Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.

It really doesn’t matter how many segments you divide you credit risk database up into to convince yourself something is less risky than it really is. The only real question is ‘what is the likelihood of me actually getting this loan amount back and what happens if I don’t?’

It was called SUB-prime for a reason. The clue was in the title.

More squeamish people also choose to forget that for every sub-prime loan or mortgage, there is a piece of paper with the lendee’s signature on it. No gun to anyone’s head.

If loans were actively mis-sold, then that is a different matter. The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.

Well, dare I say it, that would not score a A*!

The “fact” would need to be interpreted in the context. Simple question – what was the primary objective? Start there (the control of inflation). Then identify the trade-offs and adverse affects that policies designed to tackle this (in this case high interest rates) had on other objectives.

Ernie. If you are a ‘commie’ as you put it, it then we are likely to disagree quite a lot!

However, if you can convince me I am wrong then I’ll become a red too. I hope if the reverse were true, you wouldn’t let blind ideology stop you either.

😀

No gun to anyone’s head.

Greedy people who wanted to own their own home.

I wonder who championed that idea ?

Have you decided to come back on topic dannyh ?

Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.

Could it not be that in actual fact, regulation preventing such clever people from doing stupid things might have helped?

The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.

Again – regulation would have at least partially negated this.

People (well, apart from molgrips) think they can drive with safety much faster than they actually can. Consequently speed on the roads is regulated. This does stop some people from getting to places faster than they actually might. But on the plus side, it reduces the number of crashes (pun intended).

Ernie. If you are a ‘commie’ as you put it….

Cheeky git. I’m a better commie than rudebwoy.

zokes – Member
Again – regulation would have at least partially negated this.

Ironically, there were aspects of financial regulation that (unintentionally) led directly to the some of the causes of the financial crisis. Not only did the design of regulation flawed but so was its implementation. Plus governments encouraged and contributed to many of the activities that caused the problems.

People (well, apart from molgrips)

😆

Nice pun.

But if someone drives at 70mph in near-term visibility on a motorway and kills somebody they haven’t broken the speed limit (ie that particular rule). The are reckless, stupid etc. The effect is pretty much the same.

So you have another law about due care and attention. But that is necessarily subjective. Now apply this to the (apparent) complexities of the financial sector and you might have well not bothered.

It really boils down to the individual.

Ironically, there were aspects of financial regulation that (unintentionally) led directly to the some of the causes of the financial crisis. Not only did the design of regulation flawed but so was its implementation. Plus governments encouraged and contributed to many of the activities that caused the problems.

Sounds to me then that we’re in agreement that better regulation may have avoided the current ongoing mess.

So you have another law about due care and attention. But that is necessarily subjective. Now apply this to the (apparent) complexities of the financial sector and you might have well not bothered.

On the contrary. For something as important as the very nature on which most of the world’s economy is sadly based, I’d say finding the best way of ‘bothering’ is quite necessary. As the current situation amply demonstrates.

the lifeboat analogy –in an extreme situation as that ,all survivors depend on each other, with limited resources, possible injuries and no way of knowing when they may be rescued– a lot of research was done regarding the second world war and survival rates/deaths– a lot died as a result of giving up hope –the psychological make up is crucial in those situations– my analogy was that those who only seek to look after themselves at others expense would not be welcome….

A ‘better’ commie? I thought you were all ‘comrades’. Shoulder to shoulder and all that! 😛

oh- and if you want to be precise–i am near to Trotsky on most political ideology–permanent revolution and all that….just so there are no misunderstandings.

Indeed we are in agreement on regulation. But I doubt we agree on unfettered free markets being the cause! 😉

Any way ride time now, before more revision supervision and the Masters! But would love to have some examples later…!

Hi rudebwoy.

Fair enough, but that’s not how you framed it yesterday.

BTW ernie. Those weren’t sarcastic quotation marks, I was quoting you and didn’t want to get into name-calling.

i am near to Trotsky on most political ideology

I rest my case.

Splitter !

There’s been a bit of re-think about Trotsky in recent times. Admittedly all supposition as no one got the chance to find out for real after uncle joe had him done in.

If you look at a lot of his policies and writings, there’s a lot there that your average man in the street would ascribe to Stalin rather than Trotsky.

I think there are some rose-tinted views of Trotsky, obviously easier in the case of someone who never got the chance to implement their ideas.

Still, the odds are that Trotsky wouldn’t have been as murderous as Stalin, but that’s another facet of communism that allowed Stalin to ostracise others – insular paranoia.

That’s all for now folks. Stuff to be getting on with.

The whole sub-prime thing could never happen again though, could it?

It’s good to see that Gideon, having obviously learnt the lessons of the recent past is proposing to offer taxpayer funded loans to pay the deposits of people who can’t afford mortgages potential homeowners. Thus re-inflating another housing bubble. What could possibly go wrong?

Repeat after me – house price rises are not economic growth…..

1500!

Is 1500 our lot, then?

No. Apparently Radio 1 played “I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher” in full in the chart show.

Not adopted by her supporters surely, it was a bit of a piss take.

EDIT: Blimey, supported by Louise Mensch!! They are really clueless!!

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iASvN23nY5M&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Trust the Mensch-Meister to show up.

What a dreadful narcissist she is.

I thought she’d just **** off. No such luck, eh?

Is 1500 our lot, then?

I wouldn’t have thought so. Since no thread other this one is allowed on Thatcher, then I suspect that it will go on and on. As indeed she herself had intended to :

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIt9lRzuFE[/video]

I’m sure that Thatcher’s ‘almost state funeral’ on wednesday will provoke further comment.

