teamhurtmore – Member

Ok – state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded – a root source

Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes

Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage

And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.

All 3 of them failures of capitalism.

No they are not.

Start again – your colleagues in the econs dept will be able to help

Didn’t you once work for one of our failed banks – I would have thought you would have better knowledge than most.

Ah, we’re back to “Go and get someone else to defend my argument for me”, good stuff.

Well you need some help with the basics and they are good guys – I know one of them personally

I think he was rather hoping you would explain the “basics” rather than evade, avoid and patronise.

Why he was this naive I know not. Has he not see what you do on here when asked to explain your views?

Well the dot com boom and bust wouldn’t have happened in a planned economy as there would have been no ‘dot com’ boom in the first place.

But really the financial melt down happened in western mixed economies and there were failings all around by governments, central banks, private companies etc. no one exits in a vacuum.

Capitalism isn’t perfect but it is far better than the alternatives.

Northwind, Junkyard,

If you can’t see that state regulation isn’t capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn’t capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you’re in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.
And no, I’m not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.

Gowrie 😀

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn’t it?

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

Perhaps better is the wrong word, less shitty option from a list of equally shitty options. More like what kind of terminal cancer do you want?

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

Economies require a functioning banking systems. Banks represent one part of the transmission mechanism that lies between the Central Bank and the Real economy. So there is a key distinction between letting one bank fail (Barings) and seeing a systemic failure of the whole banking system. Arguably Lehmans lay right on the boundary of this distinction!

So the answer, it depends on the risk to the whole system and to the economy.

BTW, this is still a problem as banks are failing to provide this transmission mechanism now which is why the current policy mix isn’t working, But that’s another issue related to fact that people don’t understand the nature of the current slowdown.

Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn’t it?

No, it is a problem of excess leverage (part of which has been encouraged/driven by the heavy hand of the state and central bankers resulting in markets that are anything but free. )

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

I spy abuse creeping in.

If you can’t see that state regulation isn’t capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn’t capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you’re in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.

But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?

Doc, you have answered your own question.

They weren’t
It isn’t

This was just one example of a highly distorted market which led to a catastrophic mispricing of risk and caused severe and lasting damage not only to banks but also to the wider economy. It’s the antithesis of capitalism.

BTW don’t confuse advice with abuse. Since religion is frowned upon here, I simply referred Gowrie to the secular version of Pv26:4. Feel free to misread that at your leisure, it is Sunday after all.

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

Were you not telling us all off about not playing the man to Jamby yesterday and i said if it was me then you would goad them on- shall I link to it for you you wee ball of latent impudent hypocrisy …you really are a pathetic hypocrite THM who is happy to play the man himself whilst telling others off for having a go at his mate who he himself admits talks “baloney”…oh the irony. Best to ignore me as not even you can deny a fact this obvious …for that we need Jamby SMILEYS GO HERE

Why do you do the things you deplore in others on here? I know its not because you lie as well you dont do that but what causes such blatant hypocrisy in you? Is it just lack of moral fortitude?

, I’m not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.

I am relived as your knowledge base seems rather poor and gloriously one sided.

The fact that capitalism needs regulating is the fault of capitalism

To blame the state for this is like blaming the courts and police for there being criminals.

i see.

Good to hear Doc

But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?

In a perfect world we’d have strung up a few thousand bankers. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

No silly it was the regulators fault the bankers went rampant not the bankers- they were the victims of poor regulation.

If we had not attempted to, and failed, to regulate them then obviously everything would have gone very very well.
Are you not listening to the economics lectures from the experts on here?

Teamhurtmore, let them crack on about Capitalism. We need to ensure they are making these arguments at the 2020 General Election

In a perfect world we’d have strung up a few thousand bankers. But we don’t live in a perfect worl

We had a long Banker Bashing thread. All of of the following where responsible

Failire of Regulation, particularly to respond to a sustained period of low interest rates = very cheap consumer debt
Failure of some banks / lenders to follow remotely prudent criteria = irresponsible lending (eg HBOS letting mortgage brokers know they NEVER checked files)
Widescale mortgage fraud with people lying on applications in the knowledge the banks never checked them
Far too much borrowing
.. many other factors too

Nothwind et al the European Soverign Debt crises is going to make the Banking/Credit crises of 2007/8 look like a small hiccup

True but e7 needs a clean first – metaphorically speaking!!

Any ex-HBOS employees around?

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

It would certainly be more fun. (apart from the crapping on the board bit, of course)

Avoid the EU thread for a bit – “incoming”….. 😉

Reshuffle starting NOW!

Might be over by Christmas. 😉

Even corbyn can shuffle three cards in a short period of time 😉

It would certainly be more fun

WHatever

The reality is that the market needed regulation
the regulation failed
Whether you wish to blame the regulation or the fact it needs regulation is a point decided largely by your view of a perfect market/capitalism.
An argument can be made either way

IMHO the fact capitalism requires regulation[ investment and “normal” banking being split for example] is a fault in capitalism. the market is not perfect hence it gets regulated. Its so imperfect and the participants so greedy even regulation wont stop boom and bust….though of course it will be everyone fault but the bankers and capitalism when this happens
Still saying this is clearly a very stupid point and you rightly beat the argument with some pretty powerful name calling which THM does not do and object to so strongly; thank the lord he is not a hypocrite who says one thing and does another
😉

Shami and Dianne – great to see meritocracy at work in modern Labour politics.

I always thought Shami came over as thoughroughly decent. Guess not.

I can’t help liking Diane though.

Jezza – leader of the oppo
John – shadow chancellor
DIanne – shadow home

That’s a team and a half

It’s a bonanza time in UK politics right now

I am stunned that the political neutra lTHM Is disappointed with the choices

WHo could have foretold such a thing

In latest news I am still not a Tory though I am prepared to openly admit my politics …so THM who do you support then 😉

Well at least Shami Corbers and Dianne have something in common apart from politics – they all have / had kids who went to private schools.

The privileged few?

Did Shami get her kid(s?) In to Slough Comp, then?

“I always thought Shami came over as thoughroughly decent. Guess not.
I can’t help liking Diane though.”

+1 to all that. DA may have said some crazy things but on TW she was excellent and I’m prepared to judge he by that.

Yes you do so rail against them in general
Still its good to have principles and apply them consistently – certainly applies to you and DIanne …imagine you and DI have something in common 😉

Corbyn divorced a wife over this IIRC so a bit weak to have a pop at him for it

FFS this thread gets worse and worse and worse

Its not really a discussion this is it

..imagine you and DI have something in common

They’ve both boffed Jez?

😈

Nah, not that posh.

Dulwich I think – rough lot judging by the sledging their cricket teams get involved in

Not even THM has mad up something that silly but very amusing 😆

Relative to the Tories, Labour have actually gone up in my estimation this week.

But that’s only relative to the Tories.

oldnpastit – Member
Relative to the Tories, Labour have actually gone up in my estimation this week.

But that’s only relative to the Tories.

to be fair Borris Johnson is our actual Foreign Secretary, straight up, for realz,

maybe corbyn could appoint Mr Tumble to his shadow cabinet, that might match it

Agreed, the last Tory PM didn’t believe in private education did he? Although I think he has seen the light now.