That woman who threw green stuff at Mandelson
Well first that question was aimed at James H, but you didn't use the word "Partly" when you posted before anyway. Anyway I still need enlightening: which part do you think they caused? All I'm asking is for you to connect a few dots because I genuinely don't understand your point of view.Chie wrote:The government is partly to blame.Sput wrote:So government spending policy caused the recession? How does that work, exactly?
Partly. Do you know what that word means, Sput? It means: NOT COMPLETELY. Durrrrrrrr :roll:
Knight knight
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I'm not sure the "seatbelt" analogy really holds true as a causal factor in the way you describe, Mr Q, as its not the retail banking customer who drives the bank.
Customers should show diligence when selecting a bank to leave monies on deposit - but how could anyone on the ground make a well-informed decision when the banks have been less than transparent about the extent of their toxic assets, and the true nature of their balance sheets? Besides, its been at least 50 years since there was a run on a British bank, and for most in the country it was an unimaginable outcome.
No - although the consumer is (wrongly) steeped in a culture of over-extending themselves with credit, the reckless driving is being controlled from the top.
I suppose the seatbelt analogy works best when talking about the investment bankers who continue to reap bonus payments even after failure. No spike in the steering column for them, win or lose.
Banks have enjoyed unparalleled growth in the past couple of decades, and have become complacent. Everyone enjoyed the benefits of the banks maximising their growth - especially all those Americans (and Brits) who ended up with mortgages they couldn't afford.
The sub-prime and self-certified market was the "wafer thin mint" that they couldn't stop themselves from gorging on - followed by the inevitable explosion.
The Government also enjoyed the boom time. Perhaps if they had asked more seeking questions they could have persuaded caution - but even after the event the banks are still not yet being completely honest about the true nature of the extent of the damage.
The model of lending money, and making a profit doing so, works perfectly - IF you follow the basic principle that you don't lend out sums that individuals cannot repay. The model continues to work if some of those debts are bad, but the majority are still sound.
We're at a stage where there's so much bad debt, carefully wrapped up with some good debt, that no one in the sector can trust what they see.
This should never have happened, obviously. Or at least, its obvious to me - but it apparently wasn't obvious to those bankers who traded on these securities.
So we're in uncharted territory now, with the backbone of our capital society being held together with gaffer tape by the Government, in an attempt to make sure the banks don't collapse taking the public with them.
Assigning blame isn't that complicated - but how we move forward from here is.
Customers should show diligence when selecting a bank to leave monies on deposit - but how could anyone on the ground make a well-informed decision when the banks have been less than transparent about the extent of their toxic assets, and the true nature of their balance sheets? Besides, its been at least 50 years since there was a run on a British bank, and for most in the country it was an unimaginable outcome.
No - although the consumer is (wrongly) steeped in a culture of over-extending themselves with credit, the reckless driving is being controlled from the top.
I suppose the seatbelt analogy works best when talking about the investment bankers who continue to reap bonus payments even after failure. No spike in the steering column for them, win or lose.
Banks have enjoyed unparalleled growth in the past couple of decades, and have become complacent. Everyone enjoyed the benefits of the banks maximising their growth - especially all those Americans (and Brits) who ended up with mortgages they couldn't afford.
The sub-prime and self-certified market was the "wafer thin mint" that they couldn't stop themselves from gorging on - followed by the inevitable explosion.
The Government also enjoyed the boom time. Perhaps if they had asked more seeking questions they could have persuaded caution - but even after the event the banks are still not yet being completely honest about the true nature of the extent of the damage.
The model of lending money, and making a profit doing so, works perfectly - IF you follow the basic principle that you don't lend out sums that individuals cannot repay. The model continues to work if some of those debts are bad, but the majority are still sound.
We're at a stage where there's so much bad debt, carefully wrapped up with some good debt, that no one in the sector can trust what they see.
This should never have happened, obviously. Or at least, its obvious to me - but it apparently wasn't obvious to those bankers who traded on these securities.
So we're in uncharted territory now, with the backbone of our capital society being held together with gaffer tape by the Government, in an attempt to make sure the banks don't collapse taking the public with them.
Assigning blame isn't that complicated - but how we move forward from here is.
Rather than wait for Chie to aswer, why don't you answer me?
Which part of the recession do you think the Government caused, Sput?
Let's all debate that.
You are free to say they have NO RESPONSIBILITY, or some or none, your choice! You seem eager to debate one of them...or are you waiting to see which side everyone goes towards?
Which part of the recession do you think the Government caused, Sput?
Let's all debate that.
You are free to say they have NO RESPONSIBILITY, or some or none, your choice! You seem eager to debate one of them...or are you waiting to see which side everyone goes towards?
User removed
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I'm getting fed up reading your shit-stirring, Stu.Stuart* wrote:Rather than wait for Chie to aswer, why don't you answer me?
Which part of the recession do you think the Government caused, Sput?
Let's all debate that.
You are free to say they have NO RESPONSIBILITY, or some or none, your choice! You seem eager to debate one of them...or are you waiting to see which side everyone goes towards?
Knock it off.
Gav - if the paddles and kaneclap hadn't already been used in this thread I'd give you one of them!
Q - what an interesting point. Although it's just what I expected given your fiercely free-market anti-regulationist stance!
I couldn't agree more. But there's a problem - really, any responsible government has no option but to bail out a bank that has millions of customers - and the banks know it. Although refusing to bail out the banks might result in a sturdier banking system in the future, as consumers become aware of the risk, that kind of strategy is political suicide. I just don't see any democratic government entertaining that strategy.
Although you're right to say the mere knowledge that the government wouldn't be bailing them out might prevent this situation from arising in the first place, the problem is how the government convinces the banks of this. If I were a bank, I'd be pretty sure it was an empty threat.
Q - what an interesting point. Although it's just what I expected given your fiercely free-market anti-regulationist stance!
I couldn't agree more. But there's a problem - really, any responsible government has no option but to bail out a bank that has millions of customers - and the banks know it. Although refusing to bail out the banks might result in a sturdier banking system in the future, as consumers become aware of the risk, that kind of strategy is political suicide. I just don't see any democratic government entertaining that strategy.
Although you're right to say the mere knowledge that the government wouldn't be bailing them out might prevent this situation from arising in the first place, the problem is how the government convinces the banks of this. If I were a bank, I'd be pretty sure it was an empty threat.
And this is the problem for me when people blame the government/Gordon Brown for this. I can't think of anything that they could have done that wouldn't be seen as scaremongering or an attack on the free market before this all happened.
Knight knight
which post would that be stuart? The only posts shown as deleted in the moderation log are Gavin deleting the posts from the luxton thread the other night.Stuart* wrote:I wasn't 'shit-stirring', as others do. I was making some valid points.
It's a shame those were lost in a deleted post.
Neither you or anyone on your behalf have deleted nor edited any of your posts.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
How dare you accuse me and my team of deleting your posts - which you claim to contain "valid points", when that is patently a lie.Stuart* wrote:I wasn't 'shit-stirring', as others do. I was making some valid points.
It's a shame those were lost in a deleted post.
I'm sorry, I won't stand for this.
You are banned for one week.