I Despair - Mse Fools, Christmas Tat And The Kyle Underclass

[Sibley's Love Child]

Yeah, but who do you want to win X-Factor?

[Maddog21]

Yeah, but who do you want to win X-Factor?

The pikey?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Maddog21

[Nickolarge]

Sadly stupid people don't realise they are stupid though.

You can say that again!

There are plenty of examples contributing to this forum.

[OnionTerror]

The pikey?

Which one's that then?

[Maddog21]

Which one's that then?

You need to read the current bun more

Have a look at the pictures and have a guess

I'll give you a clue ,it's not the black one

Here today, gone tomorrow

Even celebrities are disposable these days

Edited November 30, 2010 by Maddog21

[getknk]

We're breeding a nation of uneducated serfs aren't we?

Deluded into taking out 'Payday' loans to buy Chinese tat to keep little Kayleigh and Ryan happy, whilst getting off of their faces on cheap booze. MSE is awash with them, needing a loan to pay off their existing loans and thinking that 'APR' means 'April'.

A class of people, and there are millions of them, who know the benefits system inside out but think Iceland is primarily a shop and not a country.

These people are the types who come out with garbage like "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear", and will be enslaved by, and depedant on the state from cradle to grave. They're born, they breed, they die. They contribute nothing other than the occasional appearance on modern day freak shows like Kyle and Trisha.

We might just as well go into full Matrix mode, sedate them, and use them as Duracells.

I despair.

***Edited for typo***

planning of joining politics?

[dissident junk]

Absolutely no shortage of this demographic in London, see them commuting, gym, gigs, restaurants, cinema etc... Must all be around here drawn by the bright lights big city.

True. Maybe everyone in this age group is in London, a total brain and age drain down to the capital.

But it is leaving Northern cities with a huge demographic gap -- there's the late baby boomers, the under-18s, the NEETS, the unemployed, the migrants and the students, and the NMW-ers. There's now this massive gap in the middle.

Socially and economically, it doesn't bode too well for the future of the North at all -- as though things could get any worse.

[lulu]

True. Maybe everyone in this age group is in London, a total brain and age drain down to the capital.

But it is leaving Northern cities with a huge demographic gap -- there's the late baby boomers, the under-18s, the NEETS, the unemployed, the migrants and the students, and the NMW-ers. There's now this massive gap in the middle.

Socially and economically, it doesn't bode too well for the future of the North at all -- as though things could get any worse.

Filled by Poles?

It will only be in future years when we realise the true damage caused by the influx of cheap eastern european migration.

There are plenty of UK residents who could/should be doing the jobs the Poles are doing now but business suddenly found they didnt need to bother with training the locals. This has left many many parts of the country relient on migrant labour the dolites can't be arsed and the educated have ******ed off.

[The Matador]

To be fair, not understanding debt is hardly confined to the underclass.

I know plenty of 'educated' middles who are financially retarded.

Gordon Brown for one.

[lulu]

Gordon Brown for one.

No, he was definately a number two

[OnionTerror]

You need to read the current bun more

Have a look at the pictures and have a guess

I'll give you a clue ,it's not the black one

Here today, gone tomorrow

Even celebrities are disposable these days

To be honest, I'd rather not

Everything is lowered to the lowest common denominator nowadays...its all about "sensationalist" crap that has no bearing on real life...John Terry, Avram Grant, whoever..I don't give a monkeys who is porking who...Its all about keeping the general populice dumbed down, so that they don't ask pertenant questions..."keep um stupid"...for instance, I even believe that C5's "Live from Studio Five" can be used towards C5's mandatory current affairs output. It has to be one of the worst programmes ever made....

[Cinzano Bianco]

These people are idiots no doubt but I still think the banks are at fault here.

I think the banks have a duty of care, but it's the debtors fault, since they applied for the loan... and this is why:

The police are there to enforce the speed limit , I don't blame them if I crash

my car into a wall at 100mph because they didn't nick me in time.

I agree it is bizarre that they knowingly handed these morons all that debt... it does make you wonder if there is an ulterior motive.

[Freeholder]

To be honest, I'd rather not

Everything is lowered to the lowest common denominator nowadays...its all about "sensationalist" crap that has no bearing on real life...John Terry, Avram Grant, whoever..I don't give a monkeys who is porking who...Its all about keeping the general populice dumbed down, so that they don't ask pertenant questions..."keep um stupid"...for instance, I even believe that C5's "Live from Studio Five" can be used towards C5's mandatory current affairs output. It has to be one of the worst programmes ever made....

