Repossessions

[Prof]

Each case must be treated differently.

Did you borrow less then 4 x salary? Less then 95% deposit but just got unlucky? Seems like medium risk to me and deserves to be helped out in the short term.

Borrowed over 4 x salary? More then 95% LTV? Shit loads of MEW and/or secured loans against the house? Claiming poverty but have a BMW on the drive? This to me indicates high risk, and they should be told to sod off.

Correct.

By bailing out the banks/sheeple who gorged themselves on "free" money, you teach the next generation an extremely bad lesson. By all means help those who have genuinely been unlucky, but DESTROY those who had their snouts in the trough. What we need now is selective aid for those who hit hard times, and to selectively ruin any individual or financial organisation who took foolish decisions. We can then rebuild a better, more stable future.

[guitarman001]

Sick of the sympathy votes; no compaints on the way up, now we're coming down there are cries from all sides. Well I don't give much of a toss; I've been shafted by the government and older gen, they've created this situation. You're saying let people stay in their big homes that they can't afford? No. Bloody. Way.

[ader]

Why should I, as a taxpayer with no savings to speak of, be expected to bail out the savers who in theory should have lost all their money in a banking system collapse that was only averted by taxpayer intervention?

Swings and roundabouts mate.

I agree. The banks shouldn't have been bailed out in my opinion. As you can imagine I'm not a saver...

[guitarman001]

Correct.

By bailing out the banks/sheeple who gorged themselves on "free" money, you teach the next generation an extremely bad lesson. By all means help those who have genuinely been unlucky, but DESTROY those who had their snouts in the trough. What we need now is selective aid for those who hit hard times, and to selectively ruin any individual or financial organisation who took foolish decisions. We can then rebuild a better, more stable future.

I'm one of those receiving the message. Even scarier is the generation after mine; they've got little skills, poor education etc; if people dismay at my generation, have a look at this one... We've totally got to demolish high property prices, liar loans, and need to invest in manufacturing etc. Edinburgh was the site of the enlightenment; what would the same people who started it say now...

[Harry Monk]

It's funny how they are always an investment on the way up, but a home on the way down.

[deadman]

Sick of the sympathy votes; no compaints on the way up, now we're coming down there are cries from all sides. Well I don't give much of a toss; I've been shafted by the government and older gen, they've created this situation. You're saying let people stay in their big homes that they can't afford? No. Bloody. Way.

Voice of wisdom there as usual thomas.

I'm with you.

[guitarman001]

Personally, I can't wait for protests - things will never change without them and I'll be there.

And thanks, it's good to get backup rather than the constant slagging a bear usually gets on other forums full of half-wits.

[deadman]

They're facing their demons and may as well get used to it.

We've faced ours. Now it's our time.

[bimyo]

Edinburgh was the site of the enlightenment; what would the same people who started it say now...

Most of them would say very little, considering they only had a speaking platform thanks to the city's stake in global finance, especially slave-related investments, and were thoroughly enamoured of a new state form separated from the will of the people.

One upside of all the banking chaos is that, perhaps for the first time since the mid C18, Edinburgh will have to go back to being a real place, rather than the British-imperial fantasy of well-to-do/ 'cultural capital'/ Northern chic.

[sleepwello'nights]

"Money" is the abstraction of economic activity. In other words, you do work of some form. This work is then abstractly represented in the form of "money". This is so you can carry your exchange value around with you in a portable form that you can exchange for other goods/services thaty you need/want at a later time. Economic activity is the physical manifestation of the transformation of raw materials that are either dug our of, or are grown on the land into good and/or services. Thus, "money" is the ultimate abstraction of those raw resources.

Our "money" supply has been contracting because people have been defaulting on their debts. People have been defaulting on their debts because they have been less productive. People have been less productive becasue there is a growing constraint of supply of resouces that they can be productive with. As the raw materials (most notably, hydrocarbon based energy) supply contracts, so must our economies and so, in turn, must our money supply. To keep the money supply articially aloft wia these bailouts is to defy the laws of economic gravity. Or, to put it another way, to keep the money supply aloft is to deny the physical reality of a finite resource supply.

