Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SHERWICK

I Have A Cunning Plan To Solve All Our Problems!

Recommended Posts

Been thinking about this and it's the only solution I could come up with for all our problems, apart from ridding the world of mankind, which would actually ensure we didn't have any problems.

How about this: instead of passing the debt on to our children, why don't we pass the debt directly on to our great, great, great, grandchildren instead?!

So some people about 100 years from now will have to deal with it all (and they could do the same)!

To be honest, I don't give a t*ss about people 100 years from now in any case, so everyone's a winner (apart from them possibly). :D

I think it's a brilliant solution and I can't think what could possibly go wrong... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because borrowers don't determine the terms on which loans are made

How about this: instead of passing the debt on to our children, why don't we pass the debt directly on to our great, great, great, grandchildren instead?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because borrowers don't determine the terms on which loans are made

Actually, if they own the FRB mechanisms/tax system and have the men with guns to enforce their usage by which borrowing from future economic activity is brought into existence today, yes they do.

What do you think the attempted bailouts of banks and sovereign states are?

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good plan. Or we could just nationalise the banks and force everyone to state their positions then develop a legal vehicle to both check their statements and manage the transition to complete state ownership.

I don’t like it but considering how fraudulent their actions have been it would save the cost of dealing with them and the inevitable prison costs. It’s astounding how calm the public are about having to pay for their mistakes are, I don’t think that that will continue when they realize the size the debt they have been expected to pay.

It is quite amazing how the protests have been shoulder by the politicians, I just wonder what will happen when the public wake up to the fact that a large part of their debt burden has been to support the financial industry, will the politician turn. Seeing large city bonuses being paid again and again maybe just too much.

Don’t get me wrong I’d not want to see this but what other way can stop further increases in state debt being place on our shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't give a t*ss about people 100 years from now in any case, so everyone's a winner (apart from them possibly). :D

I think it's a brilliant solution and I can't think what could possibly go wrong... :unsure:

I have a better plan.

Lets pass the debt back to the pensioners.. then poison the nations entire stock of rich tea biscuits :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder what will happen when the public wake up to the fact that a large part of their debt burden has been to support the financial industry.

Indeed. People just don't get this yet. They're brainwashed into thinking the sovereign debt crises are completely caused by state profligacy when in fact most of the problem has been caused by bank losses being socialised. Ireland was very far from being a state that spent heavily on public services but look at the sovereign debt crisis they have - all down to bailing out banks.

Edited by needsleep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the financial industry realized the trouble that they are in they just wouldn’t dare be seen paying any bonuses. No they seem to behave as if they’ve just found the golden goose and can just carry on as before. Complete ground up restructuring of the industry is the way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. People just don't get this yet. They're brainwashed into thinking the sovereign debt crises are completely caused by state profligacy

In a way they were.. it was all of us who make up the state who borrowed too much money to invest in speculative assets that then dropped in value requiring a bail-out of the banks by the state, making us all poorer as a result.

We could have punished the banks for allowing us to be so stupid by letting them lose the money they lent us and nationalising all the ones that failed. Problem was that we were so woefully unprepared for a banking crisis that we panicked and bailed them out.

In the end it is us the country paying for the mistakes of us the country.. which has a sort of poetic justice, except for the prudent within the community who have to pay to reward the retards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The excuse that we’re all calculable is a nice political solution however the banks knew what they were they doing demanding a scraping of regulation of assets to liabilities legislation. After all it is surely their remit as its their industry that has messed up, they could have stopped this in 2004 if they had wanted. Imagine if a nuclear engineering company’s power station blew up and polluted half the country and then they expected to be able to build another new one that was identical except for the colour, would that be logical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the if?

Actually, if they own the FRB mechanisms/tax system and have the men with guns to enforce their usage by which borrowing from future economic activity is brought into existence today, yes they do.

What do you think the attempted bailouts of banks and sovereign states are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The excuse that we’re all calculable is a nice political solution however the banks knew what they were they doing demanding a scraping of regulation of assets to liabilities legislation. After all it is surely their remit as its their industry that has messed up, they could have stopped this in 2004 if they had wanted. Imagine if a nuclear engineering company’s power station blew up and polluted half the country and then they expected to be able to build another new one that was identical except for the colour, would that be logical?

I'm afraid I still see it 180deg about face.

It is politically convenient to blame the banks for the failure to regulate them, but actually we ARE collectively culpable to borrowing too much, speculating too much and not demanding proper banking regulation when it was actually required. Where were the outraged citizens in 2005 calling for banking reforms as their asset values sky rocketed?

Apart from a small handful on here, they were all down the pub bragging to their mates about how much their new investment property was worth.

Edited by libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way they were.. it was all of us who make up the state who borrowed too much money to invest in speculative assets that then dropped in value requiring a bail-out of the banks by the state, making us all poorer as a result.

