Friday, Jan 09, 2009
Next step towards the inevitable
Guardian: Gordon Brown urged to start state bank to save British jobs
"As banks restrict their lending to individuals and small businesses, they risk dooming the economy to an even deeper recession," McFall warns. "This is the economics of the graveyard."
Posted by gardeniadotnet @ 09:31 AM (923 views) Add Comment
23 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Jonnyl said...
Couldn't agree more. Banks that have been granted financial support should be nationalized and when the economy/market has recovered the government can sell shares to recoup the tax payers investment.
2. sold out said...
oh dear, what a mess.The goverment backed by taxpayers are now going to create a bank, that will offer morgages for people to buy property that is falling in price by record ammounts and is unlikely to stop declining for at least (IMO) 12-18momths.Great idea.
Anyone have any suggestions yet for a name for this Bank?
And how about the logo, i cant wait to see that.I wonder if it will be as good as the London 2012 design?
3. a saver said...
Osborne said: "It presents the prime minister with a clear choice. He can support the radical action needed to limit the effects of the recession or continue to achieve nothing."
If only GB would do nothing. Most things he has done have made things worse on the whole.
He seems to be keen to see the return of early 2007-style lending. 125% mortgages and 8 times salary? Surely even he could not call that prudent?
4. crunchy said...
Returning to old style lending cannot be done. Ten years ago there was price slack in the market to 'exploit' that slack now has gone.
We are still too near the top. In other words there is no MEW to support wreckless lending anymore.
I dont understand what the confusion is all about. It is really that simple.
5. mrmickey said...
If you consider how much money has been borrowed in the last 10 years and the economic growth the economy has generated of 2 or 3 percent a year (nothing fantastic) it now seems obvious to me that without the vast amounts of debt being pumped in to the economy we would already have been in recession for the last 10 years. So you have to ask yourself have we had or monies worth, is the economy and country in a better state for the last 10 years of debt expansion.
6. str 2007 said...
mrmickey
I pondered a similar thought to myself this morning.
We need an economy to operate at a much lower level than it does without being in recession.
By that I mean (and in very simple terms) if a car factory has become more efficient and we need less cars it should operate for 3 days a week making cars.
Providing house prices are less than half what they are now - the car workers would be just aswell off and with more 'free' time.
And that goes for the rest of us.
I'd rather work 3 days a week for a £250k family house than 5-6 days a week for a £500k one.
Truth is I'd still work hard to pay off the £250k house early but that's me. (hard he says spending half his time blogging on here).
7. luckyjim said...
mrmickey
You have put your finger. Lets say you were a homeowner for those 10 years of growth. If everything else remained the same - your income, prices of goods etc - but your house value doubled, would you be better off. Would you be 'wealthier' ?
8. crunchy said...
World Central Bank is coming folks. Think about it.
Just for the record!
Problem, Reaction. Solution.
Tax,tax,tax,tax. rings the alarm bells! Just keep ignoring it.
9. inflation is eating my savings said...
World Central Bank is a good idea.
10. crunchy said...
8. inflation is eating my savings said...World Central Bank is a good idea.
A lamb to the slaughter. Keep rationalising your way into slavery.
You still don't get it even when it is right in your face. I despair.
11. gardeniadotnet said...
9. crunchy said... Keep rationalising your way into slavery.
Most of us are already slaves to the system whether we want to be or not. Is it possible to become 'more of a slave'?
12. crunchy said...
10. gardeniadotnet
Don't you believe it. There is so much more "scope" with the technology we have now.
You can live a year now with no cash in your pocket. "Transactions". As I have said take some time out and do some research.
Think about this instead of accepting everything that is happening as though it was a natural progression. House prices should take a
back aeat from time to time. See the bigger picture. Problem, Reaction, Solution.
13. shipbuilder said...
9. crunchy said...
"8. inflation is eating my savings said...World Central Bank is a good idea.
A lamb to the slaughter. Keep rationalising your way into slavery.
You still don't get it even when it is right in your face. I despair."
LOL, Crunchy, I knew the faux-innocent approach wasn't working - back to normal business.
14. inflation is eating my savings said...
Crunchy- a world bank has as much chance of being good or bad as a national bank. Even now there is clearly coordination between the major economic managers- lack of it caused a kinds of trouble in the past. We have a global economy- do you know a better argument that there should not be a degree of centralised oversight- albeit with dispersed power reflecting regional interests.
There would be even less accountability, but how much do we have now, to echo the point made by gd?
If one wishes to refer to the extreme survivalist line presented so eloquently here, democracy is an illusion anyway!
15. shipbuilder said...
5. str 2007 said...
