hard working tax payers in the private sector.
'Exponential' is a type of growth, not a rate of growth.
The IVA is a stealthy way to raise interest rates without Gordon and the BoE getting the blame.
The fact that it completely fucks up the economy is lost of Gordenron.
The graph clearly shows that Britain is now much more entrepreneurial than it was under the Tories, thanks to the climate created by me as Chancellor.So there
Gordon Brown
Anything that grows by the same percentage every year (or every month, day, hour etc.) is growing exponentially. Therefore exponential growth involves a mathematical constant.
As not only has the absolute growth in bankruptcies increased, but also the rate of growth has increased (it's now over 50%) the trend is greater than exponential. Considering that exponential growth can be seen in nuclear fission, microorganisms in a dish and certain well-run right of centre websites it's quite surprising to see such a phenomenon in a statistic involving a fairlly limited population.
5.42 and you are still an ignorant NuLab fucktard, off you go, back to wikipedia with you.
bergen 4:23pm
Mandelson,whilst at the (then)DTI made bankruptcy a softer option "to encourage Entrepreneurs".Of course all it did was to encourage financial irresponsibilty which ultimately will have to be bailed out by hard working tax payers in the private sector.
Or did Nulab reduce the minimum bankruptcy discharge period (to one year) because they knew there'd be a crash and they didn't want half the country to be financially quarantined for three years.
Praguetory said...
Anything that grows by the same percentage every year (or every month, day, hour etc.) is growing exponentially.
You didn't do maths then. Exponential has a very precise meaning and that isn't it. Sorry!
Most of these are start up companies, i.e. sole traders, who can only deal through employment agencies.
You secure a one year contact, set up a limited company, then desolve it before you become subject to IR35 tax regime.
In fact the latest scam is to set up a limited company, pay yourself the minimum wage and claim tax credits before closing the company.
"You didn't do maths then. Exponential has a very precise meaning and that isn't it. Sorry!"
I did do maths actually winning a gold medal in the National Maths Olympiad. At the age of 14 I was tutoring a primary school teacher in maths.
As you're unable to elaborate on the very precise meaning, I think we can all conclude that you're talking bollocks.
With all due respect, if tutoring a primary school teacher was the summit of your mathematical career you may not have delved very deeply into exponential functions. You implied in your original (and subsequent) posting that the rate of growth of insolvency was so great that no exponential function could be made to fit it. I can't be arsed to do the arithmetic, but a casual glance at the dreaded bar-chart suggests otherwise.
If this were a LibDem bar-chart it would be captioned 'Only Insolvency Can Win Here'.
No exponential rate of growth can be made to fit it because the rate of growth is rising whereas exponential growth has a constant rate of growth. Unlike you, I could be arsed to check the changes in the rates of growth over time.
No matter how many NuLab innumerates calling themselves stephan hawking, albert zweistein or prudence brown pop up with ad nauseam arguments it won't make what I said untrue.
The sky outside my window is blue. Obviously the fact that I don't have a PHD in atmospheric science would make that argument false.
"far sighted"-Mandelson was (is ?) very devious but I think he took Nulab seriously and actually believed the drivel he spouted.Events have shown that he wasn't that bright either.Interesting theory for all that,so I would not discount it.
Praguetory makes it clear that he has only a 14-year-old's concept of exponential growth. It is a pity that he didn't carry on with Maths at school.
Praguetory is correct.
A hyper-inflationary bust bigger than 1929 is coming. And we have no industry to sell our way out of it. Basically we're fucked. Fiat currency production worldwide has gone bonkers!
PHD Maths, are you sure. The rate of change of the relationship is the differential of the equation or in simplified terms the gradient of the line at any point on the graph. For this to be constant the line would be straight which is not a feature of an exponential relationship.
P.S. Gordon is giving me a nice shafting as I write.
Some difficulties understanding the differences between constant levels of growth (straight line relationship) and constant rates of growth.
