hodgy0_2

all you do is post links to websites

why don't you come up with something -- instead of regurgitating what you read or is it the case that if you read it on Adamsmith.org it must be true

at least Telboy gave his view on how we got here

lets here yours -- in your own words – or do you just sit dribbling in the corner gently rocking to “it’s a mad world”

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Interesting link that LOL! What a devisive and throughly transparent piece of spin that is. It is widely known that 2000 was the best year in the last 50 in terms of surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP.

What it doesn't tell you is that even now the figures percentage wise are comparable to much of the late 80s and early 90s and that the figures under the Labour government have until recently better than under the entire term of the last government.

TelBoy

And so they should have been given the world economic climate before August 2008!!

warrenm2

You mean I show the sources of facts and the basis for my statements? Rather than vomit forth an ill-informed opinion? Thats a bad thing?

Actually the figures quoted come from the OECD - so whilst some may be in dispute for various reasons, it is a good overall comparator. But this point seems to have escaped your insubstantial intellectual rigour. And what does come up with something mean? I am responding to your assertation that "the idea that labour ruined our economy is sooo ludicrous" and rubutting it with hard facts

Rather unsurprisingly, I dont believe you'll listen or understand a word of what I tell you, but try googling Glass Steagall Act and Community Redevelopment Act, two US bills that enabled and promoted risky sub prime loans. This will give you some background to the credit crunch, and hopefully open your eyes past the "evil banker" mantra you appear to subscribe to. As for Brown, well I haven't even started on public sector productivity, but google that as well. Independent research is actually very profitable which I hope you can learn

MJW

Wow, Thatcher's favourite think tank having a pop at Labour, who'd have thunk it ?

warrenm2

Because it covers the last 10 years? And how did that happen anyway? Good socialist policies or Conservative ones? Huge Gvmt spending or fiscal prudence?

Feel free to back that up with some facts. No wait - I'll do it for you! See here and you'll notice that your statement is rubbish

HTH

warrenm2

Are you saying that their claims are untrue?

hodgy0_2

well let me put you straight -- nowhere do I say bankers are evil

they do what they do -- which is prime the pump of the economy with access to capital and credit and make money in the process

and thats what I believe they will continue to do -- making money is an important business and they seem pretty good at it

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No it doesn't, it covers two years - the next and 2000. It shows nothing of the intervening years.

warrenm2

Wow - we agree on something!

warrenm2

Try clicking the link - anyway the point is the UKs sitation has deteriorated faster and deeper than the other countries due to Brown

MJW

I'd take any statistics with a pinch of salt - they can be manipulated and presented to forward any agenda one chooses, and often are. Also it was Adam Smith style economics that royally screwed the economy during the last Tory government and is the reason why nearly all former public services are now owned by foreign interests.

warrenm2

Wow - have you been taking lessons from hodgy? So you are saying the OECD have it in for Brown and therefore manipulated their figures to make the UK position look ****, whereas in fact its all sunny in the rose garden?

What drivel is this? A.S. style economics screwed the economy? What planet are you on? In 1997 the uk financial position was strong. And what is the ownership of utilities got to do with anything. Do you even have a clue what we're talking about here?

hodgy0_2

are you saying it wasn't the "unregulated" free market in debt and mortgaged backed securities that caused the global meltdown of the financial system

Martin2005

Ok I could resist no longer.....

To claim that the strength of the economy in 1997 was due to the great economic stewardship is frankly obsurd, and does absolutely nothing to help the other claims you make.

1997 our economy had recovered from the biggest single piece of financial mismanagement in living memory...remember ERM. Post the ERM disaster the cripplingly high interest rates could be reduced, and with our currency no longer held artifically high against the German mark, we could get an export led recovery going.

To give the Tories credit for the state of the economy in 1997 is rather like giving a mugger credit for calling an ambulance after he's stabbed you!! - ffs how have you got the front to the Tories credit for the state of our economy??????

So Warren you have a very very selective memory, and as with so many on here completely biased by political ideology.

warrenm2

To clarify, Im saying that political interference in the mortgage market caused the development and growth of CDO and other vehicles. Banks knew that lending to subprime clients was a bad idea and they would be left holding the baby. They were forced to do so by the US Gvmt (thx Bill! - check the act I mentioned previously), and so the obvious solution was to offload the risk somehow, and the bonus was to cleverly securitise it into the process. The response was quite impressive actually, showing ingenuity and innovation, but the core problem is they were forced to do something they didnt want to and wouldn't normal do, but they adapted.

A simple way to solve the whole problem is transparency. If people knew the kind of risks being taken, knew the contents of the CDOs, knew the the insurance companies couldn't possibly cover the shortfall, then they would never have bought the product in the first place, and the market would not have grown into the bubble it did. It would self regulate. So I would simply enact transparency laws, so everyone can make an informed decision and the problem would never have occurred. Of course, I would never have forced the banks to take on subprime loans in the first place and backed it with taxpayers money (Fannie and Freddie).

