Unregistered User
30 January 2011
16:0390738#1
Ed Balls seems to be attempting to rewrite history.
Keep blaming the Bankers and the public might believe that the current state of the UK economy had nothing to do with Gordon B.,Ed Balls & Ed M overspending when at the Treasury & borrowing more than the country could afford to repay.
For every £4 spent only £3 could be financed by the economy. i.e. we were borrowing 25% more than we could afford to repay.
Discuss!!
Watty
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
16:0690739#2
Sorry can't edit title should be Who not How.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
16:1590741#3
once the thread title is up, cannot be changed.
i think everyone will know what you mean though paul, anyway speaking for myself i haven't a clue.
in a recent poll 2 out of 3 people blame the bankers for the state of things.
who can blame them?
they see firstly the taxpayers bail out, then they see the bonuses being paid, this is at the same time that the banks will not lend them money.
whether they are to blame or not is irrelevant to most people.
our friend vince cable cracked a joke the other day, what is the difference between a dead cat and a dead banker on a motorway?
answer, there are skid marks around the cat.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
30 January 2011
17:4490752#4
I think there is a kind of blindness Paul(W).
The Labour party are in denial and so are all their supporters; the banks could only make loans/mortgages to the limit of the regulations that controlled them.
By changing the regulations shortly after they came to power in 1997, banks started to lend money in the form of mortgages, to people who would be over 100 when they paid them off, also to people who simply couldn't afford to pay them back and after just a short time and a slight change in the economy, they were in negative equity.
These bad debts were sold abroad - to the USA I believe, so, mixed with Bill Clinton's ideas, caused the economy to go belly-up.
Selling gold at an all-time low, not paying our debt back in the good times, but borrowing more and more, meant that when the bad times came, as they were so obviously golng to, we were already stretched.
But of course, none of this was Labour's fault.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
18:0890760#5
two flaws in your argument roger, if it is only red voters that thought the banks had played a major part in the current economic position then sometims red ed would be looking at a 200 seat majority.
the change in regulations allowed banks greater freedom in lending, none were forced to lend.
the dopey ones did and later came with their begging bowl to the tax payer, some like barclays and h.s.b.c. were sensible saw a bad deal for what it was and carried on as normal.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
30 January 2011
18:1090762#6
My opinion is that it wuz the bankers who got the banks (a significant part of them) into bankruptcy, and the New Labour government of T. Blair that got the Treasury into the appalling mess that it's in.
If the bankers were so great as some paint them out to be, then they should have avoided the situation that led to the 2008 banking crises, rather than taking advantage of Labour's change of banking regulations.
Of-course, Howard - and Vince Cable - are right in noting that just about no normal person has any time for feeling sorry for bankers whose bonuses are contested.
I guess the most immediate best thing that can happen is that Labour do not get back in again.
I am not sure if the last Labour 13 year government actually understood the meaning of creating and having State debits and if they ever figured out who would pay the debt back. 900 billion pounds is an awful figure, and it just kept increasing!
I know that I have to be careful what I write here, but I am not sure what T. Blair has been doing since he left the PM office, going about advising other governments with lots of cash at their disposal. Seems he earned 20 million pounds in a few years, but advising on what!
Changing the subject, and going back to the thread's topic, it would not be advisable to sell assets left right and centre to get in money to pay off the State's debts, as the earnings these assets gain would go to the over-seas investors on the long run.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
18:1390764#7
didn't think the thread was about selling assets alex.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
30 January 2011
18:3390766#8
Remember the shrewd comment of Christopher Fildes, former City columnist of The Spectator: "Giving capital to a banker is like giving a gallon of beer to a drunk. You know what he will do with it. You just don't know what wall he will choose to do it against." Regulation is all-important with banks and Brown, at Balls' suggestion, chose to loosen the reins disastrously in 1997/98.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
19:0690772#9
Bankers don't create national debt, it is government spending.
It is simple, if you spend 25% more than your income then that is debt.
At present we are only keeping pace with the interest repayments [even the present & purposed cuts] , not even repaying debt.
That's what the last government did. Brown, Balls, Miliband at the Treasury & Cabinet.
Yes ,the bankers lent money to people they should not have [government policy] & purchased other people's debt [US] but that dwarfs the debt the last government has left behind.
Forget the banks we would have had this day of reckoning anyway. The banks become a smokescreen because of their stupidity & greed.
Don't be fooled by Ed. Ball's presentation. He sounds lucid but is really conning us.
At least Alistair Darling told it as it was.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
19:2490777#10
you may well be right paul, the general public have their doubts.
however people see the bankers as living the high life and cocking a snook at dave and george when asked for restraint.
if it was government policy to lend money to people that they should not of had, why did sensible banks ignore this?
agreed that mr b*lls is very good at putting a case across and he clearly has the blues rattled, someone described him recently as the sort of chap that would cross a 6 lane motorway to start a fight.
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
19:4590782#11
The banks did what governments, mainly US & British pushed them to do, with lack of regulation , again government directed/controlled.
As now has been evidenced, other than Lehmann Bros. being allowed to fold . government bailouts have been the order of the day.
This adds to the public debt.
It does not scratch the surface of the Brown/Balls/Miliband debt created by unfunded[i.e. no income] public service & benefit expansion.
That does not even take into account PFI [off balance sheet] debt.
It does not bear thinking about.
So folks when Ball's says borrow more or take longer to reduce public services all he is talking about is reducing the amount of debt interest repayment which then adds more to the original debt.
