Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. Yes, being Irish I tend to look at what is happening on the Irish forums. There seems to be a sizable group who think that current debts should be made to disappear, or at least made interest free, in some way while the same lenders make more loans.

    This is the problem faced by Greece.

    They could default tommorrow but what is stopping them is not the EU or Germany or bankers

    what is stopping them is that the day after they defaulted they would have to run a balanced budget.

    This is what really terrifies them.

    So as long as the EU is prepared to keep giving them more free money they will be quite happy to take it.

    And it is free - because they sure as Hell aren't going to pay it back

    because they simply can't

    :blink:

  2. For what it's worth, Oxfam is concerned and the post references two articles.

    The rate at which people are cutting back on all things is quite dramatic. Le Monde also notes that nearly half a million mobile phone users in Spain unsubscribed last year.

    The problem is that the Troika only sees banks as essential services and every other kind of funding - healthcare, education, garbage collection, you name it - has to be sacrificed to recapitalise them.

    If the debt was written off the German people would have worked for nothing for the last 10 years.

    So who pays - the people who bought loads of stuff they couldn't really afford

    or the people who worked their nuts off making all the stuff.

    Either way someone is going to suffer

    which is why the Euro was a sh*t idea from day 1

    :blink:

  3. Please learn how the system works.

    yes it could - in 2008, alistair darling and merve could have nationalised the banks, wiped the savings and debts out and restarted the system - would have lasted another few decades, no problem. (This wil happen eventually, by the way.)

    No, it was massive, pervasive fraud.

    If the bank bailouts don't cost anything what the ****** does this even mean?

    lol what are you like.

    You are arguing a false premise - he didn't need to wipe out savers because the assets would have covered deposits

    he would only have needed to wipe out shareholders and those holding overvalued assets.

    The bank bailouts cost nothing because they merely entered numbers in a spreadsheet.

    People on the left here think this was real wealth that could have been used to buy actual stuff in the real world.

    The fact that the bail out money does not exist will only become apparent if the financial position of the banks is ever allowed to unwind.

    Lets try an analogy.

    You borrow 5 gold coins from a thug and spend the money on drink and drugs.

    The thug comes back for his money a week later and you tell him you still have the money but want to keep it for another week.

    So you write him a note promising to give him 10 gold coins in one weeks time.

    When he comes back again in another week you then write him another note promising him a further 10 gold coins in one weeks time.

    The people here on the left think that the notes with iou 20 gold coins written on them is actually real wealth that could be spent on hospitals or benefits.

    I thought you knew better.

    :blink:

  4. No, the bankers made up a load of money that didn't exist.

    Thenm rather than tell "savers" that they had been conned and they had nothing and cancel the "debts" from the borrowers, they government stepped in and is using it's taxing power to make it all happen anyway.

    The system (minus the bank bailouts) could continue for decades.

    Really, try and read what I actually write, for ******s sake.

    Savers money did exist - because it represented delayed consumption.

    And the system could not have continued for decades without the bank bailouts

    because it was the failure of the system that made the bailouts necessary.

    All around the World, politicians are now having to face up to the fact that the system is bankrupt,

    the bank bailouts are just buying them time to deal with this

    only they aren't dealing with it - they are just hoping things will return to 'normal'

    before the sh*t really does hit the fan.

    :)

  5. So I guess all those school children killed in America was down to government regulation. and not the fault of a mad man with a gun.

    edit: You do work in the financial industries don't you?

    Not sure what this is even supposed to mean

    but yes - it was due to regulation because guns are banned in some schools which makes them a target.

    And no - I don't work in the financial industries

    I gave up work 8 years ago because I was sick of working my nuts of to pay for other people to sit round and do nothing all day

    so now I sit around doing nothing all day.

    What's your excuse?

    :)

  6. I suspect that will just compound the problem.

    Instead of cranking up central control, the state should remove the subsidies and protections that allow banks to abuse their dominant position. That way investors get to assert control over the managers, and we avoid a mutually self-serving system of regulator/regulated.

    Basically, make building societies the model for home lending.

    You can't have a fractional reserve banking system without a state

    and the state sets the legal and regulatory framework in which the system operates.

    Of course when everything goes t*ts up it is very convenient for the state to blame the bankers.

    This has been going on for hundreds of years in Europe.

    :blink:

  7. yes, it is. It wasn't before, now it is. before it was just numbers on a screen, now the taxman and chums are making it real.

    The state can't pay out more than it takes in.

    Imagine a slaveowner - his two slaves bob and jim are arguing over a debt. Bob says jim owes him a bag of salt. From the point of view of the slaveowner, there can never be a loss - even if the bag of salt gets destroyed.

    Aha - now we are getting somewhere

    It wasn't real and they are now attempting to make it real - and are failing - so it still isn't real.

    This surely proves my point - which is that the bank bailouts are not why the system is bankrupt.