Hope that was a reasoned reply to a reasonable question

warrenm2

oh and Martins drivel is on ignore so if you addressed anything to me, I cant and wont see it

hodgy0_2

yep thanks

Martin2005

I think this is his way of saying I'm right,

What a thoroughly unpleasant chap

MJW

No.


Yes.

hodgy0_2

well its fine -- a view is a view

often all I want is an explanation of people views etc -- we arn't all going to agree

but you always seem to just get - "your talking bollox" -- and thats it

thats fine maybe i am -- but just "your talking bollox" seems a bit weak to me

anyway I know where people stand - cool

TelBoy

If i may act as an arbitrator, Martin, Warren's assertion that the UK's financial position was strong in 1997 isn't necessarily at odds with your observations about the ERM debaclé. It depends what criteria you're using. But we could go round in circles here - who knows whether a Labour government wouldn't have had to go through Black Wednesday themselves? It's simply impossible to say. But that's not the same as saying that the Tory government screwed up everything else before that point, because they simply didn't, unless you're going to be dogmatic in your opinion of the Tories. In my opinion, anyway...

warrenm2

ok - an understanding is reached - Im happy with that too

Lets hug!

hodgy0_2

presumably you believe that the US and UK government owed it to the banks to bail them out because the Govnt's were responsible for the mess

what then would you say to the American free marketeers who believed and made a case for letting all the banks and financial institutions fail

and hence believe the bank bailouts were a socialist act and had no place in the US economy

warrenm2

From Telboy, I see Martin is talking about the ERM / Black Wednesday incident. For the record, I think that was a complete **** up and Lawson should have been shot for that. A complete mistake by the Tories (or Lawson really).

TelBoy

Hodgy you're getting way too philosophical about this

The US and UK positions were different. The UK banking system is effectively four banks. One goes, they all go. Failure was simply not an option, whatever the cost.

Allowing the US banks to fail would have left capitalism dead in the water. Free markets are one thing, but sometimes the rules simply have to be bent. But the US Government have made it clear they won't be caught out again. I don't think that's an ideological standpoint as such, but more of an inherrent safety valve to prevent the banks getting into something they don't understand again.

Martin2005

I didn't say they screwed everything else up, far from it, I said that our economy was strong in '97 in spite the Tory's, not because of them

And dogma plays no part in my comments, I'm fully paid up member of the 'lets get rid of the dogma' club

warrenm2

I refer you to the other act I mentioned, Glass Steagall. It was repealed allowing depositors money to be used for speculation, a bad move. High street deposits should be heavy regulated and safe and underwritten by the taxpayer. Speculation/investment money should be unregulated (comparitively) and if people choose to take risks that may win big or bankrupt them, then they should have the freedom to do so.

The fact that group 1 was caught up in group 2 due to the acts repeal is a mistake. They should be treated separately and ring fenced from each other. The fact they werent when the crisis hit is the reason that taxpayers money is being used to prop up the banks.

I personally wouldn't have started from here, but given we are here, I think the taxpayer bailout is the least bad course of action, other actions would have been worse I believe. Doesn't mean Im happy with the way things are but I am a pragmatist too. If Glass Steagall was in place, then yes I would be happy to see them fall. As for being socialist, thats not a definition of Socialism that I recognise, but as with so many terms, it has become more meaningless with misuse

hodgy0_2

yes - I understand the fundemental differences between the UK and US banking system and indeed the general political consesus between the UK and America

but I would still be interested thats all -- no worries I'll live

posted -- before I have read Warren's reply

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I very much doubt there are many people out there that believe genuine people should have their benefits cut. If you are unable to work, and not lying to get out of it, then I can't see how anyone would have a problem, and you shouldn't be in the position of having benefits removed imo.

However, just like other benefits, some people do abuse them, and claim when they shouldn't basically because they don't want to work, not because they can't.

I was taken aback recently by something my neighbour said. I was talking to her about tests I was having done after having fits, and how the neurologist I was seeing believed it could be epilepsy (subject to further tests at the time, seems that he was right). Turns out she has epilepsy herself and the first thing she said to me was that I would have to give up my job. I was quite shocked as the thought hadn't even crossed my mind. Unless I was totally unable to work, I just wouldn't even consider chucking work in, even though I don't really like my job at the moment. Obviously I don't know all the ins and outs regarding her condition, but she said it was under control with drugs, so I can't for the life of me understand how she can't work. She has 3 children, and a partner who doesn't work either, the youngest will probably allow her even more time away from work, but it seems her condition is enough to get out of work. I could go on about even more people like this who at least seem to be taking a lend, but what's the point.

Genuine people should be helped, but the element of scroungers needs to be addressed in my opinion.