aris Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 yes I forgot it was the govt not the banks who were responsible for sub-prime mortgages and a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" and a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics," KW It was the government which made the regulatory frameworkfor this to happen - both here and the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 And that would be the best outcome IMO. which is why it wont happen for the benefit of kw he's such an optimist to think ukip and labour would ever team up so nige gets a chunk, the only people who may team up with ukip would be the torys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 It was the government which made the regulatory frameworkfor this to happen - both here and the US. Nope the meltdown of financial markets in 2008-2009 was the result of institutionalised fraud and financial manipulation. The “bank bailouts” which should never have been allowed lead to the largest transfer of money wealth in recorded history, while simultaneously creating an insurmountable public debt,( that you me and every other taxpayer will never stop paying for) that's what I will never forgive the cons for. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 It was the government which made the regulatory frameworkfor this to happen - both here and the US. Absolutely right and unequivocal.. 10/10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Nope the meltdown of financial markets in 2008-2009 was the result of institutionalised fraud and financial manipulation. The “bank bailouts” which should never have been allowed lead to the largest transfer of money wealth in recorded history, while simultaneously creating an insurmountable public debt,( that you me and every other taxpayer will never stop paying for) that's what I will never forgive the cons for. KW If you hadn't noticed Libour were in power 1997-2010. Which part of that do you blame 'the Cons' for. An oversupply of lending against an overinflated property market was the root cause. You can hold Banks accountable for the lending aspect but who was driving the demand? Yes the good old British public. (and US and, Spanish/Irish/Greek etc.....). Libour encouraged everybody. And a vote for UK will result in the same lunatics running the asylum again. God help us. As for bailing the Banks out. How much did that really cost when you take into account what the government has got back in the way of fees and taxes? And the alternative was? Have you really thought about what would have happened? If so please enlighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Croc Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Please let me know what they plan to do with the NHS. That would be a good start. Just seen this on their FB page, https://www.facebook.com/TheUKIP/photos/a.283591398329424.67830.209101162445115/828514783837080/?type=1&theater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Absolutely right and unequivocal.. 10/10. so liebor were responsible For the fiscal policy of the American banks? keep on making it up as you go along? KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Lack of effective regulation was at the core of the meltdown, starting with the American sub-prime scandal and being accelerated by the uncontrolled borrowing. B liar and Gordon the **** were responsible for no regulation here and for the deal done to support the banking system. A bit like letting sand dribble through your fingers but having a navvy with his shovel to catch it already organised. The Navvy is everyone in Britain and if he didnt see it coming he was advised by idiots and neither them nor he should be allowed a bank account, even in their own name. The single biggest criminal act of the century and the man is still trying to have political influence - he needs to go to IRAQ. Sorry K it has boom and bust all over it and labour's fingerprints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) If you hadn't noticed Libour were in power 1997-2010. Which part of that do you blame 'the Cons' for. An oversupply of lending against an overinflated property market was the root cause. You can hold Banks accountable for the lending aspect but who was driving the demand? Yes the good old British public. (and US and, Spanish/Irish/Greek etc.....). Libour encouraged everybody. And a vote for UK will result in the same lunatics running the asylum again. God help us. As for bailing the Banks out. How much did that really cost when you take into account what the government has got back in the way of fees and taxes? And the alternative was? Have you really thought about what would have happened? If so please enlighten me. oops yes sorry liebor just cant help hating the cons can I? As for what would have happened er that would be NOWT the bust banks (not all) would have bought the failed one's up In reality, nothing that bad would have happened.The news was full of speculation about spreading chaos in the economy, but that was mostly just noise generated from within the banking industry (through their politician and reporter cronies) to justify the bailout. Lehman Brothers is a good example. It was refused a bailout and went bankrupt and its assets were bought up rather quickly. Very few ordinary people at Lehman lost their jobs but the management was replaced. Without the bailouts, the economy would have suffered a period where things would have been revalued, and people would have lost money as the inflated prices for things collapsed to realistic levels, but then lending and normal functioning could begin again immediately with everyone being sure of the worth of their assets. The bailout kept toxic assets in the system and the uncertainty over value led to a prolonged economic stagnation where corporations were making record profits but refusing to invest because no one was sure what anything was really worth and they didn't want to take the risk. Not only was the bailout not needed, it actually made things worse in the long run. KW Edited October 3, 2014 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 so liebor were responsible For the fiscal policy of the American banks? keep on making it up as you go along? KW I think that's called changing the goalposts KW..... Applying that argument completely undermines your post about blaming the cons (they weren't running the US either, in case you were unsure) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think that's called changing the goalposts KW..... Applying that argument completely undermines your post about blaming the cons (they weren't running the US either, in case you were unsure) The point I was making was that regardless who was running THIS country how th hell can you blame them for lack of regulation of the American lending system and the sub prime mortgages that brought about the crash there? KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 I would have thought regulations are set by each country to keep the banking sector competitive, so London and New York, and many others, were competing for global business, hence the push for looser regulation. It does beg the question however, what would former banker Niggle Farage have done?....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) The point I was making was that regardless who was running THIS country how th hell can you blame them for lack of regulation of the American lending system and the sub prime mortgages that brought about the crash there? Global Marketplace. Debt is commoditised, productised, and sold across the world financial markets. This debt happened to be toxic - but money was cheap and investment banks were lapping it up. Eventually the house of cards fell. Add to this the implicit guarantee that the banks knew they would not be allowed to fail, they took risks and made loads of money. What should happen is that the 'casino' side of banking is firewalled from the bog-standard commercial banking so when one side fails, it can die without the other side needing a bailout. Investors can make an informed decision as to if they want to take that risk for the potential return. Edited October 3, 2014 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 It does beg the question however, what would former banker Niggle Farage have done?....... He wasn't a banker as far as I know, but a trader in commodities at the London Metal Exchange for various companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 He wasn't a banker as far as I know, but a trader in commodities at the London Metal Exchange for various companies. Absolutely right and unequivocal..10/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 He wasn't a banker as far as I know, but a trader in commodities at the London Metal Exchange for various companies.Ah, ok thanks. So as a former international commodities trader, what would Niggle Farage have done?