Wongaland - a fictional place created by overblown debt bubble fears Admittedly, this time around, households were starting from a far worse position. At the peak of the 1990s credit binge, the average debt-to-disposable income ratio was about 110pc. By 1997, that had dropped to 100pc - roughly the same as it was in 1988. And that has been achieved with falling real incomes. Ms Pettifor drew attention to the recent rise in consumer spending. But that ignores the bigger picture. Six years on, UK consumers are still spending 3.3pc less than they were at the peak of the boom. Part of that is down to the fact that incomes have dropped 0.4pc, but the bulk is due to prudence. Households have tightened their belts in a manner that should make the Chancellor blush. House prices are rising - at 4.6pc annually, according to the Halifax - but, adjusted for inflation, they are at 2002 levels. Even unadjusted, they are back at 2005 levels. The only argument for a bubble is that the recent price rise was above inflation. But only just, and it was only the second month since the market returned to life that the rise was faster than inflation. Besides, affordability on a price-to-earnings ratio, is the same as it was in 2003. Ms Pettifor made a big deal of the savings rate. And she was right to. Household consumption in the first quarter of the year rose 1.7pc, but household disposable income fell by 1.7pc. At the same time, the savings ratio fell from 5.9pc to 4.2pc. Clearly, households did dip into their savings, but it hardly constituted a "plundering." No doubt the "confidence fairy" is helping consumers part with a little more of their cash, but that's no bad thing. Households have suffered their own self-imposed austerity for five years now. Paul Fisher, a Bank of England rate-setter, reckons they are now two-thirds to three-quarters of the way back to sustainable debts. The hardest work has been done, so why not take the foot off the prudence pedal a little? If it means the recovery gathers a bit of steam, that's a good thing. Just so long as it doesn't become a bubble. BT Sport's Virgin deal is a defensive tactic BT Sport will broadcast its first Premier League game on Saturday, and in the nick of time has ensured it may attract a decent crowd. The clash between Liverpool and Stoke may not be the box office draw with which BT would have hoped it would make its debut, but by signing a wholesale deal with Virgin Media the company has trebled the potential audience to 3m. From both sides of the deal it looks like a defensive play. Virgin Media has massively reduced the incentive for its broadband customers to switch to BT to get the BT Sport channels for free. Most of those interested in football pay for its top television package already and BT Sport will be included for them at no extra charge. BT, meanwhile, has increased its credibility as a broadcaster, as well as reassuring shareholders with a chunk of guaranteed revenue. So far, viewing figures for BT Sport programming have been predictably low: Claire Balding's chat show attracted an audience of only 1,200. Despite that, once the football season starts, distribution via Virgin Media will help reassure the Premier League that it does not have another Setanta on its hands, incapable of standing up to BSkyB and bad for the game. If BT is to follow through on its grand plans for BT Sport in the long term, it needs to show rights holders it is a safe home for their product. The deal looks likely to remain a one-off for the foreseeable future, however. Allowing BSkyB to include BT Sport in its television packages, potentially absorbing the cost for customers, would completely undermine the entire strategy. TalkTalk, which has so far outpaced BT in growing its television service, has shown relatively little interest in carrying the channels. BT is on a steep learning curve as a broadcaster and is going into battle this weekend against an opponent in BSkyB that has more content, more customers and more experience. A deal with Virgin Media doesn't change any of that, and investors still have a right to be nervous about the venture. Bad exposure for AOL boss over photo sacking It's probably not what Adrian Beecroft, the venture capitalist who advised the Government to allow employers to "fire staff at will," really meant. But this week we saw exactly how it could be done, across the Pond in the land of the free. Poor old Abel Lenz, a creative director for AOL's Patch local-news business. Mr Lenz was minding his own business during a conference about business cuts, when he foolishly decided to take a picture of his chief executive Tim Armstrong as he was speaking. The AOL boss stopped mid-sentence and fired his colleague on the spot. The AOL chief has now apologised for the public sacking, insisted he's a firm believer in "open meetings" and a "level of transparency." But the dismissed employee has not been reinstated. Mr Armstrong has surely made a poor decision and has done little to reassure investors that he it was the right move for a digital media company trying to leap into the 21st century.