Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by huw

  1. All well and good if the taxpayers were paying the costs of these services. But they're not; a huge chunk of UK demand is debt-fuelled, both in the public and private sectors. Debt-fuelled demand = demand that is brought forward from the future. There is no way to get past the fact that the demand has already been used up: cut spending->less demand; raise taxes-> less demand. Economic contraction and job losses await no matter which route you choose. A debt-fueled economy feels great while you're living through the period of boosted demand (and extra jobs). The trouble is that eventually, the future arrives. In fact, it seems to be here
  2. The Guardian is being disingenuius: it's not the budget, it's reality.
  3. Other risks such as exposure (direct and indirect) to EZ sovereign debt. I doubt very much if debt-deflationary troubles will come singly ("indirect" meaning UK loans to French/German/other banks who hold even more EZ sovereign debt, rather than UK loans to the countries themselves).
  4. Of course it does. Demand = desire/need + ability to finance it. HB increases that ability, therefore it increases demand. Do you think rents would not fall if HB were abolished, or fail to rise of it were increased 10x? If HB is slashed then rents must fall, but there will also be other consequences: - societal/politcal fallout from families being made homeless - the need for more direct subsidies to the banking system, as landlords defaulted on their mortgages. The government wishes to avoid the homelessness, and certainly prefers to continue with the more discreet, arms-length banking bailout that HB underpins.
  5. Actually this budget contained at least one idea that could be expanded into a proper counter-cyclical measure -- balance sheet tax. It just needs to be tweaked so it bites more as balance sheets grow; less as they shrink. Simply acknowledging that boom-and-bust still exist makes this government more Keynesian than New Labour
  6. It may be too late now, because of competition for (primarily energy) resources. Globalisation has already transformed other economies to the point where they can seriously compete with us for the oil we need.
  7. The borrower's contract is with the original lender according to the agreed terms and governed by UK law; securitisation can't change that. I've never heard of this "full and immediate repayment" thing, but repossession will be the outcome either way, it's not as if the defaulting mortgagor will be able to repay the loan otherwise ... so what's the difference?
  8. Maybe he was interpreting TFH-stash-building as consumption
  9. Nor is there any material reason for this to be required afaics, since securitisation is transparent to the borrower.
  10. Then a sustained PASS is impossible for any planetary culture that we could currently visualise, because continually increasing real living standards requires continual growth, and growth on a limited planet always sends uncosted externalities forward in time and/or causes resource wars.
  11. What's best for you and your colleagues might not be best for the country (tragedy of the commons). So I'll turn the question around: should the broader electorate risk their own future by allowing in the immigrants you would apparently prefer to hire? Has any troubled nation in history turned its fortunes around by bringing in more and more outside help?
  12. Things can't be that bad, the AHBD still has budget to hire co-ordinator type people Joking aside, istm that what needs to be cut is budgets, not websites. If there's a genuine need for an AHBD and for it to communicate, then ministers shouldn't be micro-managing how that happens.
  13. This sounds odd, IME solicitors want to see evidence that the money is available before they exchange. I've never bought with a mortgage but I would have thought the solicitor would want an offer on file before proceeding ... I've certainly had selling transactions held up while the buyer's solicitor waits for a firm mortgage commitment. Does anyone know if this would be part of their normal duties, i.e. this solicitor might have acted negligently in proceeding to exchange without guaranteed funds?
  14. Morally the lever-puller has no right [based on his lever pulling] to the additional production. We can see this in that we could connect the lever to a water wheel, and the lever puller would be eliminated from the picture altogether. The deeper issue is what does that mean for the wider economy; where is the demand to come from for the new abundance of widgets; how is that demand to be financed? Substitute the magic lever machine for a magic Chinese factory; provide demand based on the West's supposed credit-worthiness and thirst for cheap imports; and for finance use a cycle of lending-spending-lending-spending of the same money until the monstrous debt-credit entries overbalance the global economy, and I think you fit this scenario to the real world quite well.
  15. The borrower might well have known there would be a loss to the lender, or at least that there was a high risk. But he most likely believed that the lender was solvent enough to withstand this. It probably never occurred to him that lenders could go bust, or that taxpayer's representatives would choose to cover the losses wholesale. That being the case and assuming there was no outright fraud, it was no different from any other transparent transaction where one side makes a bad call and loses money, while their counterparty cleans up. It's only wrong if the loser isn't competent to transact. But these people presumably had FSA approval, and banking licences
  16. What metric are you using to make your pass/fail assessment?
  17. Now, that's just disingenuous. It's the legislative programme that gets implemented that counts, not who proposed a particular reform.
  18. Only if he committed fraud (i.e. lied about his income, or his existing debt). Otherwise it was a regular contract, written according to clear rules and penalties and regulated by the state. Lenders and regulators know that bankrupts don't pay their debts; the duty of care to avoid systemic risk lies with them. The fact that lenders exploded and taxpayers got conned is between taxpayers (and their representatives/employees) and lending institutions. We didn't have to bail the [largely foreign] creditors out.
  19. ... which will then run out, shortly afterwards. I'd hate to hear your version of bad news
  20. The current situation is the result of choices made and imposed with extreme prejudice (in every sense of the word!) from Westminster. Suck it up, pal
  21. Eighty-eight percent are free in England (2008 figures), even more would be free in Wales operating under the same rules (given higher welfare dependency in Wales). The 12% who pay in England will be the workers/taxpayers who already fund the whole shebang, and then have to pay again. I needed antibiotics for an infected cut the other day, and was asked if I had Ibuprofen at home. I'm sure I'd have got some added to the prescription if I'd said no. Which is ridiculous, of course. But the same situation would have pertained in England, if I'd been part of the disadvantaged 88%. Disadvantaged 88%. Makes you think, doesn't it?
  22. Which they can't be as long as we remain part of a globalised economy with capital free to depart ... can they? It's been clear all along that the unfairness is built into the globalist model: capital is free; labour is locked down.
  23. The impact of change on the moral basis of economics is the interesting question IMO. In recent times, a broadly liberal morality has delivered pretty good results. In future that might not be the case. I suggest that the most moral economic policy that we could devise today, is one whose goal is to ensure that we can continue running a morally-based economy tomorrow (not that we do particularly well at the momemt!) rather than being forced to rely more and more on compulsion and expropriation. A very immoral policy would be one that has us grabbing what we can while the getting's good, without giving a fig for future generations ... which seems to be what we do, in fact. But that's going further, into the question of inter-generational morality. I'd have thought the boomer-bashers would have been all for that
  24. I think it's short-hand for "economic austerity". And plenty of people do equate worldly pleasure with expenditure. Holding that attitude means that you miss (have been programmed to miss ) a lot of what life has to offer, which is perhaps a reason for welcoming the end of the age of indulgence.
  • 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.