    :)

  8. Then make it.

    Erm it's sat on balance sheets so that depositors , bond and shareholders haven't lost everything. Right now, the average HPCer should be rebuilding having lost their STR fund in 2008 and all the homeowners rejoicing as their debts have been cancelled.

    Yes, but it is not real wealth that could have been used for anything else is it?

    So it isn't why the system is bankrupt.

    The system is bankrupt because it is paying out far more than it can ever get in.

    The answer is to slash the size of the state.

    Where I disagree with you is blaming the bailouts because the banking crisis is a symptom of the problem - not the problem itself.

    :)

  9. If that were true then no bailout would have been required.

    Think of it this way- the banks created more claims on the economic pie than there was pie- so in order to save the system the public sector has promised to take pie away from you and me in order to make sure those claim holders get their slices of pie as promised.

    This is why we need austerity- to make sure that no 'risk taker' should be exposed to the consequences of the 'risks' they took.

    Banks can be 'bailed out' by entering numbers of balance sheets

    People can only be paid not to work with actual wealth.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4753651/lithuanian-immigrant-youre-a-soft-touch.html

    Multiply this by 8 million and we have a big problem.

    :)

  10. http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2001_p2/baker_sr_p2/socialism.htm

    In around 388 BC, not long after he opened his Academy, Plato wrote what was to become the bible of socialism. Plato's Republic was written in a time when Greek government was at its peak of tyranny and corruption. Plato's aim was to create a society in which people lived happy and fruitful lives, in a state of neither poverty nor wealth. Everyone worked for the good of the people as a whole, not only for themselves. Plato succeeded in his theories, but not in its employment. Such a political community was never to be applied in Plato's life, but his work certainly has not been forgotten since he wrote it nearly 2400 years ago. Plato's work in socialism was only a small part of his vast legacy.

    :)

  11. May well be but i didn't do that - I actually said that welfarism will inevitab;ly fail but that this crash is due to the banker bailouts.

    Why did I say that? because it's factually true.

    I'm openly anarchist. ******s sake, man. I want the state to be completely dismantled, removed, gone. You don't get that by voting for team red.

    Ad hominem attacks are left wing? What the ****** are you gibbering on about? Ad hominem attacks pre date the existence of the left by only the entirety of human history.

    People have been bashing the person not the argument forever. It even happens in plato, for the love of.... Now, if you can stop seeing reds under the bed for 5 minutes and stick your thinking cap on - go and look at the data which shows while the states financnes were degading at a rate of knots and would fail at some point in the next 20-30 years due to welfarism, the banker bailouts have brought the failure point forward by decades and into the near future.

    No party politics (labour did the bailing, remember?) just sodding facts.

    if the bankers hadn't engaged in massive fraud, the system could have carried on for a few decades more before failing as all welfare systems inevitably do. So to say that he bankers are to blame for the current crsis is entirely accurate.

    edit - which political party did I say you should vote for?

    Thanks for being civil.

    I think there is a genuine argument to be made that bailing out the banks has cost nothing.

    I used the example of the European bail out mechanism.

    Had the 400 Billon+ Euros been given to individual citizens with the proviso they had to spend it

    then most of this money would have been wiped out by inflation.

    Numbers sat on bank balance sheets are not Wealth - therefore bank bail outs cost nothing.

    So how can bank bailouts be responsible for the situation we are in?

    IMHO the reason we are screwed is because the state is using real wealth to pay people to sit around and do nothing all day.

    :)

  12. I really don't think this is the case although it does look like it, I think they all view things from a very simplistic point of view and on the whole are just greedy and talking their way out of things.

    Maybe their personal situations have made them more likely to go with the flow and it all appeared ok.

    QE has transferred wealth from savers to those in debt.

    If the scale of the problem had been smaller this might have worked.

    What I think they are now realising is that the scale of the problem is so large that they are still going to have to default in effect.

    So instead of wiping out those with unsustainable debt in the first place and allowing those with savings to cash in and kick start the economy

    they are now faced with the prospect of still having to wipe out those with unsustainable debt having wiped out savers to no gain.

    :blink:

  13. The Select Committee had doubts about underyling values for bank assets. If banks were to go full on for equity release on high house prices price might worsen banks' positions. They'd know where they stood after a crash in values.

    Equity release is also expensive according to Ian Cowie, last month.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9756474/Cowies-quick-guides-equity-release.html

    The voting block of renters is set to become a political factor. I see your point, but don't think it's healthy, and the banks have more to gain lending on crashed house prices.

    You take it too far in the way you describe, where people are slaves to the banks on housing, and there's no money left to spend in the economy. Nothing apart from oldies equity releasing and relying on their spending, and landlords spending our rent. The banks allowing more of a balance would be better for them in the longer run, I suspect.

    Yes - but it isn't banks fault that house prices are high.