A new word is invented. Populice. The lice people. Numerous and parasitic. I will use that.

[Si1]

The police are there to enforce the speed limit , I don't blame them if I crash

my car into a wall at 100mph because they didn't nick me in time.

unfortunately the speed limit was effectively raised to 85mph on motorways, and the government instructed the police NOT to place any temporary restirctions on during thick fog and black ice. Otherwise reasonable people saw everyone else doing 100mph and thought they'd do the same, and got caught up in multiple pile-ups.

the blame game here is rife with subtleties, unfortunately.

[Riedquat]

unfortunately the speed limit was effectively raised to 85mph on motorways, and the government instructed the police NOT to place any temporary restirctions on during thick fog and black ice. Otherwise reasonable people saw everyone else doing 100mph and thought they'd do the same, and got caught up in multiple pile-ups.

the blame game here is rife with subtleties, unfortunately.

And if you tried to be sensible in those conditions you got shoved up the rear. Good analogy.

[leicestersq]

I think the banks have a duty of care, but it's the debtors fault, since they applied for the loan... and this is why:

I agree it is bizarre that they knowingly handed these morons all that debt... it does make you wonder if there is an ulterior motive.

Before you let the bankers off scot free, you have to remember the motives that they were operating under. Their bonuses are linked to the quantity of loans that they can make. Of course that is limited in that there are only so many credit worthy borrowers wishing to lend. However, what they were able to do, was to change the rules of who was creditworthy, and that increased the number of people who could get a loan, and also increased how much they could borrow.

Then Fraudulently account for those loans, mark them as if they were creditworthy borrowers, and hey presto, huge profits and huge bonuses. Loans were pushed to anyone willing to sign, and neither side cared much if the money was repaid.

Of course the result is massive bad debts, and the capital of banks disappearing in a puff.

The bankers used control fraud to rob the bank, and their investors, both shareholders and bondholders, except that the second group managed to offload these losses onto the taxpayer.

Bankers made loans to those that they knew would not repay, so that they could commit control fraud. They didnt even care if those they lent money too even had any intention of repaying.

So dont let the bankers off the hook.

[winkie]

Before you let the bankers off scot free, you have to remember the motives that they were operating under. Their bonuses are linked to the quantity of loans that they can make. Of course that is limited in that there are only so many credit worthy borrowers wishing to lend. However, what they were able to do, was to change the rules of who was creditworthy, and that increased the number of people who could get a loan, and also increased how much they could borrow.

Then Fraudulently account for those loans, mark them as if they were creditworthy borrowers, and hey presto, huge profits and huge bonuses. Loans were pushed to anyone willing to sign, and neither side cared much if the money was repaid.

Of course the result is massive bad debts, and the capital of banks disappearing in a puff.

The bankers used control fraud to rob the bank, and their investors, both shareholders and bondholders, except that the second group managed to offload these losses onto the taxpayer.

Bankers made loans to those that they knew would not repay, so that they could commit control fraud. They didnt even care if those they lent money too even had any intention of repaying.

So dont let the bankers off the hook.

So what you are saying they lent money to anyone regardless of their ability to repay...the target was to lend money without worrying whether it would be repaid....if that is the truth, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today....what about today? is this still going on? have they tightened their lending policies? are they now lending with due diligence only to those they deem fit to pay it back with interest?

Edited November 30, 2010 by winkie

[red11]

Gordon Brown for one.

And the majority of the general public who don't understand just how hard they have been shafted by the government and bankers.

[Bloo Loo]

I think the banks have a duty of care, but it's the debtors fault, since they applied for the loan... and this is why:

I agree it is bizarre that they knowingly handed these morons all that debt... it does make you wonder if there is an ulterior motive.

the very idea of lending criteria offends some.

[leicestersq]

So what you are saying they lent money to anyone regardless of their ability to repay...the target was to lend money without worrying whether it would be repaid....if that is the truth, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today....what about today? is this still going on? have they tightened their lending policies? are they now lending with due diligence only to those they deem fit to pay it back with interest?

Yes, this is what happened.

Not all banks did this, but there seem to have been problems at a lot of banks. Read Karl Denninger, this sort of thing was policy at Countrywide for example.