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 so liebor were responsible For the fiscal policy of the American banks? keep on making it up as you go along? KW Sorry Mate you are a seriously screwed up confrontational and opinionated person. Your reasoning changes tack like a sale in the Americas cup, you continually contradict yourself, cannot even begin to accept that someone might have a opinion contrary to yours, are xenophobic to the extent that there appear to be serious racial orientated undertones, blinkered and unreasoning....you are the archetypal UKIP supporter and should be very happy with your lot... and that's just me being honest and not insulting... Have you ever thought about contributing something interesting to this Country Sports forum which is relevant, other than your jaded views of politics, commerce, fiscal policy and anything non English? I would be very interested to read any tips for example on decoying in your region or pigeon populations or even the price of wheat.? I think you would be happier on the UKIP forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 oops yes sorry liebor just cant help hating the cons can I? As for what would have happened er that would be NOWT the bust banks (not all) would have bought the failed one's up In reality, nothing that bad would have happened.The news was full of speculation about spreading chaos in the economy, but that was mostly just noise generated from within the banking industry (through their politician and reporter cronies) to justify the bailout. Lehman Brothers is a good example. It was refused a bailout and went bankrupt and its assets were bought up rather quickly. Very few ordinary people at Lehman lost their jobs but the management was replaced. Without the bailouts, the economy would have suffered a period where things would have been revalued, and people would have lost money as the inflated prices for things collapsed to realistic levels, but then lending and normal functioning could begin again immediately with everyone being sure of the worth of their assets. The bailout kept toxic assets in the system and the uncertainty over value led to a prolonged economic stagnation where corporations were making record profits but refusing to invest because no one was sure what anything was really worth and they didn't want to take the risk. Not only was the bailout not needed, it actually made things worse in the long run. KW I think you are slighty misguided if you compare Lehman's collapse with the possible collapse of RBS and Lloyds. Lehmans was on the manufacturing side of the business. Creating and trading in various instruments, especially Asset (mortgage) Backed Securities. Yes the collapse was relatively constrained. However that is vastly different to large retail Banks like RBS and Lloyds. Don't forget that at its peak the RBS balance sheet was £2.2 trillion. To be honest nobody really knows what would have happened if they had folded but it would have been something like the following. RBS would have shut the doors, switched off the ATM machines and stopped transferring money (and trust me RBS was within hours of doing that). As Banks exchange massive amounts of money with one another daily (again at it's peak RBS could only survive without access to the wholesale markets for 14 hours - today it is 42 days), Llloyds would have gone next within the next 24 hours, Barclays 24 hours after that and HSBC. 24 hours, possibly 48 hours after that. No ATMS, No card machines, no money transfers, no branches, no cheques, nobody getting paid. The only money available would have been what you had in your wallet. After that, well who knows. Troops on the streets probably. Now the good thing is that firstly, the Banks are better capitalised now (Libour enabled them to operate with very low capital) and, secondly, there are processes in place to enable a Bank to be more safely unwound (although the RBS Balance Sheet is still around £1 trillion so it wouldn't be easy) but in 2008 the only option was to bail them out, to ringfence the toxic assets (the bad bank concept) and dispose of them in a structured way. I am not defending the Banks anymore than I would defend Oil companies or Energy companies. They are all sharks. But the Banks were only a player in the recession. They were not the only guilty party. However I don't believe I will ever convince you of that. We are now completely OT. A vote for UKIP will result in a Libour government. In which case we are all ******. Switch off the lights and get keep your guns close because it won't be pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Sorry Mate you are a seriously screwed up confrontational and opinionated person. Your reasoning changes tack like a sale in the Americas cup, you continually contradict yourself, cannot even begin to accept that someone might have a opinion contrary to yours, are xenophobic to the extent that there appear to be serious racial orientated undertones, blinkered and unreasoning....you are the archetypal UKIP supporter and should be very happy with your lot... and that's just me being honest and not insulting... Have you ever thought about contributing something interesting to this Country Sports forum which is relevant, other than your jaded views of politics, commerce, fiscal policy and anything non English? I would be very interested to read any tips for example on decoying in your region or pigeon populations or even the price of wheat.? I think you would be happier on the UKIP forum. as expected now go and have a lie down in nice quiet dark room. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Sorry Mate you are a seriously screwed up confrontational and opinionated person. Your reasoning changes tack like a sale in the Americas cup, you continually contradict yourself, cannot even begin to accept that someone might have a opinion contrary to yours, are xenophobic to the extent that there appear to be serious racial orientated undertones, blinkered and unreasoning....you are the archetypal UKIP supporter and should be very happy with your lot... and that's just me being honest and not insulting... Have you ever thought about contributing something interesting to this Country Sports forum which is relevant, other than your jaded views of politics, commerce, fiscal policy and anything non English? I would be very interested to read any tips for example on decoying in your region or pigeon populations or even the price of wheat.? I think you would be happier on the UKIP forum. now now surely by now you know some people are never wrong about anything but i think you got his pressure valves going again maybe he's gone for a u kip in a dark room Edited October 3, 2014 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Ah, ok thanks. So as a former international commodities trader, what would Niggle Farage have done?.... Probably gone for a pint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 It's starting to get personnel. Differing views and banter is what this forum is about. The old adage is true never discuss politics football or religion as it only leads to arguments.To some all are the same. Figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Probably gone for a pint. your probably right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.