Propping up those parts of our economy (in this case, house prices) that are built on an unsustainable money supply, being based itself, on an unsustainable level of economic activity, being based again in turn on an unsustainable resource supply......wont work

Thanks for your explanation Steve. But this is the bit I don't understand. Money is an abstraction of the work that people have done. Past tense. To take a simple example: if I dig someone's garden, I've put the work in and that can't be undone. He then pays me fine. If he doesn't pay me, what can I do? I can't "undig" the garden. I could expend more work and mess it up but that involves more activity. So the reality is the work has been done, the economic activity has been generated and can't be taken back.

How does that lead to a future generation having to pay for something that happened in the past? I can see that a future generation might suffer the consequences of past activity but does that equate to having to pay for it with money.

[guitarman001]

I'd be a whole lot happier if those who never got us into this mess (including a lot of us, I would wager) didn't have to pay through the nose in several years' time. We all have to pay for the mistakes of everybody else. Gits. ;D

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

We didn't get a massive mortgage because we knew that if there was any financial mishap we'd be instantly screwed. If house prices hadn't been allowed to get out of control, if speculation and self-cert lie-to-buy mortgages had been stopped, if the FSA hadn't willfully turned a blind eye to dodgy mortgages then mortgages and house prices would have been much lower.

Then a job loss for one of us would have just meant a lot of belt-tightening, rather than being totally screwed. It's pretty obvious stuff - if cretins went and joined Gordon and the bankster's ponzi scam then they are like the simpleton gangster used for the humiliating dirty jobs.

If they can't afford what they've taken on - SCREW THEM. Why should I get screwed because I was sensible and then screwed again to save these twonks from themselves?

Edited January 24, 2009 by CrashedOutAndBurned

[Prof]

It's funny how they are always an investment on the way up, but a home on the way down.

Indeed.

I am already sick of the bleating and sob stories coming from those who are getting repossessed. The media just make out that they are victims of the big, bad banks. It`s frustrating for those of us who saw the danger signs years ago, to have to listen to all of the blame and excuses, rather than the real reason we are in this mess.

2006 - "House prices went up again, 2% last month. Ain`t life grand ?"

2009 - "More repossessions last month, this must be stopped. Boo Hoo !"

Did they really think that the former wouldn`t lead to the later ?

[helenreed]

Am I the only person who thinks this repossession business has to stop? OK some families took out too much on their mortgage (who now hasn't) but many have lost jobs or become ill and this is often the reason for their plight. What on earth is the point of turfing people out of their homes, those homes remaining empty for months on end, going to auction and if selling at all, going very cheaply. The onus is then on the council to rehouse these people and one can only guess at the stress-related problems which result in visits to doctors, social workers etc. Seeing the children of these families in this state is heartbreaking. All the time the government is telling us how kids need stable backgrounds in order to succeed, saying that no child should live in poverty whilst still trying to fine us for overfilling our bins! I have no immediate idea of how this can be solved but surely allowing families to stay in their homes, freezing their debt, paying an affordable 'rent' in the meantime must be a better way for the government to proceed. Bear in mind that the building societies and banks lose out big time as well with this current procedure as they sell the house for peanuts and, if the mortgagee goes bankrupt then they do not get anything back. Whilst I have no sympathy with banks even I can see that the current practice is a lose/lose situation.

Wow, thanks for your responses. I have to admit that I agree with lots of arguments against my initial rant and am glad as an ordinary person (i.e. not in finance or economics or property) for some enlightenment on many of my points. However, if what I suggest is just delaying the problem (which I appreciate it is) then surely the bank bailouts on unknown debt is the same thing. Therefore surely it would have been better for them to have become bankrupt? Unfortunately I don't know the answer but understand that nobody else does either. A return to a Dickensian England (real poverty, debtors jail, workhouses, no social backup) may not be so far from what could happen. Even if some of the bank debt becomes known (?) there is still untold personal and other business debt lurking in the shadows. I am worried that within the next three years interest rates will reverse and go sky high.