As will this government’s thatcherite agenda, as they continue with their welfare state funeral.

That’s bloody ironic, as the only 2 options presented to me by the “careers teacher” was the pit or the steelworks

Going back a couple of pages I know but hundreds of thousands would count you lucky!
I distinctly remember in the 80s that schools in the Northwest were preparing school leavers for the outside world by showing them how to claim Supplementary Benefit as there were so few job opportunities.

🙂

Going back a couple of pages I know but hundreds of thousands would count you lucky!
I distinctly remember in the 80s that schools in the Northwest were preparing school leavers for the outside world by showing them how to claim Supplementary Benefit as there were so few job opportunities.

I left School May 1981, started work albeit on a government scheme( like many other kids) this matured into a full 4 year craft apprenticeship, this was the case for most of my mates at the time, this was Oldham, I cannot recall anyone advising me about supplementary benefits, then again I cannot remember the hard times we all went through, must have been all that Wilsons bitter we supped.

Two sides to every story it would seem.

In May 1981 unemployment was still relatively low compared to when it peaked in the mid-eighties, and again in the early nineties. Also still in place in May 1981 was the Youth Opportunities Programme which had been introduced by the previous Labour government.

By May 1981 Thatcher had been prime minister for only 24 months, it took longer than that for her to have a fully devastating effect on the British economy.

must have been all that Wilsons bitter we supped.

Traitor ! And you from Oldham too.It was OB’s (Oldham Bitter) for me @ 28p a pint 5p cheaper than Wilsons.Wilsons bought out OB and eventually closed it down then Wilson’s itself was bought out and closed down too-Thatchernomics
ernie is right,took a good few years till unemployment peaked at around 4/5/6 million depending on how the Tory govt.were counting unemployment that week- 31 different changes or something like that-all designed to reduce the headline figure.It was common practice for the thousands laid off form coal,steel,shipping etc to be advised to sign sick too sowing the seeds of the current issues with the cost of sickness related beneits we have today.
I remember various articles in the papers and on TV usually focussing on Northern towns where there were several hundred school leavers each year and only 4 jobs at the local jobcentre.
Edit And 1 year YOPs to fill the gap in the falling number of apprenticeships were a decent idea.The same cannot be said of the the 2 year YTS scheme that eventually replaced it which AFAIK Thatcher only brought in after the riots.She was all for scrapping govt. spending on all sorts of training for young people.

It was common practice for the thousands laid off form coal,steel,shipping etc to be advised to sign sick too sowing the seeds of the current issues with the cost of sickness related beneits we have today.

It would appear that the present chancellor George Osborne would agree with you :

Chancellor says former Tory PM’s government ‘parked’ unemployed people on disability benefits

The chancellor said: “Governments of all colours let too many unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again. Why?

“Because people on disability benefits don’t get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.

“It was quick-fix politics of the worst kind – and the people who lost out were you, hard-working taxpayers who had to pay for all this and those on disability benefits who could have worked but were denied the opportunity to do so.”

So it’s all Thatcher’s fault then, according to George Osborne.

So it’s all Thatcher’s fault then, according to George Osborne.

As he said “Governments of all colours” then I can’t see him pinning it all on Thatch.

I can’t see him pinning it all on Thatch.

Well read the article then. You will see very clearly that he recognizes that the idea was Thatcher’s : “the chancellor criticised the Thatcher government for the way it placed many unemployed people on disability benefits”.

Yes, New Labour continued with Thatcher’s policy, but Thatcher claimed that New Labour was her greatest achievement.

As he said “Governments of all colours” then I can’t see him pinning it all on Thatch.

The Tories started it for political reasons and then Labour left it as it wasn’t really a priority initially until they saw the real long term cost and I don’t just mean financial. Most of the changes to sickness related benefits are not a Cameron thing they started under the last administration and I doubt the Tory PIP package would have differed much if Labour were in power.

it was expedient for them at the time–didn’t want the real figures to show how their policies were basically shutting down uk industry–its no different today–loads of people ‘parked’ on self employment–who earn zilch–but receive housing and tax credits that pay slightly more than jsa etc- all those over 60 on ‘pension plus’– there are many ways to ‘massage’ the real picture–oh and fool loads of others via media that there is loads of jobs every where– you just need to ‘get out there’–horrible hypocrites all of them…..

I’ve read it thanks.

“the chancellor criticised the Thatcher government for the way it placed many unemployed people on disability benefits”.

You’re quoting the Guardian journo, not Osborne.

Osborne said “Governments of all colours let too many unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again”

That’s not pinning it all on Thatcher IMO.

Have we discussed the non ding dong? (apologies I’ve not read all the threads) It all seems a bit daft when the news report they had instead was longer than the song, they played clips from the song and everybody knew the point people were making. Whatever your views about the protest, exactly what did they think they were protecting anybody from by not playing the whole song?

You’re quoting the Guardian journo, not Osborne.

God you’re clutching straws 🙄

Will the very Tory supporting Daily Telegraph do ?

He said the Thatcher government had placed thousands of unemployed people on disability benefits as “quick-fix politics of the worst kind”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980776/George-Osborne-All-Tories-live-in-the-shadow-of-Baroness-Thatcher.html

I’m guessing probably not.

God you’re clutching straws

like a scarecrow havin a tug….

Shall we also not forget, on this all encompassing thread, some of the sterling work that was done during Thatchers reign, to preserve ancient traditions..

Remember the Battle of the Beanfield