We could have punished the banks for allowing us to be so stupid by letting them lose the money they lent us and nationalising all the ones that failed. Problem was that we were so woefully unprepared for a banking crisis that we panicked and bailed them out.

In the end it is us the country paying for the mistakes of us the country.. which has a sort of poetic justice, except for the prudent within the community who have to pay to reward the retards.

Yep, couldn't agree more.

It WAS our elected leaders who accepted the socialisation of the banking losses. And by 'our elected leaders' I mean the government of every country who (in remarkably coordinated and on-message fashion) executed this course of action. The opposition in many countries, especially in the UK, is culpable too for mandating the action. It's what is so disappointing in the UK because focusing on profligacy in state spending misses the point entirely and makes it harder to deal with the real core problem, that being the financial sector that continues to eat away at our society and economy like an untreated cancer. The coalition has wilfully misdiagnosed the problem purely for for political ends. And again we see the culpability of the opposition in action too with Labour failing completely and deliberately to focus on the financial sector as the root cause. All in it together? The main parties certainly are for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I still see it 180deg about face.

It is politically convenient to blame the banks for the failure to regulate them, but actually we ARE collectively culpable to borrowing too much, speculating too much and not demanding proper banking regulation when it was actually required. Where were the outraged citizens in 2005 calling for banking reforms as their asset values sky rocketed?

Apart from a small handful on here, they were all down the pub bragging to their mates about how much their new investment property was worth.

The Tory manifesto in 2005 mentions loosening of regulation. Osborne and others routinely called for loosening throughout their time in opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tory manifesto in 2005 mentions loosening of regulation. Osborne and others routinely called for loosening throughout their time in opposition.

Yep, completely agree. You can do one of two things:

1) Not regulate the banks - Allow them to fail / Nationalising them if necessary to ensure gradual unwinding

2) Regulate the banks so much that they can't lend dangerously in the first place. Tricky as it still requires a judgement on what is sensible without over restricting credit to worthy investments. It has already been shown that governments are no better than banks at deciding the correct course of action because government, banks and the public were all largely complicit in demanding ever more/cheaper credit prior to the bust.

In the case of 2) it would probably be better just to completely nationalise domestic lending since policy would effectively be directed by central government anyway. Why bother with middle men.

IMHO it was naive/arrogant of governments (and oppositions) to imagine they could deregulate lending without having a mechanism to force banks to bear responsibility for failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this and it's the only solution I could come up with for all our problems, apart from ridding the world of mankind, which would actually ensure we didn't have any problems.

How about this: instead of passing the debt on to our children, why don't we pass the debt directly on to our great, great, great, grandchildren instead?!

So some people about 100 years from now will have to deal with it all (and they could do the same)!

To be honest, I don't give a t*ss about people 100 years from now in any case, so everyone's a winner (apart from them possibly). :D

I think it's a brilliant solution and I can't think what could possibly go wrong... :unsure:

We should pass the debt onto our ancestors. Pina coladas all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if they own the FRB mechanisms/tax system and have the men with guns to enforce their usage by which borrowing from future economic activity is brought into existence today, yes they do.

What do you think the attempted bailouts of banks and sovereign states are?

Only if they don't need to borrow anything any more - zero deficit now, imediatelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. People just don't get this yet. They're brainwashed into thinking the sovereign debt crises are completely caused by state profligacy when in fact most of the problem has been caused by bank losses being socialised. Ireland was very far from being a state that spent heavily on public services but look at the sovereign debt crisis they have - all down to bailing out banks.

In Britain the banks lent too much, yes, but mainly to households, for the ponzi property bubble, and both the government and the people went along with it, and profited from it, temporally of course, as in all pyramid schemes. Gordon Brown allowed it for electoral reasons. Instead of leading with a moral compass, he just satisfied the people's folly. The Conservatives also went along with it, for the same electoral reasons. The media ignored the problem, probably happy with their own homes prices increases. Some good financial journalists spotted it, but to a small audience. But the mainstream media financial journalists - BBC and ITV - failed to bring these warning to Britain as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we do nothing then? Or what about we still abolish the present financial industry to stop further fraud then use legal instruments to find those of us who have been “family” members as it were and pass the debt to them. That worked with Capone in the states I believe. We’d still be able to stop further large scale multinational frauds and save the immense cost of dealing with the original fraud, a kind of amnesty. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this and it's the only solution I could come up with for all our problems, apart from ridding the world of mankind, which would actually ensure we didn't have any problems.

How about this: instead of passing the debt on to our children, why don't we pass the debt directly on to our great, great, great, grandchildren instead?!

So some people about 100 years from now will have to deal with it all (and they could do the same)!

To be honest, I don't give a t*ss about people 100 years from now in any case, so everyone's a winner (apart from them possibly). :D

I think it's a brilliant solution and I can't think what could possibly go wrong... :unsure:

Maybe they will invent time travel within that 100 year period and send someone back in time with the outstanding bill + compound interest :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.