It's like not paying off the full interest on yout credit card each month. You don't pay for the original goods you purchased just the interest that you have not paid in full, so adds more to the original purchase debt.
Is that the way to run a country?
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
20:0590786#12
2 seperate issues here paul.
1) the recently deposed regime made a bit of a dog's breakfast of the economy in later years, as the electorate put them there the electorate has to foot the bill.
2) the banks are private industry that are there to make profits for themselves, when they failed remarkably to do this the electorate are asked to foot the bill again.
i talk on a daily basis to all types of people with differing political leanings, without fail they are all up in arms at the apparent arrogance of the banking sector.
you mention pfi, probablythe most stupid economic idea ever invented, even i saw through this the day it was introduced.
jam today and debt for your grandchildren.
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
20:1890792#13
So who decided to bail the banking sector out with public finances Howard?
I have no time for the banking sector having been stung by them whilst in business.
This is nothing like 17-20% interest rates in the early eighties.
The decision to remove regulation from the Bank of England started the rot.
I agree with your scenario about our grandchildren.
Watty
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
31 January 2011
09:3690840#14
Only the other day at that great gathering of economic minds, President Sarkozy was blaming the bankers for the crises in France and in the EU. There is clearly a tendency for Conservatives here in the UK to blame it all on Labour, but of course its just their way of spinning in the political blame game. Clearly Labour were not responsible for the crises in France in Ireland in..well everywhere.
Cutting out the politics we all know the crises started in the US in the mortage sector and massive banks like Lehman Brother took a powder. The financial shock wave from this reverberated around the globe. Again nothing to do with Labour. We can blame dear oul Gordon for lots of things but I think its just political gesturing to blame him for the banking or economic crises. Sure governments everywhere play a role, some are more prepared than others, but the economic crises was and is everywhere. So not the fault of one individual government.
Andrew Marr told a very good joke yesterday morning on his show..it went like this.
Whats the difference between a dead cat on the motorway and a dead banker on the motorway...
there are skid marks for the cat!!
That one made me laugh!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
31 January 2011
09:5990843#15
PaulB - you seem blind to the economics facts, perhaps intentionally.
The bankers are a convenient scapegoat for governments and our Labour opposition.
Look to the UK and our problems.
Yes they do stem in part from a disease that has seeped into many governments, not just ours, by which for a fair few years they lived beyond their income. If the UK had been run along more sensible economic lines over the last 13 years we would not have been nearly so deep in the do-do...
Yes, PaulB lets cut out the politics and you are completely wrong, full stop.
The problem started when the world went into a cyclical downturn. Downturns come along as certainly as day and night but, of course, Gordon Brown thought he had banned that cycle of day and night, oops boom and bust....and ran the economy as if he really had, poor fool.
The banks got into trouble BECAUSE OF THE DOWNTURN. The British banks were in a worse position than most, why? Because Gordon Brown abandoned sensible regulation by the Bank of England in 1997 and encouraged them to take risks.
An example was told to me by a friend who is a former Chief Exec of a bank before 1997 and retired soon after Labour got to power. Before 1997 he had to visit the Bank of England once every 3 months with his senior management team. At that meeting they were quizzed on every aspect of their bank's dealings and the BoE had quite draconian powers over them if they did not like what they heard. Gordon Brown's reforms in 1997 changed all that and those visits stopped. What is more Brown encouraged them to take risks in his first Mansion House speech.
Some banks went heavily into the USA after 1997 as a market they believed had massive opportunities, in response to what Brown said and did things they would have previously been banned from including the buying of small struggling US banks. Needless to say that the banks that did this were the worse hit when the downturn hit the USA and Clinton's idiotic reforms turned into a disaster.
So stop trying to blame the banks and letting Labour off the hook. I keep telling you the facts yet you still keep on peddling Labour's excuses and lies.
I have not yet reminded you of the other reasons for the UK's recession to be the deepest and longest of any.
Labour's ovespending, the failed inflation brief to the Bank of England and so on....
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
31 January 2011
10:0890844#16
Howard mentioned that joke in #3 Paul, it is well worth the repeat though.
To put it simply. The bankers loaned out money they should not have. The last government spent this countries savings. Joe Public are left to finance these debts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
31 January 2011
13:2290856#17
Actually Jan, to keep to your simple explanation - the last government spent a lot more than 'this countries savings', perhaps income would be a better word than savings, hence the deficit. Overall though you are right and I explained why SOME banks did what they did.
Unregistered User
31 January 2011
19:0190882#18
Paul I have no problem having a go at Bankers.
But Bankers are being used to mask public spending & debt decisions.
Nothing to do with Bankers.
Sort out who made the public spending decisions & agreed to borrow to support the sums that were not funded by current government income levels.
Then add the Bankers bit & your have structural debt.
The politics is trying to deny it or pretnd it is just Bank debt that caused the problem.
You as a former business can work that out.
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
31 January 2011
19:4890884#19
The banks got into trouble because they made dodgy lending and investment decisions. As a result they now have to keep more capital than before to back their assets. But now the government wants them to start lending willy-nilly again, this will just lead us to the same place when the borrowers start getting shaky again.
The government is in trouble because Labour spent too much and borrowed too much to fund it.
The two factors are unrelated except that they both contributed to the overheating of the economy- the bubble had to burst sometime.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
31 January 2011
19:5590886#20
the government is also in trouble because they asked the banks to show restraint in lavishing dosh on themselves, also to offer loans to small businesses and people asking for a reasonable mortgage loan.
in each case the banks have waved a cheery finger at them.