Let me assist with numbers taking 2002 as a start point
Scenario 1 - Straight Line Growth with 6,000 extra insolvencies per year.
2002 30000
2003 36000 - 20%
2004 42000 - 17%
2005 48000 - 14%
2006 54000 - 12%
Note the rate of growth falls! so phd maths, mmm really is palpably incorrect in his assertion that for a growth rate to be constant the line would be straight.
Scenario 2 - exponential growth of 20% per annum. Takes just less than 4 years for bankruptices to double.
2002 30000
2003 36000
2004 43200
2005 51840
2006 62208
Scenario 3 - actual growth pattern
2002 30000
2003 36000 20%
2004 47000 31%
2005 68000 45%
2006 107000 57%
Note the increasing rates of growth and how it is taking an increasinglty short amount of time for the number to double. When you have exponential growth it takes the same amount of time for a number to double such as the king and the chess board example where each day the king placed double the numbers of grains of rice on each square of a chess board as payment.
Back to the drawing board, anons.
PS - Winding a company up isn't necessarily an insolvency as others have suggested.
Praguetory,
But you were talking about GREATER THAN exponential growth. Explain that.
surely if u continue the graph like nulab love too then by 2010 we are all bankrupt!! oh dear now we know why gordo wont fight another election the country will be broke as opposed to society that self evidently is already broke.Think i will go prop up the brewing industry.
Praguetory really is displaying a stunning level of conviction based on a pretty basic level of knowledge.
You have clearly showed the percentage growth is changing year by year but this is not the same as the actual rate of growth. Using your examples....
Example 1: This is steady growth rate of 6000/year^2 (that is that number is increasing by 6000/year *(every year). The growth rate does not fall this is a display of your lack of grasp of the basics.
Example 2: This is indeed exponential and has a steady percentafge growth each year but the actual growth rate is increasing year by year hence why this is exponential. A fixed percentage has very little meaning in this discussion - we are talking rates or more acurately diferentials i.e delta x/delta y which funnily enough is gradient therefore a straight line has a constant growth rate.
Example 3: Exponential does not have to have a fixed percentage change each year so this does not prove that a exponential equation could not fit this pattern.
You example of something doubling every year (or on every square of a chess board) is indeed one example of exponential growth but is not the definition of exponential and is not the only example of exponential growth. For example y = x^3 is an exponential relationship but does not double per unit time increase.
As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
Drawing board back to you (though I suggest some maths courses might be more useful if you want to carry on insisting you are right in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary).
Those who understand the maths behind this will have already spotted some typos:
Namely
Example 1: This is steady growth rate of 6000/year^2 (that is that number is increasing by 6000/year *(every year). The growth rate does not fall this is a display of your lack of grasp of the basics.
should have said
Example 1: This is steady growth rate of 6000/year (that is that number is increasing by 6000/year (and this is the same every year). The growth rate does not fall this is a display of your lack of grasp of the basics.
The whole thing is a typo.
The rate of growth falls 20% down to 12% over the first sequence. It is *not* constant.
When you find me a bank deposit account that can guarantee ever rising rates of interest I'll be interested.
In the meantime, I suggest you get down to wikipedia and amend the part where it says that the quantity k called the "growth constant" (rofl) is a characteristic of exponential growth.
You'll probably need to change the definitions of doubling time and half life whilst you're at it.
Bloody hell, its like a statistics O-level nightmare here. Can we stick to the usual tittle-tattle etc.
Praguetory,
Growth Constant is not the same as Constant Growth.
The percentage growth rate does indeed drop but the growth rate does not. You need to learn the was in which percentages and rates differ or we'll all be here all day trying to help you understand. Your point relating to bank accounts shows you're floundering.
Not sure what wikipedia has to do with anything alhtough if that is where you are getting your info I would suggest you stop.
Why would I want to consider the definitions of doubling time or half life (although from my physics PHD I am quite comfortable with them both)? By definition they respectively involve a doubling or a halving unlike an exponential relationship which has no such limitation. This seems entirely irrelevant to whatever you are now trying to say.