[Privateer]

They're facing their demons and may as well get used to it.

We've faced ours. Now it's our time.

Not yet. There are still a great many demons for us all to face. Each bigger, redder and meaner than the last, I suspect.

The next few years are going to be very difficult for everyone. I must - as must we all- learn to stop revelling in the bad things happening to other people. There is an element of malicious joy in seeing greedy people get their comeuppance, I admit, but mostly I'm impatient to get this over with and begin the next phase. I really must be mindful of all the consequences of this and not get carried away.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Privateer

[0q0]

No, the seeds were sown in the 1980s when Thatcher (and Reagan) deregulated banking because it was better to "let the market decide for itself" which was a little like taking the shock absorbers off of a car in order to let the car decide for itself.

A little clue in the FT this morning gave it away. It said something like: "Rapid repossessions under the new voluntary government code shouldn't occur unless it is BTL or fraud" (sic). (Fraud by the lender's definition will be any deviation between "the form" and reality. Think of the last time you noticed a map that didn't perfectly represent the land.)

That will cover it for at least a few million repos.

Too true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

LMAO.

Why so much sympathy for people with mortgages and no symapthy (or tax payers money) for those who rent?

After all, a renter can be turfed out in 2 months flat without ever having missed a single payment.

No sympathy for those who over-reached or didnt plan or didnt take out insurance. Why should I when society and the government wouldnt fart on me and the wife if we got turfed out on the street by a nasty avaricious landlord.

They don't give a damn about renters, look at the deposit schemes nonsense for a start, toothless window dressing.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/1389/saturday-ni...-dont-buy-stuff

Saturday Night Live has the answers.......

I remember that.

I'm afraid that stopping reposessions will not help those kids in the long run. Here's why

If reposessions are stoppsed from occuring banks would go bust since they cannot recover at least some of the money via forced sales

As it is, were it not for the massive bailouts that have aready occured, the banks would have already failed just on the back of falling house prices and their own investments failing. If, on top of that, every defaulting mortgage in the country were to be backed up, the amount of money that would have to be borrowed from the future would make the current taxpayer liabilities look like chickenfeed. It's also worth considering that such a move could well help to keep housprices at their current insane levels. This would mean that all of those kids who you are aiming to protect are condemmed to the same lifetime of debt-slavery just to put a roof over themselves and their children when they grow up.

Who do you think will be paying for those liabilities? Let me tell you, it will be your children, my children and all of our grandchildren via an unbearable tax regime This is already looking likely to be the case. How much worse do you think it would be if the government were to implement the kind of policy your argument would suggest?

This bust is unavoidable. Either it is paid now with all of the terrible consequences that will ensue. Or, it is paid paid later, at which point, the price will be much higher and will last for generations.

Grand post, thx.

If they can't afford what they've taken on - SCREW THEM. Why should I get screwed because I was sensible and then screwed again to save these twonks from themselves?

Quite right.

Wow, thanks for your responses. I have to admit that I agree with lots of arguments against my initial rant and am glad as an ordinary person (i.e. not in finance or economics or property) for some enlightenment on many of my points. However, if what I suggest is just delaying the problem (which I appreciate it is) then surely the bank bailouts on unknown debt is the same thing. Therefore surely it would have been better for them to have become bankrupt? Unfortunately I don't know the answer but understand that nobody else does either. A return to a Dickensian England (real poverty, debtors jail, workhouses, no social backup) may not be so far from what could happen. Even if some of the bank debt becomes known (?) there is still untold personal and other business debt lurking in the shadows. I am worried that within the next three years interest rates will reverse and go sky high.

IRs could well shoot up, this is a right old mess, the govt ignored pleas from myself and others on here to put rates up in 2005 (I used to post under a different ID) and we said the same every year, so the price has to be paid at some point. If ultra-low or low IRs kept an economy truly healthy then the world would have discovered that centuries ago.

The question now is, how long can Brown keep his finger in the dyke? (No offence to any of our gay lady readers.)

[Harry Monk]

. I am worried that within the next three years interest rates will reverse and go sky high.