And in the UK we had banks that pushed to the limit, perhaps beyond. When on Panorama they say that HBOS sacked their risk manager, what they meant but did not say was that there was an issue about valuation of the assets that HBOS were taking on (their loan book). You only have to look at an imploded book to see that they were not correctly valuing their assets (false accounting). Did HBOS and Northern Rock really have the assets that they told the stock market that they had?

And in Iceland, you had crooked banks lending to their mates. They borrowed at high rates of interest to attract deposits, guaranteed by the UK taxpayer in many instances. And they then gave low interest loans to their mates who then did what was necessary to ensure that the loans were not repaid, and yet they kept the assets that they bought.

And I hear similar stories of the banks in Ireland.

Trouble is when one bank goes crooked, and falsely accounts, then other banks have to do the same to keep operating as a bank. If you falsely account you can offer higher rates to depositors, and win business with your low rates, even if you cannot make a profit on the difference. As long as the money keeps coming in, just falsely account, cream off some of the incoming money for bonuses that you would not earn in a lifetime of honest lending, and hope you can get out before the ponzi scheme collapses.

Just what do you think that this financial crisis is all about? If loans were only made when the borrower is income checked and their is large amounts of equity and low rates paid to depositors and high rates charged to borrowers, then banks cannot go bust, they can only make money. Something rotten needs to happen for a bank to go bust, and they are normally vigilant against outside threats.

[Stars]

Before you let the bankers off scot free, you have to remember the motives that they were operating under. Their bonuses are linked to the quantity of loans that they can make. Of course that is limited in that there are only so many credit worthy borrowers wishing to lend. However, what they were able to do, was to change the rules of who was creditworthy, and that increased the number of people who could get a loan, and also increased how much they could borrow.

Then Fraudulently account for those loans, mark them as if they were creditworthy borrowers, and hey presto, huge profits and huge bonuses. Loans were pushed to anyone willing to sign, and neither side cared much if the money was repaid.

That's a matter between the ultimate loaner and the person arranging the loan on their behalf

'Bankers' occupied both these roles and so frauded themselves

What actually happened was the lender decidfed he could afterall lend to these people

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stars

[leicestersq]

That's a matter between the ultimate loaner and the person arranging the loan on their behalf

'Bankers' occupied both these roles and so frauded themselves

What actually happened was the lender decidfed he could afterall lend to these people

I think you are missing the point. The money that is lent out by a bank isn't money belonging to the people making the decisions about the loan. The bank manager, or the 'Head of Lending' isnt lending out his ownmoney. He works for the bank, but he is entrusted with the money of other people, namely that of bondholders, shareholders and depositors.

As you can see, there is a conflict of interest here. If Bankers were lending only their own money, then we wouldnt have the problems we have now.

Edited November 30, 2010 by leicestersq

[Bloo Loo]

That's a matter between the ultimate loaner and the person arranging the loan on their behalf

'Bankers' occupied both these roles and so frauded themselves

What actually happened was the lender decidfed he could afterall lend to these people

sure he could, WHILE he could sell the debt to some other schmuck...why should the banker care what the return was likely to be...he's made two sales and walked.

If this banker was selling Gas and lied to all parties about the package they thought they would be entered into, the fines would be on the bank, the broker and the debt would be repatriated and both the borrower, and the investor, made whole.

this isnt happening.

[pilchardthecat]

...

Too many people really don't understand debt but then again isn't that the point. If people understood debt we wouldn't be in this mess.

Viva ignorance.

If you have naff all to start with, debt is essentially free stuff.

The worst thing that can happen is someone takes the free stuff away after a while. Usually they don't though.

[Stars]

I think you are missing the point. The money that is lent out by a bank isn't money belonging to the people making the decisions about the loan. The bank manager, or the 'Head of Lending' isnt lending out his ownmoney. He works for the bank, but he is entrusted with the money of other people, namely that of bondholders, shareholders and depositors.

.......who employ him to make decisions about how their money is loaned

They could have stoped him loaning their money at any moment in the process - they didn't though

As you can see, there is a conflict of interest here. If Bankers were lending only their own money, then we wouldnt have the problems we have now.

I'm not sure who you mean by 'bankers' here; do you mean bank institutions or bank employees?

You could view banks as either lending their own money or not depending on preference. Banks were lending their own money in that they picked up some risk/ liability for the loan and they were lending other people's money as that's what is what they were asked to do with money given to them.

I don't see anything distorting or conflicting in the arrangment

If i lend you 100 and say, give me back 101 by lending it out

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stars