Interestingly, and like most other misunderstood statistical arguments the underlying factor that is being ignored that as a standalone statistic the number of insolvencies (or indeed the change year on year) does not provide enough information to make any worthwhile conclusion, for instance where is the accompanying statistic of total number of ventures or growth rate of start ups, those would actually give some meaning to the rise (or perhaps relative stability) of insolvancy rates.
Can I go back to the rogering from Gordon, it was infinitely more interesting?
Can we get back to being shafted and reamed - made more sense to me!
If you want to look at it in terms of percentages you need to start from the begining and consider the number of insolvencies as a percentage of the number of businesses. As it stands you are misrepresnting statistics.
Lies, damn lies and statistics and all that...
For the first time, Britons' personal debt exceeds Britain's GDP
Another worrying milestone on a nation's journey deeper into debt
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 24 August 2007
Britons have racked up so much debt on loans and credit cards that the total borrowed now exceeds the entire value of the economy, new research shows today. The financial consultant Grant Thornton is forecasting that gross domestic product (GDP) will hit £1.33 trillion this year, less than the £1.35trn which was outstanding on mortgages, credit cards and personal loans in June.
"The financial consultant Grant Thornton is forecasting that gross domestic product (GDP) will hit £1.33 trillion this year, less than the £1.35trn which was outstanding on mortgages, credit cards and personal loans in June."
Grant Thornton....wasnt he married to Anthea Turner?
Or was it Tina Turner...?
Either way what does he know about the national debt?
Any chance of an equivalent chart for the Tory years GuF old chum?
Perhaps some comparator with other nations run by right wingers?
And has there been any change in the law or the general practices of insolvency in the last ten years?
And colouring wise - you missed a bit.
If you believe in free capitalism and all that you will surely accept that businesses that get their sums wrong, are greedy and incompetent, have tow beamers in the drive from day minus one - well they go bust - hurrah - and that's the way of the jungle businesses operate in?
Perhaps we should bring most of them in house - lower returns for the bosses perhaps - but much more job security.
Is that what you want?
PS If you want to make it harder to do IVAs and CVs (though still harder than dreamland US of A, keeping the dream alive) then say so. If you want to blame the economy for this phenomenon then you are barking.
Up the wrong tree.
"If you want to blame the economy for this phenomenon then you are barking."
Uh?
The economy is a basket case. We produce less and less and borrow more and more.
Broon is a con-man
He deserves the Edward II treatment, a red hot poker right up his arse.
"Well, house prices have risen so high, that for most people, negative equity won't be as much an issue. Those houses can and will be sold and will have to lose an awful lot in value not to cover failing mortgages and debts."
You don't understand how a market is created. The value of your house is set not by what you are selling it at but what other people are selling it at. If we all sold our houses at the same time the value would be zero (because supply would vastly overwhelm demand). For the last 10 years demand has been greater than supply, causing rapidly increasing prices limited only by the amount of cash available in the system - you pay what you can afford rather than what a house is WORTH.
Should a recession start to bite, a large percentage of the population will find themselves out of work and unable to pay their mortgages. They will lose their homes which will then be sold. With the number of people able to purchase now being smaller than the number of homes available, those homes that are traded will decline rapidly in value as supply exceeds demand. You may say "I paid £500,000 for my house and I'm not selling for anything less", but that won't matter. The value of your property will be set by those houses that ARE traded, often at auction as a result of a repossession.
Domestic poperty prices will fall continuously under these conditions until a floor is set by some other factor. In the last property slump the floor was set by property speculators that saw that the cost of property was about the same as the costs of the bricks and mortar and therefore started to buy property in the understanding that the risk of doing so at the time was minimal.
Currently domestic property in the south of England is as much as 5 times the cost of the materials used to build the property so in a prolonged recession we can assume that prices of some homes could potentially fall to 20% of their current value before finding a floor.
There is a rumour of a very big bust to come very soon.
Post a Comment