    The high cost of housing is entirely due to political policies.

    The political elite all own large amounts of property and many are also in debt

    this is why we have policies that are transferring wealth from those with savings to those in debt in order to prop up asset prices

    surely?

    :blink:

  14. And the government has gone further into deficit to make the bankers numbers become real, dipshit.

    Really? which political party did I advocate you vote for?

    Moron.

    Blaming everything on banker bailouts is mainstream Labour propaganda so claiming that you aren't advocating any particular political party is largely irrelevant.

    You like to claim that you are apolitical - but everyone has a political bias and yours has become very apparent recently.

    The point is, most of my understanding of what happened has come from reading comments posted on this site - including your own

    and as a result I know that you understand the system well enough to realise that blaming the 'banksters' is just

    intellectually lazy and dishonest.

    I would also like to add that ad hominem attacks are a classic left wing tactic in order to divert attention from the fact that they have lost the argument.

    And If I really was a moron you would just ignore me - like I ignore the morons who constantly try and Troll me.

    :)

  15. Balls, it was the banker bailout that ******ed it.

    Long term, weflarism doesn't work I agree, but this on had decades left in it before the banking crisis.

    In fact, I know you've just been on another thread where the WSJ goes through the numbers, showing that government debt is 80%, and banker bailouts 219% of GDP. Therefore, knock the party political mythology off!

    As you of all people actually realise, 'banker bailouts' don't involve allocating real wealth

    Government deficit spending does.

    The EU has something like a 440 Billion Euro bail out fund - but this money does not exist

    If these guarantees unwind what would happen is that asset prices would fall and people would 'lose' wealth that never existed in the first place.

    It is you who is playing politics - not me.

    Blaming 'banker bailouts' is the worst kind of politics.

    :)

  16. Perhaps you haven't been in the US, Japan etc recently. 45*C temps and drought in OZ, massacres in US, earthquakes in NZ, China is a communist state, India is a class ridden dungheap with children starving on every street corner...

    Our government, although somewhat corrupt and bloated, is stable. We have basically nil threat of terrorism at home, no bombs in markets and all that. Your grocery store is always stocked, water is cold and plentiful at the tap, we have sewers flushing away your waste, stable electricity supply, quick responding emergency services who aren't on the take, still hold power in the global war room, and lastly, we can all come to places like this and freely b1tch and moan without concern.

    We are of course losing our social security blanket slowly over time. Folk here need to get a grip on just how sh1te it is almost everywhere else.

    +1

    China is heading for trouble as is India IMO.

    All the US needs to do is ditch the European model, return to its founding principles and its economy will boom.

    As for the UK - all we need to do is ditch the European model, unshackle ourselves from the rotting corpse that is the EU and trade with the rest of the World as we did for hundreds of years previously.

    :blink:

  17. There's a very good reason they don't know, and not a good reason for explaining why they don't know.

    Merv King always used to go on about the fact this is a 'solvency issue not a liquidity issue'.

    This allowed him the cover to pump in 'liquidity' whilst claiming it was only a short term need and affected no one except to get over this short term hump in the road.

    But he knew that if he pumped huge amounts of liquidity in, he could solve the solvency issue near term by floating the assets up in defiance of gravity. And by doing so he effectively picked the winners and losers in all this without actually solving anything. He was distributing the costs of the fraud and I would argue that by doing so, he puts the Bank's coveted 'independence'at risk because people now know he directly affects their wealth versus someone else's - not really appropriate for an undemocratic body to be so plain in this.

    So now we are at the point where he, nor the banks, nor anyone else can possibly know know what the value of any asset is. So he can't know how much capital is required for when he removes extraordinary liquidity from the system.

    The BOE is independent in name only.

    What they have been doing is ensuring that those who caused the crash ie THEM

    are not the ones who end up paying for it ie US.

    The idea that ANYONE can do ANYTHING to avoid SOMEONE paying is clearly ludicrous.

    IMHO

    :)

  18. How do you reach that conclusion?

    As far as I can see excess private debt is the greatest hinderance to economic growth. Every politician on the UK block is committed not only to preserving the existing burden of that debt but to increasing it - "we must get banks lending again". The US has at least allowed a house price correction.

    The eurozone is dealing mostly with a public debt crisis. Once they get fiscal/monetary systems in place to compare with the US, my guess is the crisis passes. That's a big assumption, but the deal making is being given alot more time than I figured possible.

    On the big state thing, the idea of tax credits comes from the US. Go figure, as dey sey.

    What the Hell is QE then??????????

    Our glorious leaders are furiously writing down debt whereas in Europe they are furiously racking up more debt by constantly bailing out countries that are insolvent and will eventually default.

    What you are doing is confusing what they say they are trying to do with what they are actually trying to do.

    If a politician tells you they are doing something for a particular reason there is a 99% chance they are lying.

    :blink:

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.