dgul

Many thanks CG. Hope you are holding up well.

The numbers suggest about e30bn in insured deposit, e35bn uninsured - 15% tax on the uninsured deposits would have raised the same money. It is suggested that Russians have around e15bn in Cyprus, and other countries around e10bn more - assuming that you wouldn't create a foreign account in Cyprus for small amounts of money a large proportion of the uninsured deposits are foreign held. The insured deposits alone are of the order of the gdp of the county - Cyprus admits it wouldn't be able to pay up if a major bank folded (http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/C7131DA40FCE0827C2257B30005411D5?Opendocument). It is all a mess. The way you prevent bank runs is by promising to make people whole in the event of failure - they've now worked out a way to get around this... [although in the UK the deposit protection used to be (until 2007) 100% up to 2k and then 90% of the next 33k, which makes the Cypus deal appear fairly generous] [the funny thing is, people in the UK find it appalling that 7% of savings can be 'stolen' in this way by the country in its efforts to regain solvency... But there is little overt fuss made of the 6% loss in Sterling this year alone, which has occurred as a result of the country's efforts to regain solvency...]

I'm not sure that was the point of Jake's post. I think it was reflecting where the 'hopes and dreams' were invested (or, at least, pensions). In the US there is still an understanding of the value of the stock market - possibly as a result of the more visible investment strategy for 401(k)s, etc. In the UK there is some explicit private investment in stocks/shares (and encouraged in ISA, SIPP, etc), but too many people have been burnt in various stock market crashes, and that has resulted in the mindset of 'my property investment is my pension'. The sad part is that the US is probably right - the stock market represents the end-point of a system of investment in new business ideas, and while it is far from perfect, there is a definite logic in supporting this mechanism. As a result of this support, investment in companies can be maintained, IPO values can be supported, and early-staqe/venture capitalist investors can believe that they will make money from a good business idea. In the UK the supporting of house prices has the opposite effect - for a start it increases the cost of living for the group of the population who should be out starting new businesses. It also sucks money from potential investment into unproductive assets (housing). This isn't as simple as just building new houses - it also is reflected in 'investment' in such aspects as redecorating, garden landscaping, new kitchens, extensions, etc. Our housing stock in the UK is probably the slickest in Europe. Of course, this investment keeps the economy going (ie, the kitchen installer will make enough money to employ the landscape designer, etc), and all the money spent on servicing ever larger quantities of debt will fund the finance industry (and their increasingly extravagant lifestyle), but in the end it isn't a productive investment, an investment for the future, and the UK will on balance have a less wealthy future because of it. It is incidental to the above, but on this point: The problem in the UK is quite how few people work in this productive sector. Furthermore, working in this productive sector is a poor way to make a living in the UK. Pay levels are relatively low (both in academia and in professional industry), and job security is diabolical. This situation doesn't fill me with confidence for our future productivity. (The exception to this is the exports in the financial services industries - and these only remain solvent because I'm (well, and the other inhabitants of the UK) guaranteeing truly vast quantities of their debt, giving them handouts wherever possible (eg, access to short term loans, asset purchases based on inflated values, the gains to be made on our crazy 'not actually printing money' bond purchase programme) and treating them very favourably under the law.)

...one of my favourite parts of the world. But as this is the gold thread - shouldn't you have been further to the north-west? (or much further south - but presumably that is where you started...)

When it was sold eight years ago it was said to bring in around 30-40,000. Given the price increase from 50p to 80p, for the same amount of traffic this would now be 48-64,000. When it was put up for sale last year (or so) it was estimated to bring in 70,000. I would say that they are being a bit optimistic in their income predictions. [actually, I would bet that someone at some point has said it brings in an income equivalent to an annual salary of 100,000 - around 70k after tax - and this has erroneously taken hold as the income due to tolls (tax free)] This said, ~60K pa (after maintenance) on a 400k investment isn't bad... But I'd have to see maintenance and associated costs (not least public liability insurance) as well as potential big expenditures (it was rebuilt 20 years ago, so presumably won't need any major attention for a while).

I saw the news report this morning - what was interesting was the chat that went with it... They were very dismissive of the 10g bar. I suppose they could just be more used to 1kg bars but the tone of the conversation suggested that they weren't that familiar with bullion. I guess when they say that the 10g bar isn't as nice as a krugerrand is when it is time to sell...

now available here : here - about 17minutes in.

Gold mentioned on iPM (Radio 4) this afternoon. An interesting piece - not just about the recent high... [This was a response to a request to provide the price of gold more often, but turned into a reasonable piece on valuing wealth in terms of gold rather than local currency. Ultimately the presenter didn't 'get it', but didn't actually ridicule the suggestion either... ] Was this instigated by anyone here...? Not yet on iPlayer, but maybe later...