Yes, they will.

[Prof]

Wow, thanks for your responses. I have to admit that I agree with lots of arguments against my initial rant and am glad as an ordinary person (i.e. not in finance or economics or property) for some enlightenment on many of my points. However, if what I suggest is just delaying the problem (which I appreciate it is) then surely the bank bailouts on unknown debt is the same thing. Therefore surely it would have been better for them to have become bankrupt? Unfortunately I don't know the answer but understand that nobody else does either. A return to a Dickensian England (real poverty, debtors jail, workhouses, no social backup) may not be so far from what could happen. Even if some of the bank debt becomes known (?) there is still untold personal and other business debt lurking in the shadows. I am worried that within the next three years interest rates will reverse and go sky high.

The answer would have been to avoid the problem in the first place. What is done is done, so the best we can do is to not make the same mistakes again. By bailing out the banks and mortgage payers, we are effectively supporting the actions that caused the problem.

If a child steals sweets from a shop, you wouldn`t give the child more sweets, would you ?

I would suggest the best course of action would be stop the child from having any sweets for a while as punishment. I would them tell the child that they`ll have to earn some money to buy some sweets in the future.

[Si1]

Not yet. There are still a great many demons for us all to face. Each bigger, redder and meaner than the last, I suspect.

The next few years are going to be very difficult for everyone. I must - as must we all- learn to stop revelling in the bad things happening to other people. There is an element of malicious joy in seeing greedy people get their comeuppance, I admit, but mostly I'm impatient to get this over with and begin the next phase. I really must be mindful of all the consequences of this and not get carried away.

yep. I am really quite frightened now. And I do not think fools that bought at the top should be baled out. they have my sympathy, but I tried to warn one or two of them I knew personally and got told to f*ck off 2 and 3 years ago - I know what the attitude was. So tough.

[repetitive bleats]

you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

no-one was weeping for me when i had to spend a large chunk of my life renting because I put all my cash into building a business instead. now it's my time in the sun.

[Bloo Loo]

Thanks for your explanation Steve. But this is the bit I don't understand. Money is an abstraction of the work that people have done. Past tense. To take a simple example: if I dig someone's garden, I've put the work in and that can't be undone. He then pays me fine. If he doesn't pay me, what can I do? I can't "undig" the garden. I could expend more work and mess it up but that involves more activity. So the reality is the work has been done, the economic activity has been generated and can't be taken back.

How does that lead to a future generation having to pay for something that happened in the past? I can see that a future generation might suffer the consequences of past activity but does that equate to having to pay for it with money.

this is how wars start.

[Si1]

Thanks for your explanation Steve. But this is the bit I don't understand. Money is an abstraction of the work that people have done. Past tense. To take a simple example: if I dig someone's garden, I've put the work in and that can't be undone. He then pays me fine. If he doesn't pay me, what can I do? I can't "undig" the garden. I could expend more work and mess it up but that involves more activity. So the reality is the work has been done, the economic activity has been generated and can't be taken back.

How does that lead to a future generation having to pay for something that happened in the past? I can see that a future generation might suffer the consequences of past activity but does that equate to having to pay for it with money.

debt is an abstraction of work not yet done. What is happening is that the people who racked up the debts will expect those that didn't to work them off. Indeed, wars can start this way. Or at least riots.

[Buy Toilet]

Money is an abstraction of the work that people have done. Past tense.

You need to google money as debt. Only a tiny fraction of the total money supply (some would say none) is work people have done. Most of the money supply is the abstract form of work people are promising to do.

[Bloo Loo]

You need to google money as debt. Only a tiny fraction of the total money supply (some would say none) is work people have done. Most of the money supply is the abstract form of work people are promising to do.

if a banker takes out a large mortgage from another bank, and the banker is paid for issuing mortgages, where is the work?

[Buy Toilet]

if a banker takes out a large mortgage from another bank, and the banker is paid for issuing mortgages, where is the work?

Hmmmm the minefield of productivity. Well if someone is willing to pay someone something.... somebody must place value on the output.