"By that I mean (and in very simple terms) if a car factory has become more efficient and we need less cars it should operate for 3 days a week making cars.
Providing house prices are less than half what they are now - the car workers would be just aswell off and with more 'free' time.
And that goes for the rest of us.
I'd rather work 3 days a week for a £250k family house than 5-6 days a week for a £500k one.
Truth is I'd still work hard to pay off the £250k house early but that's me. (hard he says spending half his time blogging on here)."
Bingo, str2007....there have been a few people banging on about this for a while now......try googling 'why work'. The real question is, why doesn't this happen? Weren't we told that in the future we'd all work less due to efficiency?
When you realise that companies are legally obliged to pursue maximum profit for the shareholder and that our economic system requires constant expansion or collapse, then you realise that this is all just window dressing and that we need to start demanding changes to the system.......so who is the 'economy' and the 'government' working for - you and me? So why do we support it?
16. Shipbuilder said...
13. inflation is eating my savings said...
"Crunchy- a world bank has as much chance of being good or bad as a national bank. Even now there is clearly coordination between the major economic managers- lack of it caused a kinds of trouble in the past. We have a global economy- do you know a better argument that there should not be a degree of centralised oversight- albeit with dispersed power reflecting regional interests.
There would be even less accountability, but how much do we have now, to echo the point made by gd?
If one wishes to refer to the extreme survivalist line presented so eloquently here, democracy is an illusion anyway!"
The point we should be asking is - if we have a global economy, what sort of global economy should it be? Adam Smith in the wealth of nations thought that we were best served by nations trading together, supported by the idea of comparitive advantage the 'invisible hand' would make sure that a companies profits would stay in their native country - everyone wins. Sounds like globalization? It isn't. Globalization is multi-national corporations trading with each other across boundaries with absolutely no loyalty to their communities or workers, just the shareholders. Hence we get outsourcing and the race to the bottom. The pro-globalists argue in favour of something that isn't actually happening.
17. Enoughalready said...
I'd work for the public sector. Win/Win situation. Oodles of dosh for bugger all and everyone else on half time while under the threat of redundancy. Ha ha ha.
Now, where did I put my nursing application..?
18. voiceofreason said...
Shipbuilder and str 2007.
I was wondering the same. Here's an extreme example:
A friend of mine is climbing the greasy pole in one of the big accountancy firms. Average senior partner salary is £600K but people don't want to go there because they demand 24/7 access and your work is your life.
Why don't they have twice as many £300K senior partners who work normal hours ?
As for the rest of us, I am having a month off between jobs and it is BLISS ! (Apart from some freelancing and upcoming part time MSC exam)
19. crunchy said...
13. inflation is eating my savings
Your owners dont care about you. Look at the mess we are in now.
Good over evil....An illusion.
Democracy an illustion.
Freedom an illusion that we are soon to find in its most extreme form.
30 years ago people would say slavery could get no worse. LOL Starting to get it?
20. shipbuilder said...
15. voiceofreason said...
"Shipbuilder and str 2007.
I was wondering the same. Here's an extreme example:
A friend of mine is climbing the greasy pole in one of the big accountancy firms. Average senior partner salary is £600K but people don't want to go there because they demand 24/7 access and your work is your life.
Why don't they have twice as many £300K senior partners who work normal hours ?
As for the rest of us, I am having a month off between jobs and it is BLISS ! (Apart from some freelancing and upcoming part time MSC exam)"
Yesssss! Why does it take a recession for people to realise this? We could all work 2-3 days per week and have full employment.
We would naturally consume more in our increased leisure time, have less stress - less alcohol and drugs, more time with families so less social issues etc. etc.
So why doesn't it happen?
BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU AND ME AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR US. THIS COUNTRY, THIS ECONOMY IS NOT RUN FOR US. IT IS ABOUT PROFIT AND POWER FOR THE ALREADY RICH AND POWERFUL.
Full employment could be achieved tomorrow by work-sharing, but it won't, because full employment is not desirable for the government and business.
MAXIMUM PROFIT AND CONTROL IS ACHIEVED BY KEEPING US RELATIVELY POOR, IN FEAR, STRESSED AND UNHAPPY.
21. Safe As A Crash said...
17. shipbuilder said...
...well said !!
its all a pyramid scheme... shame they guys at the top like to see us stuggle, it gives them something to do...
22. str 2007 said...
Well if things go according to plan, at least most of us here won't need as big mortgages as others. That's a start, I guess it's up to us what we make of it.
23. Dwindeling Cash said...
Shipbuilder@20
well said from me too.
To loosely quote from the money as debt video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 ; how is it possible that with all the talents that people have and hard work that they put in, that most of them are in debt? Why with all of our talents are we slaves?
People are waking up folks.